Sitting of 20 July 1988

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

  Revolutions of 1688–89 (Tercentenary)
  Mr. Speaker: I have to report that the House attended Her Majesty this day in Westminster Hall with its Address, to which Her Majesty was pleased to give this most gracious answer:
  "My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
  I thank you for the loyal dutiful Addresses which on your behalf the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker have presented to me on this tercentenary of the Glorious Revolution.
  In celebrating the Glorious Revolution with you, I too give thanks to Almighty God and pray that we may here rededicate ourselves to the principle of freedom under the law which animated the authors of that constitutional settlement 300 years ago."
  2.36 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell me where the Labour party might be today, because it certainly does not seem to be in the Chamber?

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Chlorofluorocarbons
    Mr. Faulds: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the Government's response to the recommendations from the Government-appointed ozone review group of scientists; and, in particular, if the Government support that group's recommendations for an 85 per cent. cut in the output of chlorofluorocarbon gases.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The Government will be studying the full report carefully as soon as it is available. In the meantime we have taken very careful note of the summary and its warning about the need to strengthen the Montreal protocol.
    Mr. Faulds: For the first time in 23 years and four months I have question No. 1 on the Order Paper. I am delighted to ask the Minister whether he accepts that it is time that the Government realised that, despite their usual reluctance to take appropriate analysis and the necessary action, in the coming years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] No. I want to get my facts and figures right. Some of us like to be precise in what we say and not as vague as the Treasury Bench usually is. In the coming years there must
    1082
    be an 85 per cent. cut in the output of chlorofluorocarbons just to stabilise the atmosphere. The Government really cannot daily dawdle any longer on this question.
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman having question No. 1 on the Order Paper, it is indeed a glorious revolution.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that it is vital to ensure that we bring the protocol into force and, first and foremost, get as many countries as possible to sign it. It is most important that there is flexibility within the protocol to ensure that we can look at new scientific data and take tougher measures if they are required. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and, as a result of additional scientific research, tougher action may be considered.
    Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than listening to the ritual kick at the chemical industry from the Labour party, he should encourage the industry to do the research to bring in the necessary products to replace chlorofluorocarbon gases? Will he take this opportunity to applaud the efforts of companies such as ISC in my constituency, which is trying to find such replacements, for the benefit of our people?
    Mr. Moynihan: I recognise and applaud all those United Kingdom producers who are actively engaged in research and development work. It is essential that we give those companies time to test for the toxicity of the replacements. The Government have grant-aided a United Kingdom firm to develop a recovery and recycling process for the production of polyurethane foam.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Because of a lack of time the Minister was unable to respond to all the points raised in the debate the other night. Will he take this opportunity to tell us what his attitude is towards the so-called greenhouse effect, which will be caused by the depletion of the ozone layer? Does he believe the scientists who say that there will be tremendous problems in terms of food growth, diminishing water supplies, and so on? Does he take the matter seriously?
    Mr. Moynihan: We certainly take seriously the scientific evidence on the greenhouse effect, but the hon. Lady will know that that covers a range of emissions, not just chlorofluorocarbons and halons. It is important that we consider the other emissions, which we are doing, not least through recent negotiations in the European Commission. I undertook to respond to all the points raised during the debate, and today I have cleared a four-page draft, which will be sent to all hon. Members who spoke in that debate.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: If we are concerned about the upper atmosphere, can we not use our international influence to conserve the great rain forests from short-term privation? Will the Minister confirm that that is important?
    Mr. Moynihan: That is important, and that is why the Overseas Development Administration is actively involved in projects to minimise the effects that have occurred as a result of the depletion of the rain forests. I welcome the ODA's initiative in that respect.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Minister accept that we have only one ozone layer and that, if it goes, as the policy makers and scientists at the Toronto conference in June said, we could have been gambling with an unintended

    1083
    globally pervasive experiment, the ultimate consequences of which could be second only to a global nuclear war? We are talking about saving mankind from the destruction of the ozone layer. [Interruption.] We are certainly talking about recent significant increases in skin cancer, which have resulted from the depletion of the ozone layer. Why will the Government not accept the findings of their own appointed ozone review group of scientists, who say that an 85 per cent. reduction is needed? Will he confirm also that the Montreal protocol talked about a cut of only 35 per cent. in production and a 50 per cent. cut in consumption? Will he confirm also that we do not have to attack the chemical industry to want substitutes to be developed to replace CFCs?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that there is only one ozone layer. For that reason, it is important that the protocol has as many signatories as possible. To be too stringent and to lose major signatories, such as the Soviet Union, would be a great mistake. That is why it is essential, first, to get the protocol in place and then to ensure that within it there are review measures and appropriate machinery calling for more stringent measures when we need them. That is provided in the protocol.

    Rating Reform
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent estimate he has made of the number of people liable to pay the poll tax in Lewisham.
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): Almost all of Lewisham's adult population of 179,000 will be subject to the personal community charge.
    Ms. Ruddock: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency many households consist of three or more adults? Does he acknowledge that 99 per cent. of those households will be losers, even with the safety net masking the real effects of the poll tax, and that 74 per cent. of all the population of Lewisham will be losers? Will he take this opportunity today to show generosity of spirit for a change and reassure the 11,000 people with disabilities in Lewisham that he will accept the Lords amendments and give rebates of 100 per cent. to them?
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept the figures given by the hon. Lady. They seem wholly to ignore the effect of rebates. It is through rebates that those who suffer from disability can best have their needs recognised in relation to their liability to the community charge.
    Mr. Maples: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that what will most concern those 179,000 people will be the amount of the community charge in Lewisham when the safety net goes? Is he aware that one further year of rate capping has reduced that notional figure from £675 to £575? Does he agree that Lewisham council could easily find savings over the next five years to cut that by another £300, so that when the safety net goes the charge would be about £250?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Lewisham and the ILEA spent what they should be spending to cater for the needs of their residents, the community charge in Lewisham would be £202 on the current year's figures, as it would be in every other local authority in the country.
    Dr. Cunningham: Does the Minister accept the figures published by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently, which show that the average domestic rates bill per household or family in Lewisham is £575 per annum and that the poll tax for Lewisham is £577 per person? There can be no better exemplification of what a rotten deal for Lewisham the poll tax is.
    Mr. Howard: The figure for Lewisham, with the safety net, is £320. The purpose of the safety net is to allow authorities, such as Lewisham, time to bring their spending down from the unjustifiable levels at which they presently spend.

    Lead-free Petrol
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government are to consider the banning of two-star leaded petrol as part of their campaign to promote the use of lead-free petrol.
    Mr. Moynihan: We continue to consider the banning of two-star leaded petrol, but our current policy is to use the market to secure the change to unleaded petrol. In his Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer adjusted the duty differential so that unleaded petrol is on sale at a price comfortably lower than both four-star and two-star leaded fuels. We are, however, carefully monitoring the uptake of the new fuel.
    Mr. Clarke: Is the Minister aware of the success of the decision in West Germany, which has resulted in 25 per cent. fewer emissions and 2,000 fewer tonnes of pollution in the atmosphere? If the Government are serious about removing such pollution, instead of simply pleasing the big petrol companies, will they take a more realistic approach to excise duty than that displayed in the Budget? Will the hon. Gentleman make strong representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will know that the West Germans started from a 30 per cent. consumption level of two-star as opposed to 8 per cent. here. While the banning of two-star has been successful in West Germany, many of those who were previously using two-star leaded were queueing at the pumps for four-star leaded, so there is no direct correlation between banning two-star and moving across to unleaded patrol.
    Mr. Squire: In conjunction with Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, will my hon. Friend persuade car manufacturers to ensure that, at the point of sale, all vehicles for use in this country can take lead-free petrol rather than requiring adjustments as they do now, so that those who wish to drive on dirty fuel will pay for the privilege?
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that all new models from 1990 onwards will be able to run on unleaded petrol.
    I agree with my hon. Friend's second point about better information at the point of sale. We shall continue to do our best, with the campaign for lead-free air, to ensure that that objective is achieved.

    New Towns (Planning Applications)
    Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications for new towns he is aware of; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I am aware of some 15 planning applications for free-standing settlements which might involve more than 1,000 houses. We have made it clear that such proposals must be subject to normal planning procedures and must be considered within the framework of existing planning policies.
    Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable concern that arises when rural areas are faced with a planning application for a substantial new town, because of the expense and the delay of the planning procedure. Will he attempt to short-circuit that process by issuing guidance on the scale of the development that he considers appropriate in rural areas that are not within the green belt?
    Mr. Ridley: Local planning matters are for local planning authorities, unless the application is of national or regional importance and is subject to call-in or appeal. It is for the local people first to express a view through their district council. I issued guidance recently recommending the possibility of much smaller settlements than the one to which my hon. Friend refers as a way of rejuvenating life in the more rural areas.

    Derelict Land
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies he is considering to encourage the development of derelict land.
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider the present arrangements and conditions concerning the making of derelict land grants.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I am maintaining support for the derelict land grant programme. Resources for 1988–89 stand at £77·4 million and priority is given to schemes for the reclamation of urban sites intended for private sector industrial, commercial or housing development.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend's Department establish a land use survey of all land, derelict and otherwise, that is developable? Should there not be a presumption against the development of green field sites on a county by county basis until all the developable land has been used?
    Mr. Trippier: If my hon. Friend had substituted the words "green belt" for "green field site" I could have met his concern. There is such a thing as the national derelict land survey. I expect the preliminary report to come to me before the end of the year, and I hope to publish it early next year.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister acknowledge that the present regulations governing payment for derelict land militate against the recovery of land and the enhancement of the environment in colliery and coalfield areas such as mine, where 1,000 acres of land may be unimproved and
    1086
    unrecovered? Will he look again at the hard use requirement under the existing regulations, to give areas such as mine a chance of a decent prospect?
    Mr. Trippier: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, particularly about the Dearne valley part of his constituency. As a result of the representations that he and other hon. Members have recently made to me I am prepared to consider the after use criteria attached to the derelict land grant. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will he pleased to hear that I have announced today that there is to be an urban development grant of about £454,000 to support a housing programme scheme in the Rawmarsh part of his constituency.
    Mr. Adley: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). He stressed the green belt versus green field site difference. From his reply, am I to assume that it is definitely not the policy of the Department of the Environment to encourage the development of new towns in existing green belts?
    Mr. Trippier: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in the Civic Trust's report, entitled "Urban Wasteland Now," which is to be published tomorrow, there is a recommendation that the Government should commission an urgent study of the taxation of derelict land? With the abolition of rates, will the Minister seriously consider taxing derelict land, which people can hold idle at no cost to themselves, so that local and central Government can benefit from additional revenue to bring back life in the inner cities?
    Mr. Trippier: I should not think that that proposal would meet with favour within the Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is wholly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware of the proposal to tip 7·5 million tonnes of domestic waste from the cities of New York, Boston and Philadelphia on the derelict site at Arpley near Warrington new town? Is he further aware that it is entirely unacceptable that the north-west should be made the world's dustbin?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is aware that, in the first instance, that matter is the responsibility of the local authority, but he may draw comfort from the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport recently met a delegation. I understand that an announcement will be forthcoming in the near future.
    Mr. O'Brien: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), the Minister said that he would look at the regulations and conditions that apply to the derelict land grant in mining areas. In view of the rapid rundown of the mining industry—the Minister is aware of the conditions that apply in the Wakefield area—will he ensure that there is sufficient finance to meet the needs of local authorities in areas in which, because of the mining industry, there has been extensive dereliction?
    Mr. Trippier: When I replied to the substantive point made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) I referred to his and other representations. I included representations that were compellingly made to me by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues of all parties on the

    1087
    local council. As a result, I am prepared to look again at the fairly narrow criteria that we have had in place for some years now regarding the soft or hard after use, which is within the criteria of DLG. I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I could not consider that matter until I had the initial results of the derelict land grant survey, which, as I said earlier, will be in my hands prior to Christmas.

    Unused Public Land
    Mr. Bevan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the draft planning circular regarding the development of unused public land.
    Mr. Trippier: The draft planning policy guidance note on local plans were issued on 15 June. I have had very few representations so far. The consultation period continues until 10 August.
    Mr. Bevan: In furtherance of the initiative for inner cities, and to assist in the continued refurbishment of the urban infrastructure, will my hon. Friend extend the directions, which now apply only to local authorities, to public utilities and Government bodies generally, so that they list their unused land and ensure that it is brought on to the market?
    Mr. Trippier: I can reassure my hon. Friend. Under the inner cities initiative, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister six months ago, not only local authorities but public utilities and Government Departments should be responsible for maintaining and publishing records of unused and under-used land in their possession.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that such guidance to Government Departments should say that what is needed is not just money but facilities for young people? Does he accept also that the money spent on the Stranmillis training college ground at Shaw's Bridge could be better used on a sports complex in Northern Ireland, along the lines of Billy Bingham's imaginative scheme?
    Mr. Trippier: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office. We must be specific about what we are discussing. We are talking about an audit, not only of land, but of buildings, supplied by local authorities and by other public utilities and Government Departments. The direction that it is within our power to issue is another matter, which we shall discuss later.
    Mr. Alexander: Has my hon. Friend noticed the number of questions that are being tabled on this subject, showing the close interest in it—not least my question No. 62? Is he aware that a more robust attitude towards unused derelict land is likely to go a long way towards easing the housing shortage about which we all hear?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is right. It was for that precise reason that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the initiative on this audit of property owned by local authorities and other public bodies. We are conscious of the fact that many public bodies are land hoarders and are not pressed to bring that land back on to the market. That intention lies behind the new initiative, and we are determined to see it through.
    Mr. Eastham: Why do we concentrate on land owned by local authorities and public bodies and never think about the private landowners, who often sterilise huge chunks of land which are over-priced and consequently never developed? That leaves many spots in major cities that could be developed. Why does the Minister not do something about that land as well?
    Mr. Trippier: It would be extremely difficult for us to do that. The hon. Gentleman should think about his suggestion. His back garden would be regarded as private land. Is he suggesting that the Government should register all pieces of private land? That would be unthinkable, and certainly impracticable.

    Local Authority Amenities
    Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority swimming pools, sports halls and playing fields there are in England.
    Mr. Moynihan: There are more than 1,030 local authority swimming pools, including school pools in full public use, and approximately 1,500 local authority sports halls. No figures are held centrally for playing fields.
    Mr. Cook: Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that his borough, Lewisham, has described his proposals for the privatisation of these facilities as
    "bad for the public and retrograde for sport"?
    Does he accept that his proposals are simply another means of trying to provide a source of profit for his friends in the City? Would he care to speculate on the effect that increased coaching fees, hire charges and rents would have on education authorities that use these facilities for their programmes?
    Mr. Moynihan: This will not be the first time that I have strongly disagreed with Lewisham council. These proposals will yield better value for money for local authority expenditure. We shall have more effective management and better marketing of facilities and greater sensitivity to the community's needs.
    As for pricing, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to have a closer look at the proposals, which clearly state that there will be discretionary powers allowing councillors to continue to set prices and to subsidise specific groups if they wish. That matter will be debated at length when the order is published.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Will my hon. Friend look into the practice of Haringey council, which is to close its open air swimming pools and allow the sites to be occupied by so-called gipsies, or travellers, much to the disturbance of the local population?
    Mr. Moynihan: I greatly regret that my hon. Friend's council should have made such a priority in spending its resources. It is very important that local authorities up and down the country should continue to make provision for sport and recreation facilities and to make that provision a high priority.
    Mr. Pike: Surely the Minister recognises that it is not true to say that local councils will have discretion on charging policies. They will be bound by other sections of the Local Government Act 1988 and they will be affected by the poll tax Bill, which we shall finalise later today. The Bill will force local authorities to increase charges—or at

    1089
    least the people operating those facilities will put charges up. That will lead to reduced use and many people will be deprived of the sporting facilities that are now available.
    Mr. Moynihan: I repeat that it is nonsense to suggest that prices will rise. Local authorities will continue to retain discretionary control over pricing, if they so wish. For the first time, local authorities will be required to identify the specific costs of operating their facilities. That must be good for the community charge payer and for the users of the facilities.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The need for sports facilities—which add greatly to the quality of life—is not in dispute. Is it not the case, however, that there is a world of difference between the capital cost of such provision and the cost of proper maintenance and use of them? Do not local authorities have a duty to recognise the revenue consequences of their capital investment and a duty to ensure continuing value for money?
    Mr. Moynihan: Yes, they do.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Will the Minister accept that, in addition to the figures that he has just given to the House, local authorities and the ratepayers have provided 650 athletic centres, 700 golf courses, 8,700 bowling greens and 33,000 tennis courts? Does it make any sense to prise away the management of 45,000 local authority sports facilities worth £5 billion to £6 billion? Has the Minister gone mad, or will he take away this ideological nonsense and assure the House that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will not impose his pricing on local authorities, as he is empowered to do under the recent Act? Can the Minister name a single local authority association in this country—Left, Right or Centre—which supports this nonsense?
    Mr. Moynihan: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's list of different sporting facilities, the answer is that each and every one of them should benefit from competitive tendering for management contracts. When the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to review the responses to the consultative exercise that we did on the proposal, he will note that 216 local authorities have now had their specific concerns eased by the provision of discretionary price control. Ninety one local authorities were concerned about the implications for disadvantaged groups, and their concern has gone as a result of discretionary price control. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the name of one local authority that supported the proposal. If he looks at the list in the Library he will find well over 200 authorities.

    Building Societies Association
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Building Societies Association; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning met the chairman of the Building Societies Association at the meeting of the committee on private finance for housing held on 14 July. The committee discussed various ways in which private finance could be introduced into the provision of public sector housing.
    Mr. Cousins: The Secretary of State knows that his own bungling over housing and planning and the Chancellor's
    1090
    bungling over interest rates have meant that 9 million home owners face a massive hike in housing costs starting next week. At least he can say—as the officers of Britain's largest building society said yesterday—that he feels sorry for new lenders in this position. When he is in Newcastle tomorrow, will he call at Ridley place, named after his ancestors, to explain to the people there why people with large mortgages get a subsidy organised from the extra paid by people with small mortgages?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman seems to be no more aware of the difference between lenders and borrowers than he is of the difference between losers and gainers. Perhaps he would like to look in Hansard and see what an extraordinary question he asked. As he knows, matters to do with mortgage interest relief are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Heddle: Did the chairman of the Building Societies Association acknowledge that more first-time buyers are realising their lifetime's ambition of home ownership than ever before? Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman the scourge of gazumping, and how practical and immediate steps might be taken to eliminate it? Is he not disturbed by the report of the Public Accounts Committee, published yesterday, that Land Registry delays are at an all-time high, and will he take immediate steps to ensure that all local authorities reply to requests for local searches and so reduce the delay in house purchase procedures as far as practicably possible?
    Mr. Ridley: On my hon. Friend's first question, I am glad to be able to tell him that in 1979 the number of first-time buyers was 390,000, whereas last year it was 620,000. I can also tell him that in the first quarter of 1987 there were 34,000 fewer loan approvals for first-time buyers than in the first quarter of this year. The most up-to-date figures show a large increase in first-time buyers. I have nothing to say about gazumping on this occasion, and it was not discussed at the meeting to which I referred. I share my hon. Friend's concern about Land Registry delays, but they are a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State tell the building societies that the massive increase in interest rates facing those with mortgages is a direct result of the overheating of the economy triggered by this year's Budget package? What hopes does he hold out to the building societies of a more stable and even policy on interest rates in the future.
    Mr. Ridley: No, Sir, I shall not be telling the building societies any such thing, nor would I dare to enter into territory that is not my responsibility but that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the Building Societies Association a problem felt acutely in my constituency, namely, the difficulties faced by people on average earnings who wish to become first-time buyers but cannot find a house at a price that they can afford? Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important contribution to solving the problem can be made by approving a slightly faster rate of residential development, especially in areas where there are plentiful employment opportunities?
    Mr. Ridley: The figures that I have just given the House do not bear out my hon. Friend's assertion that fewer people are able to become first-time buyers. There has been

    1091
    a phenomenal increase. However, I admire my hon. Friend's bravery in urging upon me that I should be more liberal in granting planning permissions in the south-east of England. Perhaps one reason for the current high level of house prices in those areas of the country is that I have not been as liberal as some people seem to suggest.
    Mr. George Howarth: When the Secretary of State next meets the building societies, will he discuss with them the fears and difficulties that may arise with the introduction of mixed funding for housing association schemes? There is fear that because values in the inner cities and outer estates have fallen, but costs are high, that will prevent the introduction of housing association schemes for people in housing need. Will the Secretary of State discuss those difficulties, because there are real fears?
    Mr. Ridley: Those problems have been discussed on many occasions with the building societies and others. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the proportion of private finance that is suitable for any given housing association scheme will be adjusted between the higher and lower figures. It is extraordinary for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that attracting private finance to supplement housing association grant can only mean that there will be less money in total for the provision of low-cost housing to rent, which I believe to be important, even if he does not.
    Mr. Gow: As a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the truth that the surest way of curtailing inflation is to have interest rates at an appropriate level that will restrain inflation? Has he pointed out to the building societies an elementary truth—that one way in which we shall be able to halt the increase in house prices is to build more houses in those parts of the country in which people want to live?
    Mr. Ridley: As one former Treasury Minister to another, I believe that it behoves neither of us to go far into the question of economic policy on an occasion such as this because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might feel that that would take us beyond the question. The other question asked by my hon. Friend can only be answered by saying that the supply of land for new housing must have a bearing on house prices. If there were to be no more planning permissions granted, at one extreme, or if there were to be an abandonment of planning control, at the other extreme, I cannot believe that there is anybody in the House who would not accept that that would have an effect on house prices, either up or down. There must be a connection.
    Dr. Cunningham: Is it not a unique combination of achievements that the Secretary of State's policies have brought us to record homelessness, huge housing waiting lists, spiralling house prices, huge mortgage increases, and the return of Rachmanism and gazumping? Is that not failure just by any test but failure by every test? Before the Secretary of State replies, perhaps he will tell the House whether his reply has been drafted by Sir Alan Walters or by Bernard Ingham.
    Mr. Ridley: My reply has been drafted by no one—nor do I accept the hon. Gentleman's premises. Those who do accept those premises, as the hon. Gentleman does, will perhaps deduce the obvious lesson, that we are pursuing a very tight land use planning policy.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning his latest estimate of the level of poll tax that would be payable in Coventry under the terms of the Local Government Finance Bill; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: None, Sir.
    Mr. Nellist: Could that possibly be because people in Coventry are only just becoming aware that were this the first year of the operation of poll tax every adult would be paying £267; that 70 per cent. of all adults would be paying more; that of the 18 electoral wards in Coventry, residents would be paying more in 14 of them; and that those wards that will be hit the worst, such as St. Michael's, and Foleshill, are also those that have the highest unemployment, the worst housing, and the most overcrowding? Finally, may I give the Minister due notice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Could I give the Minister due notice that it is solidarity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Could I give the Minister due notice——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)—[Interruption.] It sounded as if the hon. Gentleman used an interrogative term.
    Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
    Hon. Members: Name him.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that points of order are taken after Question Time.
    Mr. Holt rose——
    Hon. Members: Name him.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I hope that he will not persist. He knows that, following the practice laid down——
    Mr. Holt rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not persist in challenging my ruling or I shall have no alternative—[Interruption.] Order. This is a serious matter and I hope that hon. Members will recognise it as such. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order, he must do so at the end of Question Time.
    Mr. Nellist: May I give the Minister due notice that, irrespective of what happens in today's deliberations, in solidarity with the mass campaign of non-payment, which has begun in Scotland and which will develop in England, Wales and Coventry——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone far enough. I call the Minister to answer.
    Mr. Nellist: I will not pay the poll tax and I will advise my constituents not to do so.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats——
    Mr. Nellist rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I am on my feet, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
    Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not misleading his constituents. The report on which his assertions are based left rebates out of account. Even that report disclosed that two out of three households in Coventry will pay less in community charge than they presently pay in rates. Are those the benefits that the hon. Gentleman seeks to deny his constituents?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not true that Coventry is in a similar position to Derbyshire, in that the projected community charge is far higher than it needs to be because of the profligacy of the local authority?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When that profligacy is brought home to all the community charge payers of Derbyshire they will no doubt make full use of the remedies available to them at the ballot box.
    Mr. Rooker: Did not the same report, so gleefully quoted by the Minister, point out that 51 per cent. of adults in Coventry will lose, before the £20 a head surcharge?
    Mr. Howard: Since the report left rebates out of account, that finding is completely valueless.

    Sports Facilities
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since 1974 the annual amount of capital spending on sports facilities by (a) English local authorities, and (b) the Sports Council; and if he will give his estimate of private sector spending.
    Mr. Moynihan: Over the period since 1974 the figures for English local authorities on an annual basis in millions of pounds are as follows: 84·2; 87·5; 74·8; 64·7; 48·4; 71·6; 100·7; 89·7; 122·5; 122·2; 191; 143·4 and 166. For the Sports Council, the figures are: 2·7; 3·4; 4·4; 4·4; 4; 7; 6·4; 7·3; 8·5; 13; 11·4; 9·5; 9·8 and 13·4.
    As the hon. Gentleman will have calculated, the figures show a real terms increase in capital expenditure by English local authorities of 38·7 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1986–87 and a real terms increase of 25·7 per cent. by the Sports Council in the same period. Comparable figures are not available for private sector spending. Private sector sponsorship of sport has risen from £60 million in 1980–81 to an estimate of £200 million this year.
    Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, which he read with great feeling and understanding. May I suggest that those figures show that the public sector has invested in sport and recreation, and that it is because of the public sector that people in my constituency are able to use leisure centres, sports facilities and swimming pools? His lack of figures and his embarrassment about them show that the private sector has not invested. He and his ministerial colleagues now want to take the rich pickings from the public sector, together with the public sector's care and investment, and give those to the private sector so that it can make the profit and the public will lose as a result.
    Mr. Moynihan: There is hardly a lack of figures, but the hon. Gentleman did not listen. If he had listened, he would have heard me say that private sector spending on the sponsorship of sport has risen from £60 million to £200 million over a period of eight years.
    Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend will be aware that, from the end of this month, because of gross mismanagement, the Inner London education authority will be mothballing 250 acres of sports grounds, preventing the young people of London playing sport there. Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that ILEA will work with the local authorities, the Sports Council and the governing bodies of sport to keep those grounds open?
    Mr. Moynihan: With my full support, an enormous amount of work is now going on with the local authorities and community-based organisations to achieve management arrangements for all the sites. Since the Sports Council entered the scene, it is now optimistic that it will shortly be possible to settle management arrangements for 10 of the sites and negotiations are continuing in respect of the other two. I am sure that my hon. Friend will celebrate that news.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that an increase in advertising at sports events by cigarette companies is no substitute for investment by the public sector? Does he accept that his figures show that the public sector, local authorities and the Sports Council have invested heavily in sports facilities that are open to all and that, through privatisation, he is handing over the rich pickings to the private sector so that it can come along and make a profit out of sport? [Interruption.] Conservative Members find the exploitation of profit-making out of sport and the barring of people on low incomes very amusing, but it is a matter of great concern to us.
    Mr. Moynihan: Of course I recognise that both the Sports Council and local authorities have invested in ensuring that we promote sport-for-all policies. I welcome that, but it is wrong of the hon. Gentleman not to give full credit to the substantial amount of private sector involvement in sport and recreation, which is much to be celebrated.
    Mr. Heffer: Where?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman asks, "Where?". He should look at the answer in Hansard.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some areas only one primary school in eight is teaching cricket, that the rest of the public sector is not picking up that problem and that we shall not win Test matches until something is done about that? Will he initiate a national scheme of coaching in the public sector, working together with the private sector, to do something about that, for the sake of the boys and girls of this country?
    Mr. Moynihan: I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the Kwik Cricket development has helped considerably, not least with regard to inner city projects, and that the initiative being taken by the Test and County Cricket Board and the Sports Council is much to be welcomed.

    Simplified Planning Zones
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many simplified planning zones have been established in England and Wales since their introduction; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Trippier: The provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 1986, enabling local planning authorities to

    1095
    prepare and adopt simplified planning zones, came into effect in November 1987. So far, six authorities in England and Wales are known to be preparing schemes and two of those are near to adoption.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that simplified planning zones can help to cut out unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy and make a significant contribution to the regeneration of rundown urban areas? Will he tell me whether he has received an application from my council, Kirklees, and, if not, whether he would welcome such an application?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is well known as a strong and powerful advocate for this form of deregulation in that area of planning, and I compliment him on his tenacity.
    I have not received an application from Kirklees council. I should certainly welcome it. If there were the slightest thought in the council's mind that it should not do so, because a Conservative Government introduced the scheme in the first place, I should tell it that the vast majority of applications that I have received so far have been from Labour-controlled authorities.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has not simplified planning in enterprise zones been a disaster in my constituency of Workington? Will the Minister comment on the fact that the only place in Britain where one can build houses freely without planning permission is in the Workington enterprise zone? Is that not disgraceful? Why have I repeatedly had to come back to the Government, and why have they repeatedly not taken any action?
    Mr. Trippier: What is disgraceful is that the hon. Gentleman should castigate the enterprise zone in his constituency, when I know for a fact that it has been an unmitigated success. Having officially visited his constituency three times in the past 18 months, I can confirm that that enterprise zone has physically transformed the landscape and had a significant impact on reducing the level of unemployment.
    Mr. Fallon: Is it not high time that England became a simplified planning zone, and is it not in the interests of objectors as well as applicants that we have a simplified and faster planning system in this country?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend's concerns could easily be met if I receive applications from every local authority in the land for simplified planning zone status.
    Mr. Soley: Is the Minister thinking of making Horsham a simplified planning zone? Is he aware that Horsham seems to have taken that on itself by giving dispensation to Conservative councillors there to vote so that an empty council house is now used as offices for the Horsham Conservative Association? What is the Minister going to do about that? Does he agree that that is not only corruption but the theft of public property for the private gain of the Tory party? Will the Minister take this opportunity to condemn that action and ensure that the council is prevented from pursuing it?
    Mr. Trippier: I am not aware of the specific instance that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If he thinks that that is in any way connected with the substantive question on the Order Paper, he is stretching credulity to breaking point.

    Public Water Supplies (Aluminium)
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has recently received regarding the current levels of aluminium contained in public water supplies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people in Britain have water supplies with aluminium concentrations in excess of the European Community directive limit of 200 microgrammes per litre.
    Mr. Ridley: I have received a number of representations following the publication of some alarmist press articles. However, medical advisers assure me that current aluminium concentrations in water supplies are not a danger to health. The European Community directive limit was set in relation to the appearance of water. It was not set on health grounds, and the 2 million people in England who receive water with aluminium concentrations above 200 microgrammes per litre are not at risk. Programmes of improvement for these supplies are nevertheless in hand.
    Mr. French: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people who reside in areas where there is a high concentration of aluminium will welcome the news that he has given us in his answer? However, will he none the less agree to the establishment of an independent research facility to determine once and for all that there is no causal connection between aluminium in water and Alzheimer's disease, or does he believe that there is still a connection with drinking excess quantities of tea?
    Mr. Ridley: There are a large number of alternative theories about the cause of Alzheimer's disease, but only one of that large number suggests a possible link with aluminium, and that theory has not yet been published. It has not been possible to study it because it has not been received. It might further reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents if I say that, on average, people in this country take in less than 5 per cent. of the aluminium that they take in during a year from their water supplies, and that the other 95 per cent. comes from sources such as food.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is so much metal in our water supplies these days that it brings a new meaning to the term "Iron Maiden"? Will he go through the list of those areas where there are identifiable levels of aluminium in the water supply and tell the House where they are? From my point of view, is Newham on the list?
    Mr. Ridley: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman have any information that I have. The aluminium is put there as part of a process to kill microbiological organisms, which are far more dangerous than the aluminium salts.
    Mr. Favell: The House will be glad to hear of the advice that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received from an expert body. Is he aware that two separate research studies have been carried out by eminent doctors in Southampton and Newcastle, which show a causal link between the aluminium content in water and

    1097
    Alzheimer's disease, and possible clinical disorders? Will my right hon. Friend further examine this matter and perhaps make a statement, written or oral, at a later stage?
    Mr. Ridley: As I have said already, the findings of the Southampton study have not yet been published. It is impossible to comment upon the study until its findings have been published and examined. My advisers will assess it when it is received. The reason for the European Community directive on this subject is to do with the appearance of water, which, with a large amount of aluminium salts in it, is rather unattractive for drinking purposes. The issue is not whether aluminium is dangerous to health. The issue is an appearance standard, not a health safeguard.
    Mr. Boyes: The Secretary of State is being especially complacent on this issue, and he should stop misleading the House. There are almost 4 million people drinking water that is polluted by aluminium. Much research shows a relationship between Alzheimer's disease and brain damage. Action should be taken immediately. Money should be made available to make our drinking water safe to drink. The Government can find plenty of cash for other things.
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is not right. He should be pleased with good news instead of calling it complacency

Question Time
3.31 pm
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the middle of Question Time about four weeks ago, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) raised a point of order, which was conceded by Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker said that he could not rule whether a point of order was in order until he had heard it. He agreed that in those circumstances points of order could be raised during Question Time. In the light of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you like to reconsider your decision earlier this afternoon to refuse to allow me to raise a point of order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I follow the usual practice of Mr. Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is not challenging my ruling.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the convenience and aural comfort of the House, could one of the colleagues of the Minister for Local Government teach the hon. and learned Gentleman how to use a microphone——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that the Minister does too. I think that the House will recognise that the Minister was getting slightly too close to the microphone.
Mr. Faulds: I have a point of order that I should like to pursue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister must not treat the thing like a lollipop.
I have another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will remember that some many months ago now I raised with Mr. Speaker, when he was in the Chair, the need for the consideration of the introduction of emergency questions on the Order Paper. We have had a prime example today where, because of the set questions, we could not raise—some of us—a much more important and significant matter that has happened since the printing and putting down of questions. I have now had to suffer in my constituency——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Faulds: If I could finish my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be understood.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is raising a matter of procedure and he knows that the way to pursue that is to make a reference to the Procedure Committee, when it is established. It is not a matter on which I can rule now.

Welsh Language (Ministerial Statement)
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are given to understand that a statement has been made by the Secretary of State for Wales. He visited my constituency earlier today and left to make a statement on a very emotive subject in Wales—the Welsh language and future Government legislation. Before you say that this is not a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you assure me and the House that a
1100
request was made for the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement to the House about the argument that we had with him recently on another matter——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have gone far enough. Can the hon. Gentleman not tell that it is July? I have received no request for a statement to be made.

Conventions of the House
Sir Peter Hordern: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that an hon. Member dealing with another hon. Member's constituency should give the hon. Member due notice that he will mention it? In this case, is it not all the more reprehensible, considering that the offices of the Horsham Conservative Association are to be knocked down to make way for a road? It is not altogether surprising that the council is offering the Horsham Conservative Association other premises—[Interruption.] Is it not surprising that, as there are so few Labour supporters in the Horsham constituency, Labour Members are getting their facts wrong?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a convention of the House that when an hon. Member intends to refer to another hon. Member's constituency he so advises him.

Supplementary Questions
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During Question Time I tried to ask a supplementary question on question No. 10. There was some hub-bub in the House—not least from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)—when I attempted to ask a question beginning with the words, "Could I give the Minister due notice that I do not intend to pay the poll tax and that I intend to advise my constituents not to pay either?" Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, confirm that it was in order——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I said at the time that I could detect the interrogatory form of what the hon. Gentleman was saying. If I appeared to reproach him, it was not on that ground, but on the length of his supplementary question and the fact that lengthy supplementary questions are asked at the expense of other hon. Members. Perhaps we can get on because we have a very busy day ahead.

Housing Action Trusts
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a housing action trust notice has been served on one of the council estates in my constituency, and since both the town clerk and the members concerned were given extremely late notice, am I entitled to put down now an emergency question to discuss the matter?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have no provision for emergency questions. The hon. Gentleman can ask a private notice question, provided that he follows the usual form and submits it at the usual time. It will then be a matter for the judgment of Mr. Speaker and his advisers.
Mr. Richard Holt rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us. I hope hon. Members will recognise that we have much work to do.
Mr. Holt: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it have been in order for me to table a question in relation to the point—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that some of these points of order are of a bogus character.
Mr. Holt rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is pushing me to the point where I shall have to have regard to his behaviour.

BILLS PRESENTED
  HEALTH AUTHORITIES (DIRECT ELECTIONS)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd, supported by Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Ken Eastham and Ms. Joan Walley, presented a Bill to make provision for the direct election of members of regional and district health authorities and community health councils from among locally-registered electors: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 205.]
  CARAVAN SITES ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Graham Bright, supported by Mr. John Carlisle, presented a Bill to amend the Caravan Sites Act 1968 by empowering local authorities or police officers to require the removal of caravans stationed in contravention of section 10 of that Act and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

  Railway Termini (Privatisation)
  3.39 pm
  Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to privatise railway termini.
  I am much encouraged in this respect by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who recently said:
  "We will privatise what we consider is sensible to privatise and what is ready to privatise."
  It would seem that with British Steel and the water and electricity industries next in line for privatisation, the railways will have to wait their turn. It may be true that the railway industry is not quite ready to be privatised, at least as a whole, but it is certain that the railways require considerable investment at this time, and that investment could and should be raised from existing, sometimes under-used and certainly under-valued, assets.
  In a recent article in the Fianancial Times, under the heading,
  "British Rail running on successful lines",
  I noticed the following comments:
  "British Rail's record results in the year to the end of March reflect the boom in the economy and the upsurge in passenger traffic. They come at a time when its detailed performance is under scrutiny by the Government as it considers options, including privatisation, for the future ownership of the railways. The figures were further boosted by a cut in operating costs and higher productivity, higher Government grants and a record sale of assets, mainly property, which produced a gross cash contribution of £263 million to British Rail."
  The sale of peripheral activities has been a great success. It includes the sale of Sealink and British Transport Hotels, and more recently of British Rail Engineering Ltd and the privatisation of certain catering activities. However, it is British Rail property that will raise the huge sums that are now required for reinvestment in the railway system. At present, such properties are dealt with in two main ways: first, the sale of surplus and redundant land; and, secondly, station trading.
  With regard to the sale of surplus and redundant land, I was interested to note a recent written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who asked the Secretary of State for Transport
  "how much land, surplus to operational requirements, was owned by British Rail on 30 September 1987; and what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning progress in selling such land."
  The reply was:
  "I understand from the BR. Property Board that the total was some 17,300 acres. We have asked British Rail to dispose of all its surplus land and property as rapidly as possible.I discussed a variety of matters with the chairman of the BR Property Board in December, including progress in this area."—[Official Report, 19 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 699–700.]
  Quite so.
  It is relevant to compare the rail operating profits achieved last year of £109 million with the total of £184 million raised from the sale of properties last year.
  I turn, secondly, to station trading, that is, the management of concourse-based retail outlets, which should net about £15 million in rental income this year. British Rail has long been in the business of leasing parts of stations to private sector undertakings, going back to the days of newspaper stands. This is now big business, at

  1103
  least at the larger London stations, which have branches of many leading retailers. The scope for it depends to some extent on the size and layout of the stations concerned.
  Waterloo and Victoria both have large concourses and plenty of room for non-railway activities. Paddington, Charing Cross and Cannon Street are all rather smaller and with rather less scope for such franchising. At Euston there are shops on British Rail property around the station, but relatively few inside it. I suspect that most opportunities are already being exploited as part of British Rail's general policy of getting maximum return from the properties it owns.
  This is the crux of the matter. If British Rail can lease out parts of stations—that has been proved over many years—it must equally be possible to sell the terminus stations and lease back to British Rail the parts that it needs. Most commercial operations undertake the sale and leaseback of properties in that way, and in this case hundreds of millions of pounds could be raised with few complications and with no effect on the efficient running of the railways. In fact, quite the reverse in this case, because British Rail would at long last be asked to focus clearly on which assets it needs to own and which it does not. The receipts should then be made available and be better used for track or rolling stock, or what might be appropriately called this week the "railway core curriculum".
  To bring that about an agreement would be reached with British Rail and, in due course, with others to define the areas needed for the efficient running of the railways. When that had been decided a payment would be made by British Rail, possibly on a per train or per passenger coach basis. In addition, British Rail would accept the liability to maintain the tracks, platforms and signalling equipment.
  Secondly, a means of evaluation would be determined. It would, of course, be for each bidder to assess the appropriate figure for capitalisation of the incomes, whether actual or estimated, and to allow a figure for the prospects of future planning permission. Because British Rail would be paying for the usage of its part on a per train or a per coach basis, the income could be assessed and capitalised. The remainder of the properties already produce rental income, and those could also be capitalised. Therefore, an assessment of freehold value could readily be made, and I am sure that many offers would be received for the major properties.
  The basic commercial observation must be that any organisation which trades at a loss would be expected to sell off assets either to meet that loss or to provide needed investment. The recently published annual accounts show that last year there was an increase of 8 per cent. in passenger volume. That was the highest figure since 1961. I am not at all surprised that that is the case in the London area, especially since the recent revelation that average motor speeds in central London at 8 mph compare unfavourably with speeds in the days of the horse and cart. No wonder that the chairman of British Rail was recently able to observe:
  "British Rail is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success."
  The success to which he refers is attracting extra passengers, especially in the south-east.
  Increased usage of the rail system highlights a certain and urgent necessity—increased investment. I recently asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
  1104
  Transport how much British Rail had invested since 1979, and I am obliged to him for his reply, which was £3·7 billion. I understand that another £3 billion will be made available over the next five years or so. The sale of fixed assets, and in particular railway termini, is a promising extra source of finance to meet the increasing demands of the railway system.
  The increasing needs of the railway system are no longer caused by an ever-increasing annual trading deficit, but are caused by the need for change, modernisation and capital expenditure within an expanding industry. My proposals will not interfere with the prospects of a properly integrated travel system. British Airways does not own, and does not need to own, Heathrow or Gatwick airports. By the same token, I suggest that British Rail does not need to own Paddington, King's Cross or Euston to conduct its business.
  3.47 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?
  Mr. Corbyn: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) failed to tell us what powers he seeks to include in the Bill or what it is intended to do. He merely reiterated a litany of bits of property that he and his friends would like to grab in order to destroy or weaken the rail network. He showed a woeful ignorance of the history of the railway system and the railway industry. In case the hon. Gentleman is not aware of it, I can tell him that the railway system was built in an ad hoc way by private enterprise. That is why some of the lines run in the wrong places and why so many termini are badly placed.
  Because of a lack of investment in the railway system, in 1947 the post-war Labour Government were forced to save the railways by nationalising them. Had they not done that and established for the first time a truly integrated transport system we would be in an awful mess today, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. There would be no rich pickings for him to try to grab.
  The hon. Gentleman should also remember that the sale of British Transport Hotels, British Rail Engineering Ltd. and Sealink have two things in common. First, massive amounts of public money were invested in those services, which were then sold off to friends of the Tory party at knockdown prices so that they could make large profits. Secondly, large numbers of the workers in those industries were thrown on the dole. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) are in the Chamber, and in the House they represent the interests of the National Union of Railwaymen. They have fought strongly to preserve the jobs of railway workers, who are committed to a safe, efficient transport network. The Bill would cause the destruction of the integrated railway network that has developed since 1947.
  It is clear that the hon. Member for Stroud has not examined the annual report of British Rail, because it shows that the financial performance of BR depends to a great extent on its ownership of the railway termini and of subsidiary facilities operating on trains or at stations, and that the £130 million surplus owes a great deal to those subsidiary facilities. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly

  1105
  well that if he gives away the profitable bits of BR the public sector will be left to pick up the cost. In effect, public sector money has subsidised the facilities which the hon. Gentleman is trying to give away to the private sector.
  The hon. Gentleman's proposals to give away Travellers Fare are interesting. The annual report fails to give a proper account of Travellers Fare. He is aware that last year Travellers Fare made a surplus of £7·5 million.
  The hon. Gentleman also knows that his proposals to weaken, break up and privatise the rail system will mean that £3·7 billion of taxpayers' money, which has been given by the public to develop an integrated transport network, will pass into private hands. That will result in an inefficient transport system, higher fares and job losses.
  I believe that the House should show the wisdom that it showed in 1947 when it established a unified transport system. If the rail network is broken up as a result of the piecemeal proposals put forward in the Bill, we will end up with a much weaker transport system and job losses. Frankly, all that has happened this afternoon is that a bunch of spivs have come into the Chamber to make a fast buck for their friends. They have come here to try to give away public assets so that their friends can make large profits.
  I believe that we owe it to the people of this country to retain an integrated rail network, because it is safe, environmentally good, cheap and the best way to run a transport network. The hon. Gentleman and his supporters represent the antithesis of everything to do with social planning and the efficient and intelligent management of the economy. I hope that the House will reject the Bill.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
  The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 161.

  Division No. 425]

  [3.55

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amos, Alan

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forth, Eric

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gow, Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

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

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Butler, Chris

  Holt, Richard

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Irvine, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Janman, Tim

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Colvin, Michael

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Conway, Derek

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kilfedder, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Curry, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

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

  Knapman, Roger

  1106

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rost, Peter

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mans, Keith

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marland, Paul

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moate, Roger

  Thorne, Neil

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tracey, Richard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Walden, George

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mudd, David

  Watts, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wheeler, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Paice, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wilshire, David

  Pawsey, James

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Mr. David Nicholson and

  Redwood, John

  Mr. James Cran

  Riddick, Graham

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Fisher, Mark

  Allen, Graham

  Flannery, Martin

  Alton, David

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Anderson, Donald

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Foster, Derek

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fyfe, Maria

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Galloway, George

  Barron, Kevin

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Battle, John

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Beckett, Margaret

  George, Bruce

  Beith, A. J.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Graham, Thomas

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Boyes, Roland

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hardy, Peter

  Buckley, George J.

  Haynes, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Cartwright, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Coleman, Donald

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Janner, Greville

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cousins, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cryer, Bob

  Lambie, David

  Cummings, John

  Lamond, James

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leighton, Ron

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Terry

  Darling, Alistair

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McCartney, Ian

  Eastham, Ken

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McKelvey, William

  Fatchett, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Faulds, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Madden, Max

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

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  1107

  Mallon, Seamus

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maxton, John

  Short, Clare

  Michael, Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morley, Elliott

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Strang, Gavin

  O'Brien, William

  Straw, Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Parry, Robert

  Vaz, Keith

  Patchett, Terry

  Wall, Pat

  Pike, Peter L.

  Walley, Joan

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Redmond, Martin

  Wilson, Brian

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Winnick, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Robertson, George

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Tony Banks and

  Rooker, Jeff

  Dr. John Marek

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)
  4.4 pm
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
  That the Order of the House [22nd February], as varied by the Order of the House [13th April], be supplemented as follows:

  Lords Amendments
  1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.
  (2) The amendments shall be taken in the order shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of the Order [22nd February], each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

  TABLE

  Proceedings

  Lords Amendments

  Time for conclusion

  Nos. 22, 1, 2, 207 to 217 and 3 to 21

  6.00 pm

  Nos. 171, 23 to 26 and 218 to 233

  7.30 pm

  Nos. 234 to 265, 27 to 80, 266 to 270, 81 to 87 and 271 to 277

  9.15 pm

  Nos. 88 to 91, 278 to 291, 92 to 114,292 and 293, 115 to 117,294, 118 to 170,172 to 185 and 295 to 334

  10.15 pm

  Nos. 335 to 408, 186 to 205, 409 to 414, 206 and 415

  Midnight

  (3) If this day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, is to be brought to a conclusion at this sitting shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
  2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the question of any amendment moved by a minister of the crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  1109

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
  3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
  4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall-—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Proposal; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Supplemental
  6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
  (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
  7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (4) If the proceedings are interrupted at any time by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, is to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
  I move this motion as the House comes to the end of a long and exhaustive consideration of a Bill that fully honours our election manifesto commitment to abolish domestic rates; to replace them with a community charge; and to introduce fairer and more stable arrangements for non-domestic rates and Government grant.
  We shall shortly see scenes of synthetic outrage from the Opposition Members about the time that is allowed for consideration of these Lords amendments, so I want to start by getting some facts on the record. The Bill has already been debated in the House for two days on Second Reading; 147 hours in 35 sittings in Committee; and no fewer than five days on Report and Third Reading—a total of 190 hours before today. Although it has been guillotined, we have used the timetable procedure not to impose unreasonable constraints on debate, but to allow for a sensible allocation of time to the different elements of the Bill. Consideration of part I was virtually complete before the timetable motion was moved. Therefore, we have not curtailed debate on the most novel and controversial part of the Bill.
  The Bill has also been examined in great detail during almost 90 hours of debate on 13 days in another place. It simply is not possible to argue that the Bill has not been fully considered. Throughout all that debate, the Government have listened carefully to all the reasonable arguments put to them and promised a number of significant concessions that have required changes to the Bill. Indeed, Lord McIntosh, who speaks for the Labour party in another place, paid tribute to my noble Friend Lord Caithness and his colleagues by saying:
  "There has not been a single time in our consideration of the Bill when we have had occasion to doubt their sincerity or their willingness to listen."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 13 July 1988, Vol. 499, c. 910.]
  So, of course there are changes to the Bill, but it is ludicrous to suggest, as did the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) last Thursday, that the Bill has been
  "changed almost beyond recognition by the Lords".—[Official Report, 14 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 557.]
  Mr. John Maxton: The Minister keeps mentioning changes to a Bill, but a large number of the amendments—more than 100—that we shall be debating in an hour and a half at the very end relate not to changes to a Bill, but changes to an Act of Parliament. The Abolition of Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 is already on the statute book, and is in the process of being implemented, but here are 100 amendments that Scottish local authorities have to implement not in 1990, but in six months' time. Is it not an absolute disgrace that amendments concerning the people of Scotland, who rejected the Government in this matter, are now being pushed to the end of a very short debate?
  Mr. Howard: Perhaps when we reach those amendments to the Scottish legislation the hon. Gentleman will tell the House to which of those amendments he and his party object. The Labour party has tabled no amendments that suggest that it objects to them. That will no doubt be considered when we reach the Scottish part of the business.
  When they considered the matters rather than taking the view that was put last Thursday by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, Members on both sides of the other place accepted that the principle of the Bill remains intact. The Opposition know that their prolonged and persistent attempts to sabotage the Bill have met with complete failure.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that 66 pages of new amendments to a Bill of 150 pages is not a substantial change?
  Mr. Howard: As I shall show, that is a pathetic argument. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will no doubt tell us about the 417 amendments and the average time available to deal with each of them. That is about as intelligent an approach to these matters as judging a work of art by the number of brush strokes on the canvas.
  Of the 417 amendments, well over half—243, to be precise—were accepted in another place as technical or drafting improvements to the Bill. I look forward to hearing from Opposition Members which of those amendments they object to. For example, do they want to oppose the exemption from the community charge for the severely mentally handicapped, the homeless, voluntary care workers, or those who stay in short-stay hostels? Do they wish to challenge the major extension of charitable rating relief or the improved treatment of caravans? Perhaps they wish to restore joint and several liability for the collective community charge, but I rather doubt it.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: That is the biggest load of humbug that I have ever heard in this House, and I have heard a great deal from the Minister. He is saying that he wants to hear what Opposition Members have to say about all the amendments. How can he possibly hear what Opposition Members or anybody else may have to say about them when the guillotine motion ensures that it will be impossible to discuss even a fraction of them?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is an acknowledged expert on humbug. For the most part, the amendments were warmly welcomed by the Opposition in another place. We know exactly the Opposition's attitude to the amendments. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us in due course that Opposition Members intend to oppose the deletion of part IV—23 clauses and three schedules—from the Bill, but I doubt it. We took the decision in response to representations from, among others, the Labour-controlled Association of London Authorities. In fact, if one reads the amendments, one finds that they were almost universally welcomed by Opposition spokesmen in another place, who had ample opportunity to debate them.
  Perhaps the best test of the extent to which the Opposition really need time for debate and of whether the complaints that we shall doubtless hear are genuine is to be found in the number of amendments that Opposition Members have tabled. Are they so dissatisfied with the Lords amendments that they have tabled countless amendments of their own? Not a bit of it. Opposition Members have tabled a grand total of three amendments. Of those three amendments, in his wisdom, Mr. Speaker selected two. We shall have ample time to debate those two amendments.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: How many amendments did Opposition Members move in Committee and how many met with any success against the Government?
  Mr. Howard: I am afraid I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Richard Holt: I advise my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that Mr. Speaker recently ruled that if hon. Members were not present during the presentation of a Minister's speech they would not be called or seen. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I call the Minister.
  Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). I always welcome interventions from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I always welcomed them in Committee, and I hope that I continue to welcome them.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose——
  Mr. Howard: I have not yet answered the point raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North; the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) should contain himself.
  The total lack of success that Opposition Members met with in Standing Committee is something that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North may regret, but it has absolutely nothing to do with today's business, which is consideration of Lords amendments. Once the hon. Gentleman grasps that elemental fact, he will appreciate how misconceived his question was.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that, when he described amendments to the Lords amendments that were tabled today as Opposition amendments totalling three, he was referring to Labour amendments? My hon. Friends and I have tabled 15 amendments—five times as many as the Labour party have tabled.
  Mr. Howard: The contribution of the party that the hon. Gentleman represents had not escaped me. It is characteristic of his party's contribution. It comprises all that clarity of mind and precision that we have come to expect from that party. The vast majority of the hon. Gentleman's amendments simply state that they disagree with the Lords in the amendments.
  Opposition Members will oppose the motion not because they want to debate the drafting of the amendments but because they want to delay enactment of the Bill until the autumn. That is why they seek to delay progress today. We cannot accept that. We have promised that domestic rates will be abolished on 1 April 1990, and we keep our promises. If that objective is to be achieved, the local authorities that are to implement it must know where they stand. This is not a Bill that can take effect overnight. An enormous amount of preparation and planning must take place first. Most local authorities are already making good progress. They will soon have to commit themselves to the purchase of computer and other hardware. Computer software designers must get clear instructions about the systems that they are to develop. That means that the detailed regulations must be drafted and consulted on as soon as possible in the autumn.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Some of us heard the Minister on the radio talking with Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who is a man of clear mind. Could he explain—there may be an explanation—his answer to the argument of Lord Allen and others about the blind and disabled? The Minister was referring to details. It is important to clarify the point, as we may have got him wrong. We did not quite understand his answer to Philip Allen's point.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the substantive debate on this issue, which will take place

  1113
  in a short time. He will have the opportunity to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will deal with that issue when the House considers it.
  Community charge registration officers will be under a duty to establish their registers by 1 December next year. That is not a date that can be changed, and, if it is to be met, canvassing will have to take place in the spring and early summer of next year. That in turn will require staff, equipment and systems to be in place.
  This major reform was first proposed in January 1986. It was put to the electorate in June last year. It has been debated in detail in Parliament and outside for eight months. The time has now come to deal with the few remaining issues, to move into the next phase of preparation, and to put an end to uncertainty.
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: The motion is totally unnecessary for a Government with a majority of over 100 in the first Session of a Parliament. It insults the whole House of Commons. It shows the nation that the Government are operating as though they own the House of Commons. The motion is an offence to the Chair and the learned Clerks. It corrupts the law-making process and will thereby bring the law into contempt. Frankly, the motion demeans the Minister who moved it, and it degrades hon. Members who were whipped in to support it.
  That it is unprecedented is beyond question, in regard to a Bill that is guillotined with so much new material and so many amendments from another place. There is not enough time for the Chair to read out the amendments and put the relevant Questions even if we start now and continue until midnight. It is a jackboot motion, the likes of which were familiar under Hitler and Stalin, and, today, under Botha.
  We have one parliamentary day to consider items some of which have never been considered or discussed in the House. That shows the arrogance of the power with which the Government operate. In fact, the process is so hasty that the Government not only spent time and money on Saturday scurrying around the homes of Opposition Front Bench Members with printer's proofs of the amendments, but, today, they gave us corrections to the amendments from the Lords.
  The Minister had the brass face to say that the Opposition had not tabled many amendments. Members of the House of Commons were given one parliamentary day to look at the Government's amendments and no time to table amendments. Any amendment that we tabled yesterday would have been starred as out of order. We have been given one day—seven hours—to consider more than 400 amendments. What is the use of the Opposition and our advisers spending hours drafting amendments to Lords amendments when we shall not even get the chance because of the guillotine to vote against those amendments that we oppose? That is ludicrous. Today we have been given correction slips. That is not just pathetic; what is happening in this place today is damned dangerous.
  We cannot even fully list the items with which we shall not deal today, such as the changes in registration, and in respect of joint and several liability, hostels, co-owners, installments, the appeal procedure, levying boards and financial administration. Also, there is the lack of rate
  1114
  relief for sports clubs in England and Wales. We would try to get a similar concession to that given to such clubs in Scotland.
  We shall not even have the chance to debate the Government's continuing inability, as identified in Lords amendment No. 283, to decide how they will count the population. That information is crucial for the redistribution of Government grant and the business rate. In February this year, at the Standing Committee's second or third sitting, the Minister said that this was under active consideration. There have been hundreds of Government amendments in Committee and on Report and there are hundreds more Lords amendments, yet we still do not know how the Government will count the population.
  There is no time to debate this matter. The Government could easily have provided two or even three ordinary House of Commons days which the Opposition would consider reasonable in the circumstances. We do not like the Bill. We do not want it to operate. We seek to oppose it at every opportunity, and we make no apology for that. I presume that the Government do not wish to take that right from us, although they are taking away everything else. Two or three ordinary House of Commons days would have been a reasonable time, in view of what we face, to consider the material that the Lords have put into the Bill.
  We have just cause for complaint on this matter, which will cause our proceedings to fester for some time to come. The Opposition have no intention of providing any cloak of respectability for Her Majesty's Government who, in most other democratic countries, would have hit the buffer of constitutional checks and balances on this issue. No checks and balances are operating. Even now, in late July, it is known that somewhere in Her Majesty's Government somebody will be preparing a Government speech for Her Majesty to read out in the other place in November. I suspect that, when Mr. Speaker makes that walk to the other place to hear the Government's speech read from the Throne, he may well understand if the figleaf of respectability given to the occasion by Her Majesty's Opposition has fallen by the wayside.
  In 1979 the Tories spoke in their election manifesto of making Parliament effective in controlling the Executive. In 1983, the Tories spoke in their manifesto of keeping the rules and procedures of Parliament in good repair. In 1987, the Tories spoke only about decisive majorities in Parliament and strong government. They change procedures to suit themselves. They control local government and have come close to propounding a divine right. "Why bother with elections?" someone in the Government will be asking before long.
  Our fellow citizens will become uneasy as they hear Members of Parliament speak in this place and outside of law-making without adequate discussion. It does not matter whether we agree or disagree with what the Lords have done; we are entitled to discuss the Bill's contents. Later, we shall be expected to ask our constituents to obey the law because Parliament has passed it.
  The implied plank of that idea is that Parliament discussed the law before passing it. When I advise my constituents that they must obey the law or face the penalties and consequences built into it, I shall go out of my way to remind them that great tranches of the Bill were not debated in the House of Commons in Committee, on Report or when the House considered the more than 400

  1115
  Lords amendments. This will make my constituents and those of other hon. Members very uneasy about obeying every dot and comma of the legislation, and rightly so.
  If this does not make Conservative members of the legal profession uneasy, I fail to see what does. The Opposition do not argue about losing the votes. We understand the arithmetic in this place. The Government will get their Bill in any event. There never was anything that an Opposition faced with a Government majority could do to cause the Bill to be withdrawn or defeated on Second Reading. The best for which we could hope was to amend it, and the second best was to get it discussed. All the evidence is that the more the Bill is discussed inside and outside the House, the more the British people oppose the poll tax. Herein lies the reason for the hasty guillotine today.
  The House could easily have sat for the first few days in August or last few days in July. The Government are now prone to bringing us back in the middle of a week. The House could easily have gone into recess in the middle of the week after next by having an extra day or two on this legislation. The Government would still have got the Bill. They would still have got Royal Assent. Why do the Government not want the Bill discussed in the House of Commons? Clearly it is because public opinion has moved so vastly and strongly against it.
  I want to give only a few statistics, although the Minister gave us many. When the Lords amendments are put into or thrown out of the Bill, as the case may be, there will be 78 separate aspects requiring regulations. If I remember correctly, only one provides for an affirmative resolution, whereby the Government have to get the approval of the House.
  Mr. Maxton: One more than in Scotland.
  Mr. Rooker: One more than in Scotland, as my hon. Friend says. Those regulations cover 621 separate matters. Also, there are 23 other matters for orders and 92 instances of determination of other issues by Ministers alone, making 736 powers in hand for the Government in the Bill. That is unprecedented and it should worry everyone, because the number of opportunities for the House to debate the orders and regulations will be minuscule.
  Even the children begin to think that something wrong is happening in the House of Commons. Believe it or not, some of our comics have referred to the poll tax. I freely admit that I am not a parent and am not as up-to-date on comics as I was. I discussed the matter the other day with my young friend William Pickering, aged 12¼, because of what he had read in his comic "Oink" about the poll tax. [Interruption.] Yes, there is a comic called "Oink". William asked me a few questions. He said, "There is a page in the July issue, Jeff, on 'Ten Things You Should Know about the New Poll Tax'." Time under the guillotine does not permit me to read out all 10, but I promised William that I would raise a few with the Minister:

  "1. Everyone who owns a parrot has to pay Poll Tax.

  2. If it talks, you pay double the basic rate.

  3. If it says rude words, you pay treble the basic rate.

  4. If it says rude words about the Labour party you get a full rebate and 1 cwt. of millet.

  5. People who are members of the Conservative Party don't pay poll tax, no matter how many parrots they have."

  1116
  I shall not take up the time of the House with the other five points, but at the end of the 10 things that young children should know about the poll tax it says:
  "A government spokesman explained that the new tax is necessary, as the old domestic rating system which it will replace is both illogical and unfair. When we suggested that the tax seemed to favour the well-off, he replied that nothing could be further from the truth and told us not to give the game away."
  That is the reason for the guillotine motion.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Perhaps we should ask the Leader of the House to conduct an important investigation. Not so long ago we drastically increased the Opposition's Short money, yet all that the Opposition can do is to buy comics to explain their opposition to the poll tax. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and his research assistant could do a better job than read comics. Perhaps it is an indication of the Opposition's disastrous and short-tempered approach that they must now oppose the Bill by using comics and comic sketches alone. Nowadays the Opposition are comics, and comic lines are what we get more and more from the hon. Member for Perry Barr and the Leader of the Opposition.
  I am pleased that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government has introduced the timetable motion. I am grateful for one simple reason: the sooner the Bill reaches the statute book, the better. The Bill will make local government throughout the country far more accountable. It is no wonder that the Labour party is so opposed to the Bill, because I believe and hope that it will make local government more accountable.
  There has been a lot of talk about the number of Lords amendments, but it must be acknowledged that 243 of them are technical. We were faced with elections in Derbyshire this year and we were quite happy to explain to people what the community charge would do. What happened when we explained that to the people of Derbyshire? Were we roundly defeated at the polls? No, we won the city of Derby for the first time in seven years and we won control of Amber Valley district council for the first time ever. That was the result of telling people what the poll tax or the community charge will do for them. It will bring more accountability into local government.
  The problem that is faced by young people in Derbyshire stems from the present ludicrous rating system. On Second Reading I asked the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) whether he thought that the present system reflected ability to pay. He rightly conceded that he did not think that it did. It takes no account of earnings or of the value of property. I believe that the Bill will bring about accountability in local government and that many more people will turn out to vote at local government elections. At the moment the incentive is not there. One of the strongest points of the Bill is that it will make people realise what local government is doing and what the costs of local government are.
  I shall give one example from my constituency. Before I was elected as the Member for Derbyshire, West I had the privilege to serve for six years on Staffordshire council. In 1981, both Staffordshire and Derbyshire county councils were Conservative-controlled. The rate in Staffordshire was 112p and in Derbyshire it was 111·5p. They are counties of similar size and with similar problems. Both authorities became Labour-controlled in

  1117
  1981, with fairly sound majorities. In Staffordshire the rate for 1988–89 is 215p in the pound. [Interruption.] I understand why the Opposition do not like what I am saying, but they will have to listen. They want the debate; they must listen.
  In Staffordshire this year the rate levy is 215p in the pound and in Derbyshire it is 297p in the pound. That difference is not easy to explain to the electorate. With the community charge it will be far easier to explain.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: May I remind the House that in Staffordshire Labour was returned with a big majority in 1985?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I readily concede that the authorities are Labour-controlled. However, this year we won control of the city of Derby for the first time in seven years and we won control of Amber Valley for the first time ever. That is relevant, because the county rate is 90 per cent. of the rates that people pay. The Opposition cannot get away from the fact that what happened in Derbyshire had a considerable effect on the electorate and on the Conservative cause.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Derbyshire has one of the best education services in terms of staff-student ratios? Does he also agree that Derbyshire's provision of meals for the elderly is admired considerably by other areas? Unfortunately, under the present Government, those services can be provided only by rate increases.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I find it amazing that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is praising the county council for its education services, yet at the same time he is urging the Government to overturn the recommendations of the county council on education. I shall not be lectured to on education provision by the hon. Gentleman, who had to come to the Conservative Government to ensure that the parents in his constituency got what they wanted.
  In Derbyshire we fought the election on the community charge. We were successful, and the sooner the Bill reaches the statute book the better.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The significance of today is that it is probably the last opportunity that the House will have to debate the most fundamental change of principle in the taxation system for 600 years. The Government have seen fit for the second time in the House to introduce in this Bill a guillotine which will limit debate. That is the significance of today.
  There are matters that we have had no chance to debate at all and which were introduced in the other place, such as the attachment of benefit proposals, which was originally promised here but introduced for the first time in the other place. That proposal will have an enormous effect on poor people in Britain. Of course, the Government do not like to give much time to debates about the poor in Britain, although they are a large and growing proportion of the population. Some people in constituencies such as mine, who will be paying more than the average poll tax, will have their benefits attached, and will not have a total rebate. Their circumstances will not be properly debated. The people of urban and poor areas such as Southwark deserve to have the implications of the
  1118
  poll tax debated in the House, but they will have to content themselves with the knowledge that the House of Commons spent a grand total of one and a half hours on such a significant amendment.
  The Minister was rather disingenuous earlier about the ability of the Opposition to prepare for today. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made a perfectly valid point. The Government decided to table a guillotine motion only two days before this debate and there was insufficient time for hon. Members to respond in the appropriate and proper way. As it happens, and as I told the Minister, my colleagues and I put down 15 amendments. For the record, the majority of them were not simply motions that the House should disagree with the Lords amendments. Nine of them were substantive amendments.
  The most significant feature of today's debate is that the Government have been forced to accept many of the arguments made to them in earlier debate. The more that the Bill has been debated, the more that anomalies have been exposed. In Committee, my colleagues argued that exemptions should be extended to religious communities. Originally the Government said no, but then they said yes. We argued also that voluntary care workers should enjoy exemption. At first the Government said no, and then they said yes. We argued that it was ludicrous that a remanded, unconvicted prisoner would pay poll tax, but that a convicted person would be exempt. The Government eventually conceded that point and gave in.
  We argued that it was ludicrous that people who had become mentally handicapped as a result of an accident should be exempt when those who were congenitally mentally handicapped would not be. Again, the Government eventually accepted that argument too. Finally, we pointed out that it was a silly system that said that it did not matter whether one lived in a house, in a cardboard box, under an arch, or in a car, because one would still be liable to poll tax—even though the reality was that in the latter cases people would not have the money to pay, and that local authority officers would hardly have an incentive to collect it. We said that showed how ridiculous was a system whereby those with the least, and not even a home, would be chased to pay for services for those who are saving thousands by this change in local taxation. On that point too the Government eventually gave in.
  All those points were made by my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members, and they were accepted by the Government. Therefore, the Government should not be afraid of argument, but should acknowledge that arguments and points put by the Opposition have improved the Bill. They have made a bad principle slightly less bad in its implementation.
  The Government cannot be assured that they have the support of the majority of Britain for this Bill's proposals. More than 600 years ago, the only other Government attempt to introduce a poll tax in England culminated with the peasants' revolt, which was commemorated last month on Blackheath. There was guillotining then too. On that occasion, the guillotine fell on the Chancellor's neck. The Government then accepted that the poll tax was a bit of a foolish proposal. Today, there was in Westminster Hall an event celebrating another revolution, this time 300 years ago. That was the so-called glorious revolution, establishing constitutional freedoms. I had thought that one of the constitutional freedoms established was that

  1119
  there would be no taxation without representation. The reality is that, as a result of the Bill, in future there will be no representation without taxation. That is something that the House has resisted, not for decades but for centuries.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: Where does the hon. Gentleman get his notion of no representation without taxation? It will be possible to vote while at the same time not paying taxes. Will he explain the basis of his argument?
  Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand the import of the Bill by now, that is a sorry state of affairs. I tell him, as I tell my constituents, that in future if one registers to vote in a borough such as mine, one will also be registering to be taxed. One will not be possible without the other, because the rebate will not make up the difference—however large is the exemption.
  In this contrived House of Commons, the Conservatives have a majority. Just over 40 per cent. of those who voted in the last general election supported the Government—about one third of Britain's electorate voted Conservative. The Government ought to remember that the majority of British people voted against the poll tax and have never accepted the principle of it. It may be that today we shall run out of time to debate the Bill, but the people of Britain know that the result of this Bill will be that it will soon be the Conservative party which will run out of time. It will be Conservative party Members who will always have hanging around their necks the label of being the poll tax party. It is the Conservatives who have pushed this Bill through, and although their new authoritarian, totalitarian revolution may have succeeded for the moment, ultimately it will be roundly defeated.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I shall not take any lectures from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), whose canvassers in the recent Kensington by-election were telling voters that everybody will be paying exactly the same for local government. Such an accusation is absurd.
  Mr. Simon Hughes indicated dissent.
  Mr. Leigh: It was in one of his party's leaflets, and the hon. Gentleman produced it last week. Such an accusation is absurd, because the community charge will account for only one quarter of local government costs, and those with means may pay as much as 16 times more than those without means.
  The clarity of the SLDP's arguments in that by-election was such that many people who were found by our canvassers to be SDP supporters were putting up SLDP posters, and vice versa. One thing that I will say for the Social and Liberal Democratic party is that at least it has the courage to have a policy, however disastrous that policy of local income tax would be for my constituency, where it would amount to about £500.
  As to the brass neck of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), he announced—almost in the style of Mr. Bevan's remark about going naked into the conference chamber—that he would not come to this Chamber without a policy. We still await the Labour party's policy. What we have heard today from the
  1120
  hon. Member for Perry Barr is so much cant and hypocrisy. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister drew an analogy with painting. The hon. Member for Perry Barr may remember the little drawings that one used to do as a child, in which, by drawing lines between the dots, a picture would emerge. Whichever Bill one brings to mind—whether it is that concerning trade union legislation or any of the other popular policies that nine years of Conservative Government have produced—one realises that the Opposition tried to talk them all out. For the most controversial Bills we have had to introduce guillotine motions, and the same arguments have been adduced again and again. The Opposition have used almost the same words as before—it is a well-run groove.
  Mr. David Winnick rose——
  Mr. Leigh: No, I shall not give way, because I am making a very short speech.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I sat through all five days of the Report stage, and, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I sat through 147 hours of Committee. There is one difference with this Bill.
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman is a fool.
  Mr. Leigh: I am not a fool. I did my duty in supporting the Government in introducing a Bill that was in our manifesto and for which we had popular support. As a Conservative Back Bencher, I was determined to take an interest in the Bill and to speak on it.
  There is one difference between this Bill and earlier Bills in introducing a guillotine because of time-wasting tactics. In this case, having given all the time that was needed for clause 1, when the principle was debated hour after hour, and when there was much filibustering by the Opposition, we imposed an early guillotine. Because we did so, there was time to debate every clause carefully. It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Perry Barr to claim that the Bill has not been properly discussed, because it has.
  As to the claim made in the Chamber last week by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that there would be an average of only a few seconds to discuss each of the 400 amendments, how can he say such a thing when—and I do not wish to trespass on your authority, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by suggesting that he was trying to mislead the House—virtually all those amendments were either agreed or were technical? When the hon. Gentleman made that claim he must have known that there was only one substantial point of difference between another place and this House, and that related to disabled people. That is a serious issue and one that we shall debate later today. He must have known that.
  The Bill has been debated properly and carefully and has been put to the British people. It will become law, and I support it.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: The manner of the disposal of the legislation is in keeping with its spirit. It is unjust, anti-democratic and smacks of totalitarianism. The legislation that the House is cursorily asked to consider is in chaos and the product will be unworkable. The proof of that is that it is becoming the same sort of political time bomb under the Tories in England and Wales as it has been for some time in Scotland. Tory

  1121
  candidates now find it necessary to lie through their teeth to the electorate about the level of poll tax they will have to pay in order to stave off the evil hour when people realise the truth. Perhaps in by-elections they can get away with lying to people about the figures. However, the chickens will come home to roost. The facts cannot be evaded for ever. Eventually people will realise exactly what they will be asked to pay under the poll tax. We know from the Scottish experience that the more people know about the reality, the more deeply hostile and angry they become about what is being visited upon them.
  I congratulate the Minister, who, I see from The Daily Telegraph, is to have the poisoned chalice removed from him and is to rise to higher offices of state as a reward for his efforts on this legislation. He said in his introduction that local authorities must know where they stand. I welcome his solicitous concern about the information to be provided to local authorities so that they may go about their business. The reality is that the Bill, which is primarily concerned with introducing the poll tax into England and Wales, has gratuitously tacked on to it over 100 amendments relating directly to Scotland. Will the Minister explain the consistency of his line? There can be no delay about introducing the poll tax in England and Wales because local authorities must know where they stand, yet, even at this late hour, four months after the registration process was started in Scotland and less than eight months from the poll tax taking effect, over 100 amendments will be imposed upon Scottish local authorities and they will have to be introduced into their arrangements for the poll tax.
  The amendments affecting Scotland which the Minister, who has no responsibility for Scotland, is putting before the House range from the sublime to the ridiculous. They deal with provision for the disabled. In the House of Lords, amendments were successfully introduced in support of the disabled. The Tories are once again coming to the House to kick the crutches from the disabled. One of the most heinous aspects of the legislation is the contempt and hostility with which it treats the disabled. One of the most offensive aspects of the legislation is that it makes no special provision for the physically handicapped, no matter how severe the handicap. The Minister will reinforce that provision from the Dispatch Box.
  Another heinous aspect of the legislation is the introduction, for the first time in our society, of a category of citizen hitherto uninvented called the severely mentally handicapped. People will have to queue up, in the original words of the the legislation, for "certification" as "severely mentally handicapped" in order to escape the poll tax. Those are the provisions of the legislation, which is now to be hustled through the House for the administrative convenience of the Government and to avoid the political embarrassment which mounts daily.
  Why come back to the House to seek to overturn the amendments? Why not accept the semi-humane amendments of the House of Lords—heaven knows, little enough has been improved in the House of Lords—which would mean that at least the rebates could be topped up so that people who live in areas where there is a particularly high poll tax and who, being severely physically disabled, are particularly penalised, will be helped? The Minister should have the guts and the grace to accept those amendments. If not, he will do his party's bidding and push the legislation through and the ultimate victims will be those
  1122
  in our society who are least able to defend themselves. Whatever high office the Minister and the Secretary of Slate move on to, they should know that they have done that on the backs of the disabled, the poor and the weakest in society. They will be the greatest losers under the poll tax.
  I shall now move on to the ridiculous. The peers in the House of Lords—that great bastion of vested interest—are brought in in their charabancs or on the night train from Inverness to vote for any piece of rubbish presented to them. While the disabled, the poorest in society and those who live in the rural communities of Scotland are hard hit by the poll tax, it is unbelievable that they found time to introduce a clause to exempt from non-domestic rates the salmon proprietors of Scotland. They kick the disabled when they are down but give another £1·5 million handout to the salmon proprietors of Scotland. It is beyond belief. How many of the peers and the great highland grandees brought south to vote for the poll tax a few weeks ago will be direct beneficiaries of the latest handout? We know from our calculations that every Scottish peer who voted against introducing an ability-to-pay principle will gain a minimum of £2,000 from the poll tax. That is not enough for them because we are dealing with the greediest vested interest lobby in society—the sporting proprietors of Scotland. Therefore, they have added a clause to the poll tax legislation for England and Wales which introduces exemption from rates for salmon proprietors in Scotland. It would be beyond belief if we were dealing with any other Government or type of Government. The Minister should say that he will take back the £1·5 million from the salmon proprietors in Scotland and give it to the disabled in Scotland.
  In this building today we went through the mumbo-jumbo of freedom and democracy. Yet, in the same building, we are pushing through 500 amendments, most of them undiscussed, in order to impose the poll tax legislation on the country. There will not be a moment to discuss the implications of the uniform business rate upon Scotland. There will not be a moment to reconsider the 100 clauses in the English legislation that apply to Scotland. What is being pushed through, on the back of English and Welsh legislation and without the presence of a Minister from the Scottish Office on the Treasury Bench, is a subsidiary poll tax Bill for Scotland—[Interruption.] It has been pointed out to me by my colleagues that there is not a solitary Tory Member representing Scotland sitting on the Government Benches. They have only 10, but one of them could have come back from lunch in time to be sitting in the Chamber while 100 amendments directly relating to Scotland are bludgeoned through the House.
  The poll tax legislation is not the flagship of the Tories; it is the coffinship. The message that leaves the Chamber today is that the Government have added another crime to those of unfairness, injustice, unworkability and attacks on local authorities. The crime of the day is bludgeoning through a measure that is profoundly anti-democratic with the most anti-democratic device at their disposal.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: I listened in amazement to the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and his honourable parrot, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). It is as if they have been delving into their dictionaries looking for words of abuse for half the week

  1123
  and reading comics for the other half. The performance that we have heard is typical of the performance of the Labour party throughout progress on the Bill in this place. It is hot air and exaggeration of the worst sort, and it is abuse. We have not heard a constructive word from Opposition Members and, even more important, they have not put forward a policy of their own.
  The reality is not what we have heard from the Labour party. The reality of the guillotine motion is the exact opposite. It is not an affront to democracy. The guillotine motion is sensible and, from the way in which the Opposition have behaved, it is probably necessary. The question of democracy has been raised by Opposition Members. One can always tell when people are struggling for an argument because they trot out comparisons with Hitler. I can only guess that the reason why the Opposition chose to do that is that they are embarrassed.
  Opposition Members are trying to divert attention from the fact that the House of Lords basically endorsed the principles of the Bill. They also want to disguise the fact that this House has endorsed it three times. We must get the Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible because it gives expression to the democratically expressed wish of the British people and the sooner it is there, the better.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) was right, as he usually is, when he described the speeches by Opposition Members as entirely routine expressions of denunciation of the kind that we always hear when such a motion is before us. So lacking in conviction was the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that his hon. Friends, notably the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), could not keep to the issues that arise in this debate and could not keep to the question of the time that would be allowed, but strayed, not surprisingly, into a series of hysterically wild accusations about the merits of our proposals, which will be answered comprehensively this evening.
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that Opposition Members made exactly the same comments about the Education Reform Bill, but did not bother to turn up for the debate?
  Mr. Howard: That does not surprise me in the slightest.
  The quality of the arguments that we have heard is perhaps epitomised by the contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who is not even in his place at the moment. He complained about the lack of opportunity to discuss the amendments relating to rebates. I see that he has now returned to his place, just in time to hear what I have to say about his contribution. It is true that some amendments relating to rebates have been tabled in another place and that the hon. Gentleman's party tabled one amendment to those amendments. It was not selected, so, quite apart from the guillotine motion, the hon. Gentleman's point about the lack of time available to him to discuss the rebates was as bogus as the points that we usually hear from his party.
  The hon. Member for Perry Barr and his colleagues have not dealt with the central argument that I advanced
  1124
  when I opened the debate an hour ago. They have not dealt with the fact that they have tabled just three amendments of which only two have been selected. The time element to which the hon. Gentleman referred is entirely bogus. If he had been following the progress of the legislation in another place, he would have known about some of the amendments for weeks and months. He has had ample opportunity to table all the amendments that he wanted, if he had thought that substantive points needed to be discussed.
  Mr. Rooker: Three Tory Members and one Labour Member have spoken in the debate. Let us have a bit of fairness. The Minister knows that we did not know that we would have only one day for the Lords amendments. We were led to believe that there would be a reasonable discussion and that we would be allowed a reasonable chance, as on Report, when we had five days, having originally been offered only four. We were led to believe that we would have more time. One day is unacceptable and we had no notice of it.
  It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to the Order [22 February.]
  The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 210.

  Division No. 426]

  [5.04 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Amos, Alan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Colvin, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cran, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Curry, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

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

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Day, Stephen

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dicks, Terry

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Durant, Tony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowis, John

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Evennett, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bright, Graham

  Fallon, Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Farr, Sir John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Favell, Tony

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

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Burt, Alistair

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Butcher, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Butler, Chris

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butterfill, John

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Franks, Cecil

  Carrington, Matthew

  Freeman, Roger

  Cash, William

  French, Douglas

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Fry, Peter

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gardiner, George

  Chope, Christopher

  Gill, Christopher

  1125

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maclean, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gorst, John

  Madel, David

  Gow, Ian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Malins, Humfrey

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maples, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marland, Paul

  Gregory, Conal

  Marlow, Tony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Ground, Patrick

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  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, Sir Hal

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mills, Iain

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayes, Jerry

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hayward, Robert

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Heddle, John

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Mudd, David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hill, James

  Neubert, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Holt, Richard

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howard, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Page, Richard

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Paice, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pawsey, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Irving, Charles

  Portillo, Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert

  Price, Sir David

  Janman, Tim

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jessel, Toby

  Redwood, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kilfedder, James

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rost, Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Latham, Michael

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lilley, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Speed, Keith

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stern, Michael

  1126

  Stevens, Lewis

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Walden, George

  Stokes, Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Sumberg, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Warren, Kenneth

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wheeler, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Whitney, Ray

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thorne, Neil

  Wilshire, David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thurnham, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Wood, Timothy

  Tracey, Richard

  Woodcock, Mike

  Tredinnick, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Trippier, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

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

  Alton, David

  Dixon, Don

  Anderson, Donald

  Dobson, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Douglas, Dick

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Eastham, Ken

  Barron, Kevin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Battle, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beggs, Roy

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beith, A. J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bell, Stuart

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

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Flannery, Martin

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Flynn, Paul

  Blair, Tony

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Boateng, Paul

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Boyes, Roland

  Foster, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Foulkes, George

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fraser, John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Buchan, Norman

  Galloway, George

  Buckley, George J.

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Caborn, Richard

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Callaghan, Jim

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gould, Bryan

  Cartwright, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clay, Bob

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clelland, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cohen, Harry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Coleman, Donald

  Haynes, Frank

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Corbett, Robin

  Henderson, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cox, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  1127

  Illsley, Eric

  Patchett, Terry

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Janner, Greville

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  John, Brynmor

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Radice, Giles

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Redmond, Martin

  Lambie, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lamond, James

  Reid, Dr John

  Leighton, Ron

  Richardson, Jo

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Lewis, Terry

  Robertson, George

  Litherland, Robert

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rogers, Allan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAllion, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCartney, Ian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Short, Clare

  McLeish, Henry

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McTaggart, Bob

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

  McWilliam, John

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

  Madden, Max

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Mallon, Seamus

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marek, Dr John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Strang, Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Straw, Jack

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maxton, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Vaz, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Wall, Pat

  Michael, Alun

  Walley, Joan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Morley, Elliott

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wilson, Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Winnick, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Murphy, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Nellist, Dave

  Wray, Jimmy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  O'Brien, William

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Mr. Allen Adams and

  Parry, Robert

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Order of the House [22nd February], as varied by the Order of the House [13th April], be supplemented as follows:

  Lords Amendments
  1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.
  (2) The amendments shall be taken in the order shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of the Order [22nd February], each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

  TABLE

  Proceedings

  Lords Amendments

  Time for conclusion

  Nos. 22, 1, 2, 207 to 217 and 3 to 21

  6.00 pm

  Nos. 171, 23 to 26 and 218 to 233

  7.30 pm

  Nos. 234 to 265, 27 to 80, 266 to 270, 81 to 87 and 271 to 277

  9.15 pm

  Nos. 88 to 91, 278 to 291, 92 to 114, 292 and 293, 115 to 117,294, 118 to 170,172 to 185 and 295 to 334

  10.15 pm

  Nos. 335 to 408, 186 to 205, 409 to 414, 206 and 415

  Midnight

  (3) If this day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, is to be brought to a conclusion at this sitting shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
  2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown. That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
  3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
  4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Supplemental
  6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
  (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
  7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (4) If the proceedings are interrupted at any time by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, is to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Orders of the Day
  Local Government Finance Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 13

  RELIEF FOR STUDENTS
  Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 10, line 3, at end insert—
  "( ) If a person is undertaking a course of nursing education on each day of that period, the amount he is liable to pay under this section shall be determined by order, no such amount being less than one-fifth of the amount it would be apart from this section."
  5.17 pm
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall consider the following Lords amendments:
  No. 32.
  No. 33, in clause 27, page 16, line 29, at end insert
  "and (e) education may include nursing education."
  Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, at end insert—
  `( ) The regulations shall include a statement of what courses constitute, in the Secretary of State's opinion, full-time courses of nursing education; but this is without prejudice to the power to provide, or not to provide, that a person undertaking such a course is to be treated as undertaking a full-time course of education for the purposes of this Part.'.
  Mr. Howard: This group of amendments concerns the community charge liability of student nurses. This is a topic that was fully considered during the passage of the Bill through this House. Indeed, at Report stage on 19 April the House debated and voted on amendments about student nurses.
  At that stage I argued, and the House accepted, that it would be inappropriate to treat salaried nurses—or, indeed, others undertaking training while at work—as students for the purposes of the community charge. During that debate, however, the question of student nurses and Project 2000 was raised. I said, in response:
  "If Project 2000 is implemented in due course and student nurses are treated as students on bursaries rather than salaries, we shall certainly reconsider their position under the community charge."—[Official Report, 19 April 1988; 'Vol. 131, c. 751.]
  As the House will be aware, on 23 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced that the Government did indeed intend to accept many of the recommendations of Project 2000, including the proposal that student nurses should receive non-taxable bursaries rather than salaries.
  The Government also made it clear during the debates on the Bill in another place that, once Project 2000 was implemented, assuming that the qualifying conditions concerning periods of supervised study and similar matters were met, student nurses would automatically become students for the purpose of the personal community charge, and thereby pay only 20 per cent. of the charge. So the question that arises is what the position should be

  1131
  before Project 2000 is implemented, at the stage when student nurses are still receiving salaries. As I said during earlier stages of the Bill's consideration, the Government argued successfully that it would be inappropriate to treat as students salaried nurses or others undertaking training while at work.
  Having defeated an amendment in Committee in another place, the amendments now before us were added to the Bill on Report, against the Government's wishes. The amendments are intended to require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make an order determining the level of community charge to be paid by student nurses. The Government accept that there should be such a power and we are not, therefore, asking the House to overturn the spirit behind the amendments. Unfortunately, the Lords amendments are defective in their drafting. It is by no means certain that they would have the precise effect that their proponents intend. It is essential that the defective amendments should be replaced by ones that work, and that is the purpose of the Government amendment.
  The Government amendment would still require my right hon. Friend to make regulations setting out the level of community charge to be paid by student nurses. The only difference in the effect of the amendments is that the Lords amendments would allow the payment to be anywhere between 20 and 100 per cent. of the charge. The Government amendment envisages a choice between 100 per cent. payment and 20 per cent. The option on interim levels of payment will not be open, except to the extent that student nurses may be eligible for rebates. That reflects the fact that in practice the Government would choose only 20 per cent. or 100 per cent. In other words, student nurses should be treated as students in some or all circumstances.
  More extensive and complicated amendments would have been required to keep open the possibility of an intermediate figure. As I have said, when Project 2000 is implemented, student nurses will automatically become students for the purpose of the community charge. That leaves the level of charge to be paid by student nurses before Project 2000 is implemented. That is an issue on which we have yet to take a decision. We shall be considering the matter carefully in the light of all the issues that arise, including the timetable for implementing Project 2000. We shall then announce our decision and lay the regulations that the amendment requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make. The Government amendment incorporates the spirit of the amendments that were passed in another place and improves on their drafting. It is for that reason that I invite the House to disagree with the Lords amendment and to accept the Government amendment.
  Mr. William O'Brien: It is clear that their Lordships recognised that student nurses were students and, therefore, should qualify for relief from paying the poll tax in full. The Opposition welcome that view and would wish to uphold the Lords amendment.
  Why does not the spirit that allows nurses in training to be accepted for relief not extend to nurses in Scotland for the first year of the poll tax in that country? I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that student nurses in Scotland in their first year will enjoy relief.
  1132
  There are other students—they may be in an apprenticeship or in receipt of training—who have an income that is below the level determined by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In many instances, they have no income. The Labour party has always argued that taxation should be based on the principle of the ability to pay, and a flat-rate tax is unrelated to that ability. It is significant that the Government have no compassion. They are not willing to help those who are in receipt of low incomes. That is compounded by Ministers' arrogant attitude to students and others in higher education.
  There are many in their 19th year who attend either a sixth form college or a tertiary college. They are participating in full-time education courses of 21 hours a week. According to the Government's proposals, they will have to pay poll tax, even though there is no family allowance available to them and they have no other income. No rebate will be made available to this group. The members of it are not even considered equal to those who are sleeping rough or others who are having to live in the cardboard city.
  It is suggested by the Department of the Environment that there are 3,000 throughout the country who come within the group I have described. I suggest that if a proper count were undertaken, the total would be nearer 10,000. In the area of Wakefield, for example, there are no fewer than 56 such students. If the Wakefield figure is used for the rest of the country, there is a substantial number of 19-year-olds in full-time education who are not being taken into account. I ask the Minister seriously to regard these students.
  Unless the Government are prepared to accept amendments, access to higher education and equal opportunities for young people will undoubtedly be removed from many. If these young people are made to pay £6 or £7 per week out of nothing, as it were, or from low incomes, access will be denied to them. The imperialistic attitude that the Secretary of State is taking to those on low incomes, especially to young people who are in higher or further education, ensures that the paying of poll tax will be controversial. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has outlined on earlier occasions how some of his constituents will regard poll tax legislation, there having been little time to discuss it in detail, or the Bill in its entirety. Many young people will fall by the wayside. They will not be able to pay any part of the poll tax.
  The difficulty will be heightened dramatically when local authorities such as Westminster city council send in the bounty hunters. I have in mind a headline that appeared in the Westminster and Pimlico News. It appears that Westminster council suggests that bounty hunters will be employed to ensure that people pay their poll tax. The articles states:
  "Private companies could be paid 'bounties' to collect names and personal information for Westminster's poll tax register. And outside bailiffs are likely to be used to collect outstanding poll tax debts, Westminster's policy and resources committee was told on Monday … each person will have to pay £372 in poll tax. However, each name is worth £1,300 to Westminster when government grant is added."
  It seems that Tory local authorities are organising bounty hunters. For every head, as it were, that they can recruit or shanghai on to the register in Westminster, a bounty will be paid by the authority. That practice has arisen because of the Government's methods of financing local government. If it is not the intention of the Secretary of

  1133
  State or the Minister for Local Government that bounty hunters should be employed by local authorities—especially by Tory-controlled local authorities—they should dissociate themselves from that newspaper article. No hon. Member or anyone outside should accept the practice of employing bounty hunters.
  5.30 pm
  What will happen when bounty hunters track down people who are experiencing difficulty paying the poll tax because of their low incomes? We all know that the information on the rebate scheme is so abysmal that no one can explain how it will work. Many people will be hounded by bounty hunters. When they are tracked down, councils such as Westminster city council will haul offenders before magistrates who, if they wish, may issue distress warrants.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: Are those circumstances any different than those that operate at present, whereby councils employ people to find those who have not paid their rates and prosecute them?
  Mr. O'Brien: There is a substantial difference. At present, no bounty is paid. According to Westminster city council, if a poll tax payer does not pay but is caught, the council's income increases from £372 to £1,300, which is the bounty that will be chased.
  When bailiffs are called in, what will they collect from a 19-year-old or a student who has been unable to pay the poll tax? What furniture or materials will they collect?. Perhaps a record player or a couple of pairs of jeans. That is all that they could expect to collect from a 19-year-old. Bounty hunters will be paid substantial amounts to track down those people, but what is the point of employing bounty hunters to track down people who cannot afford to pay?
  I ask the Minister to lend a receptive ear to the request for amendments to be made to include students and the other people to whom I have referred. We welcome the Lords amendment but think that it should be extended to include many other young people and those who will experience difficulty in paying the poll tax. In an area where the poll tax will be £250, the cut-off point for paying it for 18 to 24-year-olds will be less than £51. That is a substantial reason why the Minister should address himself to this important issue.
  Any amendment that is made should take into account the anomalies of the low-income groups and people in training. The rebate scheme should be extended to include those groups and people on training schemes. If Conservative Members believe that the problem will disappear when Project 2000 is introduced in September 1990 they are incorrect. Those unfortunate people will have to pay the poll tax within six months of its introduction or 12 months to 18 months in Scotland. To say that the problem will be resolved by the introduction of Project 2000 is incorrect. I ask the Minister to examine this problem and make amendments to ensure that no hardship is suffered by those in full-time education or in training in the first month of the introduction of the poll tax. It will be anomalous if students other than student nurses are not included in the rebate scheme.
  We appreciate, accept and welcome the Lords amendment, but we ask that it be extended to include other students. Does the Minister accept that training schemes should be designated to allow young people throughout
  1134
  England, Scotland and Wales who are continuing with full-time education and training to qualify for a poll tax rebate, as suggested in the Lords amendment? We ask the Minister to comment specifically on that point. We shall support the Lords amendment.
  Mr. John Hannam: As I understood the opening remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, the Government accept the spirit of the Lords amendment that student nurses should be eligible for an 80 per cent. discount on the community charge. I am not clear at what stage of their training they will become eligible. If they fall into the category of receiving discounts throughout their training, we could create a serious anomaly for other professional student categories who pursue a one-year, pre-registration period of training of a similar nature to nurses before being allowed to practise.
  Before the Lords amendment was passed the other groups of professional trainees reluctantly accepted the Government's statement that unless they were in full-time, grant-receipted education they would be eligible for full payment of the community charge. A number of those groups, including dental trainees, optometrists and pharmacy students, having completed their normal tertiary three-year, grant-maintained education, do an extra year of low-paid, pre-registration training. Like nurses, they are employed during that period by health authorities or, in Scotland, by health boards for their final qualifications. Their pay scales are roughly similar to those of nurses—about £5,000 or £6,000 a year.
  I and the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) tabled an amendment on the basis of the original Lords amendment at the request of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, to which I am an adviser, which was backed by the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association. Its purpose was to bring the other professional trainees within the scope of the exemption given to nursing students.
  The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (M r. Chope), wrote to me on Monday expressing understanding of the anomaly that could be created and intimated that the Government would consider what provision to make. I shall not take up the time of the House, because it is clearly understood that a problem could be created if, in the interim period until the implementation of Project 2000, nurses were to receive exemption from the community charge. I am confident that my hon. Friend, understanding the problem, will be able to find a solution to it so as not to perpetuate an unnecessary anomaly. I hope that he will be able to clarify the position as it affects the important groups of trainees in other medical professions.
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: I shall be brief in this truncated debate. I rise to support fully what the lion. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has said and to support the amendment that stands in his name and mine. Since we tabled the amendment, which is in effect an amendment to the Lords amendment, Lords amendment No.33 has appeared. I hope that as we are considering it with these others the Government will be able to do something about pre-registration students.
  As the hon. Member for Exeter said, there are doctor, dentist, pharmacist and optician pre-registration students. Those are the basic categories. The dentists and doctors may not be as badly off as the opticians and pharmacists,

  1135
  who are paid less on the whole—there are exceptions—and sometimes considerably less, than the top grade of student nurses.
  I welcome the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendment that concerns nurses. It would have been disgraceful to do otherwise, but there are these other groups of health care professionals. I am not going as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). I agree with what he said about low-paid people, but I am not taking the matter that far; nor is the hon. Member for Exeter. We are concerned only with a narrow band of people who will be working with student nurses, in the same teams, and who receive as much as £1,000 less than they do, yet will have to pay the full burden of the poll tax. A sledgehammer tax such as the poll tax will always result in such problems.
  When the Government make the regulations envisaged under amendment No. 33, I plead with them to extend the same provisions to pharmacists and other postgraduate pre-professional people in training, because such people will be in a difficult position. I wish that, instead of mentioning nursing education, the amendment had used the phrase "health care education", in which case there would have been no difficulty about extending the regulations. I ask the Minister to take care of the anomaly that will inevitably result and that will apply particularly to pharmacy students, but also to many others.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) will forgive me if I do not follow his point about pharmacists. I want to take up the issue of student nurses.
  I supported the Government wholeheartedly in Committee and on Report on this matter. It seemed to me that we were in danger of creating another anomaly that would mean that people in salaried jobs would receive an exemption that was not available to others who were in salaried jobs but might be earning less than student nurses. We were being misled to a certain extent by emotion and the word "student". Student nurses are paid employees earning a salary. That will change in September 1990 with the introduction of Project 2000, under which nurses will become students in full-time education, with part of their training done on the wards. They will receive a bursary. When that happens, it will make sense to treat them as other students.
  5.45 pm
  However, we are not clear about students who begin their training before September 1990 and who, on the old training scheme, will be salaried employees. My guess is that they will continue to be on the old training scheme until the end of their three-year training programme. I cannot believe that it is intended to switch them into Project 2000 halfway through their training. If that is so, and if they remain salaried employees, it would be unfair to treat them other than as salaried employees who may be on a fairly low wage. They should be treated in the same way and receive the same rebates. If they transfer to Project 2000, Ministers will want to ensure that they are treated like other students. May we have some clarification about this?
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I was contacted this week by two student nurses in my constituency in their second year. One of them, Mandy Lumley, said:
  "It is unfair that we are singled out to pay this tax whilst students remain exempt."
  Karen said:
  "I have only just realised what this means to me and I am horrified that it is another deduction from my pay packet."
  Jane Brown, the Royal College of Nursing representative, echoed that by saying that the student nurses that she represented were just beginning to realise how serious the problem was. That is no wonder, given the impact of the figures that have frequently been debated in the House at all stages of this Bill. I do not intend to hold up proceedings by going through them again—Ministers have already heard them.
  When the Minister started his speech, I wondered whether he had had a change of heart and would not accept the spirit of the amendments. He launched into a strong attack on the principle of the amendments, but he has said that he will accept their spirit. He is to be congratulated on that, as is Baroness Robson of Kiddington, who followed through, on behalf of the Social and Liberal Democrats, the campaign that we have waged at all stages to get student nurses this form of exemption. In that, she was successful in another place.
  Lords amendment No. 22 is different from the amendments that we proposed in the House. Here, we sought merely to include nurses in the definition of a student so that they would obtain 80 per cent. student relief as of right. Our colleagues listened to the Government's arguments and tabled a conciliatory amendment in the Lords. It leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide what level of poll tax student nurses should pay, as long as it is at least 20 per cent. That shows that we have conceded ground. By way of return, I hope that the Minister will give a firmer sign of whether he intends to make use of these provisions before Project 2000 is brought in.
  Since this issue was debated in the Commons, the Secretary of State for Social Services has announced implementation of Project 2000, which, by implication, means entitlement to 80 per cent. relief from poll tax for student nurses. In that way, the Government agree with the principle. The Minister has said that he agrees with the spirit; the problem remains the gap between the introduction of the poll tax and the full implementation of Project 2000. It is even conceivable, because of the phased implementation of Project 2000, that some student nurses could be paying 100 per cent. of the poll tax while their workmates, who are not on precisely the same form of course, will pay only 20 per cent. because they started their training at a different time, as Project 2000 was being phased in.
  I hope that, having taken the decision to allow student nurses the 80 per cent. relief, the Government will implement it in as fair a way as possible. This amendment has had all-party support, although the Government expressed their unhappiness with its wording before Third Reading in the Lords. So what the Minister said about it is not new. The Government tried to persuade Lady Robson to accept further amendments, which she resisted.
  The Government say that including student nurses in clause 13 is unnecessary, as clause 30 gives them the power to specify what is meant by "student". That is true, but

  1137
  before the amendment was agreed to the Government had no intention of including student nurses. So we thought they needed to be persuaded in that direction.
  Furthermore, they have said that they have no intention of using the new power to vary the rebate by a percentage intermediate between 0 and 80 as that would lead to unacceptable complications. That may be a fair point, as long as the Government are prepared to make some concession to students who are meant to be covered in this way.
  We accept that the wording of the amendments could be improved, and we have no objection in principle to seeing it changed as long as the Government are prepared to commit themselves to granting a poll tax rebate to a significant number of student nurses. So far, they have not been prepared to make any concession on that. Not so long ago, the Government said that they would allow a registration scheme for dogs but they had no intention whatever of putting it into practice. We are worried that that is the attitude of the Government in this case. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
  Our response depends entirely upon the Government. If they show a willingness to offer an 80 per cent. exemption to student nurses from 1990 we can accept their amendment to Lords amendment No. 33. Although the Government say that they agree with us, we have not had that commitment. The student nurses in my constituency that I mentioned will be comparatively well off. In London, nurses might lose up to 17 per cent. of their incomes because of the poll tax.
  We are talking about a fairly small number of people prior to the implementation of Project 2000. It would not be enormously costly or a permanent fixture. I hope that the Government will accept my point and that the Minister's reply will be welcomed by student nurses when they read the reports of this debate.
  Mr. Allen McKay: I too should like to speak about student nurses. I agree wholeheartedly with the amendment because I can see problems in the future. The time may come when we cannot do anything to amend the measure and it will be a matter only for the Secretary of State. For that reason, it would be wise to accept the amendment. I agree with the Lords amendment with which the Government disagree.
  I am a little worried about Project 2000. Who, and how many, will it cover? At present we have many student nurses of varying technical and academic ability. I understand that some of the best students who are academically qualified will go forward to Project 2000. If my figures are right, the Barnsley authority is thinking about 10 a year. That means that we are not talking about the whole of the student nursing fraternity in that area.
  The Secretary of State must determine who is a student nurse. Do we take the word "student" as the criterion? It has been said that they are salaried but, of course, the amount of the salary takes account of the fact that they are students. If that were not the case, they would not be getting such low salaries. Will the legislation cover all student nurses when Project 2000 is introduced, or will it cover only the narrow band of student nurses who will go forward to Project 2000? If it is only that narrow band, then we are creating another anomaly; to avoid that, it would probably be better to support the Lords amendment and the amendments to it.
  1138
  One student should he treated in the same way as another. The pay of student nurses goes up when they have finished their student days, and to make it easy and simple we should give a rebate to all students whatever their category or occupation.
  Mr. Howard: I shall not be able to reply to all the points that have been raised during this short debate, because final details on the precise nature of Project 2000 have not yet been decided. It is precisely for that reason that both the Lords amendment and the Government amendment which we have put down in substitution of the Lords amendment take the form of a regulation-making power that will enable the Secretary of State to make an order fixing the community charge that will be payable by student nurses. It was recognised that that is a sensible way to deal with the matter so that when all the details of Project 2000 have been settled an order can be made in the light of the decisions.
  The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked me to deal with the situation that would arise in Scotland. We welcome to our deliberations after his long perambulation the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). [Interruption.] I hope that he ran all the way. We are delighted to see him with us. He reiterated the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Normanton. Of course there is a similar but separate order-making power for student nurses in Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will he required to make an order determining the level of community charge to be paid by student nurses there. He will make that order in good time for the start of the new system north of the border on 1 April 1989. At this time I cannot say what order my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make, because he will have to take into account the kind of factor about which I have spoken and which will be the basis of the Government's decisions on this matter.
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) was quite wrong to suggest that the Government would not have moved as a consequence of the introduction of Project 2000 had it not been for the amendment moved by Baroness Robson of Kiddington and passed in the other place. The hon. Gentleman may remember that when the question of Project 2000 was raised when the Bill was in the House, I said in direct response to an intervention that I think he made that we would have to consider the effect of Project 2000 if the recommendations that it envisaged were accepted. I said that that might have a significant effect on the liability of student nurses for the community charge.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister is right, but as I understood it he was talking about what would happen to student nurses under the Project 2000 proposals. The main question today is what happens to those who are not on Project 2000 while the project is being phased in? We are not clear about that.
  Mr. Howard: That is true; it is not clear because no decisions have yet been taken. It was because of that state of play, recognised in the amendment put forward by Baroness Robson of Kiddington and passed in the other place, that the amendment takes the form of a regulation-making power. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will

  1139
  be able to take into account the evolution of the Project 2000 proposals before making an order under that regulation-making power.
  Mr. Taylor: The Minister's answer sounds good. He says that he accepts that there will possibly be differences between students during the implementation of Project 2000 and that it is his intention to use these changes potentially to ensure that students will not be treated in different ways at the same time.
  Mr. Howard: I have said a number of times that that is the kind of consideration that we shall take into account. We have not decided how to exercise the order-making power. We shall consider the problem of anomalies that may arise but have not yet taken any decisions on the matter.
  The hon. Member for Truro should be somewhat cautious in his observations about student nurses. Student nurses become qualified. I hope that he tells his constituents in Truro that qualified nurses paying local income tax under the proposals that his party favours would end up paying £260 a year towards the cost of local authority services compared with a community charge of £190. When the hon. Gentleman pretends to be the champion of student nurses, I hope that he makes it plain to student nurses in his constituency just how much more they would have to pay under the proposals advanced by his party when they become fully qualified and have to pay his local income tax.
  We accept the spirit of the Lords amendment. I believe that the one distinction between the effect of that amendment and the effect of the amendment that we are seeking to substitute for it is generally accepted and has not led to particular criticism. For that reason I commend the amendment that the Government have advanced to the House.
  The hon. Member for Normanton also asked about 19 year-olds at sixth-form colleges. They will, of course, be entitled to the maximum 80 per cent. rebate depending on their income, or if they have no private income. In an area where the provision of the standard level of services results in a community charge of £202, such students would be expected to make a 20 per cent. contribution. That means that they would be paying something like 80p per week and I do not believe that that is an unreasonable contribution for them to make.
  It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 211.

  Division No. 427]

  [6 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Alexander, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amos, Alan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Ashby, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Atkins, Robert

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkinson, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter

  1140

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowis, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Grist, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Ground, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

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

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hannam, John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

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

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harris, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butcher, John

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butler, Chris

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butterfill, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heddle, John

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chope, Christopher

  Hill, James

  Churchill, Mr

  Hind, Kenneth

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

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howard, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Irving, Charles

  Curry, David

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Janman, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Devlin, Tim

  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

  Kilfedder, James

  Durant, Tony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fallon, Michael

  Knowles, Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Favell, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Latham, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lightbown, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lord, Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gale, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, George

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maclean, David

  Gill, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Madel, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorst, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gow, Ian

  Mans, Keith

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maples, John

  1141

  Marland, Paul

  Sims, Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Speed, Keith

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mellor, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Mills, Iain

  Stern, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stokes, Sir John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Sumberg, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Neubert, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thorne, Neil

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Page, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Trippier, David

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Trotter, Neville

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pawsey, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Portillo, Michael

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Price, Sir David

  Walden, George

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Redwood, John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Warren, Kenneth

  Riddick, Graham

  Watts, John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wheeler, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rost, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Ryder, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Woodcock, Mike

  Scott, Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Shersby, Michael

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

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

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allen, Graham

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Alton, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Anderson, Donald

  Bradley, Keith

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Buchan, Norman

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Buckley, George J.

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Beith, A. J.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bell, Stuart

  Cartwright, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  1142

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lambie, David

  Clay, Bob

  Lamond, James

  Clelland, David

  Leighton, Ron

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cohen, Harry

  Lewis, Terry

  Coleman, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cousins, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Cox, Tom

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cryer, Bob

  McCartney, Ian

  Cummings, John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McKelvey, William

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McLeish, Henry

  Dalyell, Tam

  McNamara, Kevin

  Darling, Alistair

  McTaggart, Bob

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McWilliam, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Madden, Max

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

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dewar, Donald

  Mallon, Seamus

  Dixon, Don

  Marek, Dr John

  Dobson, Frank

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Doran, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Douglas, Dick

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Martlew, Eric

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Meacher, Michael

  Eastham, Ken

  Meale, Alan

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Michael, Alun

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fisher, Mark

  Morley, Elliott

  Flannery, Martin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mullin, Chris

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Murphy, Paul

  Foster, Derek

  Nellist, Dave

  Foulkes, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fraser, John

  O'Brien, William

  Fyfe, Maria

  O'Neill, Martin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Galloway, George

  Parry, Robert

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Patchett, Terry

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Pike, Peter L.

  George, Bruce

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Prescott, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Gould, Bryan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Graham, Thomas

  Radice, Giles

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Redmond, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Reid, Dr John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Richardson, Jo

  Hardy, Peter

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Robertson, George

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Haynes, Frank

  Rogers, Allan

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hinchliffe, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Home Robertson, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Short, Clare

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Janner, Greville

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  John, Brynmor

  Soley, Clive

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Squire, Robin

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Strang, Gavin

  1143

  Straw, Jack

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dennis

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Vaz, Keith

  Worthington, Tony

  Wall, Pat

  Wray, Jimmy

  Walley, Joan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. Adam Ingram.

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Question agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 22 accordingly disagreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2, 207 to 217, 3 to 10, 12 to 16, and 18 to 21 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 17 agreed to.

Clause 116

  FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AS TO CERTAIN AUTHORITIES
  Lords amendment: No. 171, in page 64, line 3, at end insert—
  "(3) Each relevant authority which is a charging authority in relation to the Personal Community Charge shall, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, make arrangements for—

  (a) the administration of the Community Charge Additional Element as specified in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 13 below; and

  (b) the calculation in each year from 1 April 1990 of its Personal Community Charge in relation to the national average charge for that year, for the purposes of determining whether any person in its area may be eligible for the Community Charge Additional Element."

  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 300, 302 to 304 and 390.
  Mr. Ridley: Throughout the passage of the Bill we have been able to modify it in sensible ways to reflect genuinely held concerns and many amendments have been made. We have demonstrated our flexibility and our desire to meet good cases, but these amendments come up against one of the fundamental principles of the community charge and no compromise is possible. Therefore, I invite the House to disagree with them.
  The amendments are complex, but their purpose is straightforward. They provide that people who are disabled, as defined in Lords amendment No. 303, and who receive rebates should receive in addition to their rebate an element equal to the difference between 20 per cent. of the average community charge and 20 per cent. of the community charge that they have to pay. In a somewhat roundabout way the amendment seeks to ensure that disabled people on low incomes are fully compensated for the fact that they have to pay the charge, whatever it is. The amendments adopt this indirect approach because in Committee the other place defeated an amendment by Lord Allen seeking 100 per cent. rebates for disabled people which would have been a straightforward way of achieving the same purpose.
  1144
  The amendments as drafted are defective and would not achieve the effect they intend, but it is because of the policy behind them that the Government cannot accept them. Under our proposed rebate arrangements people whose net income is at or below income support level will be entitled to 80 per cent. rebates and income support recipients will also have an element included in their benefit, reflecting 20 per cent. of the average community charge. That means that someone living in an area where the community charge is below the national average will be in pocket, while people who live in areas where the charge is higher than the average will have to use a small amount of their income support to make up the difference. The fundamental principle which the amendment breaches is that everyone should have a direct interest in the level of their community charge.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Scotland there is a charitable hospital, the Erskine hospital for the military disabled, for people who have been so severely wounded during their military service that they cannot continue to live outside? There are houses within the grounds in which some disabled people live. Under this law those in the hospital itself will be wholly exempt. Those living in the houses, who at present pay no rates because they are part of a charitable hospital, will have to pay the community charge. Because they are on war disability pensions, they will certainly pay above the 20 per cent. level, if not the full charge. How does the Secretary of State explain to people who have given so much in service to their country that the Government will force them to pay taxes which they have never paid previously?
  Mr. Ridley: I do not know of that hospital or the circumstances of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. The rebate system is available and, as he knows, benefits have been uprated to meet the 20 per cent.
  Mr. Maxton: It is absolutely shameful.
  Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman gets the local authority in which the hospital is located to have a reasonable community charge, many of those people will be in pocket as a result, and not losing.
  Our whole policy aims to ensure that in taking spending decisions local authorities know that they will have an impact on all charge payers in their area who can then pass judgment in local elections. We have provided exemptions only where accountability clearly cannot work—for example, in the case of severely mentally handicapped people. There have been some serious misunderstandings on that point. In the past few days several individual cases have featured in press and radio discussions of these amendments and all the cases of which I am aware concern mentally handicapped young people living with their parents. All those individuals on the facts described would be exempt from the personal community charge. Under no circumstances would they be required to pay anything, so no question of a rebate would arise.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I am not giving way.
  I hope that I have cleared up those misunderstandings about mentally handicapped people. Obviously, those who

  1145
  do not have the capacity to comprehend the community charge should not be asked to pay it. The same is not true of people who are physically handicapped. That is the key reason why we must disagree with their Lordships over this amendment.
  In moving the amendment in another place Lord Allen of Abbeydale made clear the thinking behind it when he said:
  "to my mind, it is unrealistic to believe that the people I am talking about—namely, the blind, the halt, the lame and the mentally handicapped—should be seriously considered to be reasonable voters, balancing and assessing these nice considerations."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 1988; Vol. 499, c. 148.]
  I find that an extraordinary statement, and one that I suspect many physically handicapped people would find patronising. if not offensive. A physical handicap is no bar to playing a part in local democracy, as many people have proved. I do not accept that the majority of such disabled people would agree that they should be given special treatment in this one respect. I emphasise the words "in this one respect", because our proposed rebate system is specifically directed towards meeting the special needs of those disabled people who are not exempt, including their need to meet the 20 per cent. contribution. The rebate system is based on the net income levels used for income support.
  Mr. Tom Clarke rose——
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Ridley: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) but, as this is a short debate, I shall not give way again.
  Mr. Dalyell: Anyone who has the privilege of knowing Lord Allen of Abbeydale knows that one thing he is not is patronising. Is the Secretary of State saying that he is wrong in his assessment of the human reaction of the blind and other disabled people?
  Mr. Ridley: I strongly disagree with anybody who says that disabled people have not the ability to play their part in democracy, whether it be local or national. As the basis of the charge is that people put in funds to the minimum extent necessary to pay the minimum 20 per cent. of that charge—they have an incentive to vote according to which party they think will be the better stewards of the council—it would deny those people the respect that the House should accord to them.
  Mr. Tom Clarke rose——
  Mr. Ridley: I said that I would not give way again.
  The rebate system is based on the net income levels used for income support. Those are £13·05 a week higher for disabled people than for their able-bodied counterparts. Moreover, £15 of any income that disabled people have is disregarded for rebate purposes, as opposed to £5 for able-bodied people. The whole of any mobility or attendance allowance is disregarded as well as the first £5 of any war pension. Those are very generous arrangements, which, when applied to our proposed rebate system for this charge, will ensure that all will be able to afford their 20 per cent.
  Understandably, there has been concern about the position of disabled people who live in some high-spending inner-city areas. That has been based on forecasts of the community charge at current spending levels. There is
  1146
  ample scope for reduction in spending by 1990. Last month we announced illustrative figures for the community charge based on budgets for this financial year. In the extreme example of Camden, which has already been quoted in this context, the figures show a reduction of £143 from the illustrative charge based on last year's spending. There is no reason why that reduction should not continue and every reason to believe that it will. It is in the hands of the local authority to reduce it still further if it is concerned about disabled people or people with lower means.
  That people in some areas will pay more community charge than others is not arbitrary, nor an accident of geography, but the result of deliberate spending decisions by local authorities. It is not true that Camden needs to raise more from its community charge payers because, as an inner-city area, it has greater needs. The Government grant system acknowledges that different areas have different needs. For example, Camden's assessment shows a need to spend at the rate of £1,181 per adult, which is more than twice that of an area such as Guildford, with an assessment of £576. Therefore, the grant system acknowledges such variation in need and is so arranged that an authority, whether urban or rural, spending at need would require a community charge of £202. The gap between that and the £639 that Camden would have to charge if it spends at this year's level is quite simply a measure of overspending.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley rose——
  Mr. Ridley: I said that I would not give way. I want to let the debate take place.
  It is an essential part of our proposed system that those who take such spending decisions should be accountable to all those capable of taking part in the democratic process. Physically disabled people certainly fall within that category. We have ensured that their special needs are taken care of in the rebate system and we have provided that people who are unable to play a part in local democracy because of severe mental disability will be exempt.
  I accept that these amendments were made in another place because of a genuinely held anxiety about disabled people, but I believe there may have been some misunderstanding about the basis of the exemption for severely mentally handicapped people. The Government's record of helping disabled people is superior to that of any of their predecessors. Their needs are fully taken account of in our proposals and this extra help is unnecessary and goes against the principle of the Bill. I suggest that the House reject the amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I shall begin by putting the words of Lord Allen of Abbeygate into their correct context. I thought that it was not permissible within our Standing Orders to quote those in another place who are not Ministers, but, as the Secretary of State has been allowed to do so, I presume that I shall be allowed to do the same. Lord Allen said:
  "Whatever the complexion of the authority, it is difficult to see how many authorities in the inner-city areas with high social needs will ever be anything but above the average … It is not practicable for the poor disabled people of whom I am talking simply to up sticks and move to another area."

  1147
  Immediately after the words quoted by the Secretary of State—
  "assessing these nice considerations"
  Lord Allen said:
  "That is simply not the real world. Most of them will never struggle to the polling booths at all or wrestle with postal voting papers. Moreover, if they do, although I am no politician, it seems to me that they and their families are more likely to vote against the political party which has put them into this mess rather than trying to turn out the councillors responsible for supplying them with their much needed social services."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 5 July 1988; Vol. 499, c. 148.]
  That is a fair assessment of Lord Allen's speech.
  If this were a matter of either an 80 or a 100 per cent. rebate for the disabled, we would be speaking to another set of amendments altogether. These amendments have been tabled only because, in some panic during the general election last year, the Government announced that all poor people on means-tested benefits would have the minimum 20 per cent. poll tax added to their benefits. That was announced by another Minister. It was made clear later that the amount added to the national benefit scales would be 20 per cent. based on the national average, not the actual 20 per cent. of the poll tax. If we are not saying that every local authority, every village, every town, every shire or every city should be the same, clearly for some the poll tax will be more than the average and for some it will be less. The amendment ensures that the poor disabled on means-tested income support will not suffer by having to pay more than 20 per cent.
  The Secretary of State mentioned accountability, but he has not said that in those areas where the poll tax is below average the poor disabled will receive not a 100 per cent. rebate, but a 105 per cent., 110 per cent. or even more. They will make a net gain. How does that improve their accountability with the local council? The argument about accountability is complete fiction.
  On 5 July the Lords carried an amendment to make sure that the poor disabled get what was intended. During the general election, Ministers sought to imply, "We will operate the benefits to take account of the 20 per cent." I want to use only one set of figures.
  Mr. Ridley: During the general election, and indeed on a television broadcast with the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is not here, but I do not blame him for that, I made it absolutely clear that it was 20 per cent. of the average and not of each community charge. There was no doubt about that.
  Mr. Rooker: Whatever the Secretary of State might have said on television, that was not implied in the original statement. He did not spell it out in the reality of the pounds that people must spend. On last year's figures, the national average poll tax figure that was given to us was £225. We know that 20 per cent. of that is £45. That will be added to the national benefits scales.
  6.30 pm
  A poor disabled person may live in an area in which the poll tax is £325. I am not talking about the type of authorities to which the Secretary of State referred. There will be many areas above and below, within a margin of, say, £100. Many will be way above—several hundreds of pounds in some inner London authorities. Let us say that it is £325, and of course 25 per cent. of that is £65. The
  1148
  poor disabled will have to find £20 for food and fuel. That is the reality, and this amendment will prevent that reality coming about. They may live in a poll tax area that is below average. A good example is Kensington. The new hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) mentioned £122. That is what the Conservative party said. Twenty per cent. in Kensington is only £24, yet the benefit will be increased by £45. It does not seem fair. As Lord Allen said, disabled people cannot pull up sticks and move. It is not as simple as that in the world outside, whatever the Secretary of State might think.
  Mr. Wigley: Is it not coming over clearly to the House that the Secretary of State is using disabled people as a lever in high rate areas that might have high poll taxes? Is it not disgraceful that disabled people should be used in that way for the party political purposes of the Conservative party?
  Mr. Rooker: It is the intention of the Conservative party—it is obscene, but it is its intention—to force poor disabled people on means-tested benefits to spearhead campaigns in local authority areas to cut the poll tax to destroy their own services. That is what the Conservative party wants. It wants the bizarre situation in which poor disabled people lead campaigns to cut the very services on which they depend.
  The other place should at least have an opportunity—I suspect that it will—to look at the obscenity that the Secretary of State is proposing to the House. After all the concessions that the Government are alleged to have given—as one of my hon. Friends said, they give millions of pounds to salmon owners in Scotland—they come here to screw the poor disabled, while seeking to give the impression that such people will have their benefits made up. They will not. It is a fraud and we should support the Lords.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The panic in the last election occurred on Opposition Benches, when Opposition Members found their credibility ebbing away, largely because of the Government's record on spending on the disabled. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) looked at the spending figures, he would see the Government's record, with an 80 per cent. increase in real terms. Two thirds may represent an increase in numbers, but one third, representing £1 billion, represents real terms increases per person. The hon. Gentleman should bear that point in mind.
  We are not debating whether we should help the disabled but how we should best help them, and whether we should help them through social security benefits or by tampering with the basic principle of the community charge, which is fair and means that everybody should pay. Disabled people can play their part in society the same as everybody else. There is no reason to suppose that we should tamper with the community charge. We should look at the benefits and consider whether social security benefits are good enough.
  The average increase in reforms is £4·50 per week for the disabled and long-term sick on income support. We are talking about an average increase of £4·50 a week. If we look at the extra payments that might be called for in high-spending areas and work out the figures for Camden, on the present figures—there is scope for them to improve

  1149
  —the maximum amount that people are likely to pay is £1·30 per week. The two figures are completely out of kilter.
  It may be that an individual does not get the £4·50 per week, because of the way in which the social security reforms work, but is liable to pay the £1·30. We know that the social security reforms will be monitored. I look for changes in the administration of social security rather than a blanket increase to help the small number of individuals who may be affected.
  Their Lordships were confused. If they had looked at the social security legislation they would have realised that that is the area in which we should act to secure benefits. If we rule out the ILEA element, we are talking about only 70p a week in Camden. In Greenwich, it is 30p a week less, so there we are talking about only 40p. They are relatively small sums of money to set against an increase on average of £4·50 a week.
  That is the Government's record. The Government are helping the long-term disabled and sick. Conservative Members are helping them properly, through the social security reforms, not by tampering with every other piece of legislation. We do not ask that electricity should be cheaper for the sick and disabled. We ask them to play their proper part in society and to pay their bills the same as everybody else does. But if they need help, we should help them through social security reforms. If hon. Members find examples of people who are not being properly helped, I ask them to call for changes in social security arrangements, not to look for massive changes in the administration of the community charge. That is the way to do it.
  Hon. Members should remember the Government's excellent record on the long-term sick and disabled, with an 80 per cent. increase in spending. There are increases in invalidity benefit, attendance allowance, mobility allowance, industrial disability benefit, and the earnings limit allowances to which my hon. Friend has referred. High-spending councils should consider the ways in which they have been profligate, and should not load burdens on to the disabled. They should cut their spending accordingly.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister's speech was insensitive and, some may think, deeply unworthy of any debate on these important amendments. It gave the impression that we on this side of the House—and, by implication, the majority by which Lord Allen's amendments were approved by the House of Lords—are engaged in party warfare against him. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the amendments were carried in another place with the support of Conservative peers who were acknowledged to speak with a lifetime's experience of the problems of disabled people.
  This is not principally a conflict between the two sides of this House, but one that divides the Secretary of State from voluntary organisations of such renown that they have become household names in this country. The conflict is also one between the Secretary of State and disabled people themselves.
  My purpose in intervening in the debate is to let the House hear what disabled people and their organisations are known to feel about the Government's decision to oppose Lord Allen's amendments. In a letter sent to me for this debate, Ian Bruce, the director general of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, states:
  1150
  "On behalf of the estimated 40,000 visually handicapped people on income support, I would ask you to encourage the Government not to take this backward step. Poverty does not foster accountability: there is no greater harrier to involvement in the community for disabled people than financial hardship. We believe that the benefit system fails adequately to recognise the additional costs of disability. Rejecting this amendment can only increase those costs for many elderly blind people."
  That is not the language of party politics but one of anxious concern for some of the most vulnerable people from a distinguished representative of their cause.
  Listen also to Brian Lamb, speaking for the Spastics Society, and the very severely disabled people whom it represents. He was quoted last weekend as saying:
  "A total rebate would cost the government peanuts but the alternative may cost some disabled people their independence."
  For MENCAP, Sir Geoffrey Dalton, its secretary general, has put it to me as follows:
  "May I … point out that these amendments will promote community care … We believe that the Bill as amended in the House of Lords will enable … disabled people to play their part in community accountability, and will … provide appropriate compensation to … people on low incomes, irrespective of geographical location. We urge you to resist any attempt to reverse these amendments."
  For the Secretary of State to have given the impression that this is simply an exercise in party politics is an outrageous misrepresentation of those in the voluntary organisations who conceived and, by persuasive advocacy, won majority support for the amendment in another place. I hope that the House will do them as much justice tonight.
  There can be no doubt whatever that, if the amendments are now defeated, more disabled people will find themselves in residential institutions where, as the House knows, poll tax will not be payable. The Government sloganise about community care, but the reality of their approach to these amendments is that they are content to condemn more and more disabled people to institutional care. Their policy is not only wrong but self-defeating and inhumane. It will cost the public purse more than the extremely modest cost of the amendments and is thus irresponsible in financial terms.
  The amounts that we are discussing are trivial to the Treasury but, as Brian Lamb said for the Spastics Society, they are huge to people desperate to stay in their homes and to parents caring for their severely disabled adult children. It has been estimated that, in some localities, they will have to find in excess of £100 a year. They are people for whom every pound is a. struggle to find.
  This is a timely debate. It comes on the day of the publication by the King's Fund Institute of an independent report by Virginia Beardshaw entitled "Last on the List: Community Services for People with Physical Disabilities". I quote the first two sentences of the report's conclusions:
  "This report paints a bleak picture. It highlights substantial inadequacies in the health and social services currently available to disabled people."
  That is a report that the Secretary of State should read. If he does, he must agree that to defeat these amendments will pile handicap on handicap for disabled people. The Government promised to single out disabled people for special help. The defeat of these amendments will single them out for special hardship.
  It cannot be emphasised too strongly that these amendments seek only to ensure that disabled people on low incomes will receive a genuine 100 per cent. rebate, irrespective of where they live. We were told by The

  1151
  Sunday Times last weekend that the decision by the Secretary of State to resist the amendments will trigger a Tory rebellion at the end of the debate. Much to his credit, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) was quoted as saying:
  "We will be doing what we can … to persuade the Government not to reverse these amendments. A considerable number of disabled people will be hit hard."
  I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman's views, speaking as he does as an hon. Member who has given outstanding service to many organisations of and for disabled people, will be listened to with respect by Conservative Members. I ask his colleagues not to act party politically but to join in supporting amendments which, outside the House, have won enormous support from people of all parties and of none.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Hannam: I have listened carefully to the explanation given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for asking the House to reject the Lords amendment, which seeks to give parity to all disabled people on low incomes. I regret to say that I cannot accept the Government's position. I say that with some regret because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), in all other respects I have the greatest admiration for the help given to the handicapped by the Government.
  Here we have a compassionate measure introduced in the other place by Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the president of MENCAP and a former much respected senior civil servant. It was supported by 124 peers of all parties and has the backing of all the major disablement charities, plus the Royal College of Nursing. The amendment provides a formula whereby the maximum rebate level not only applies where the community charge is lower than or equal to the national average but ensures that disabled people on low incomes in all areas get the 100 per cent. rebate. The amendment is designed primarily to help those people who are disabled and on income support—the poorest of the disabled. Only those people will receive 100 per cent. rebate, regardless of where they live. That is the crux of the debate.
  The Government's position, which I can understand in theory, is that these people will receive a 100 per cent. rebate only if they live in an area where the community charge is average or below average and that in higher spending authorities the principle of voting accountability must apply. Being what it means, an average has to produce a large number above the median level and a large number below, and the highest charges will generally fall in deprived inner-city areas where greater concentrations of low-income disabled people inevitably live.
  In effect, the Government are saying that a disabled person on a low income living in a local authority area where the community charge will be average or below average will get a 100 per cent. rebate, or even, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has admitted, more than 100 per cent. A poor disabled resident who lives in an above-average spending area will, for the sake of a theoretical voting pressure, have to pay the extra and will not get a full rebate, and this extra will amount to £75 or £100 each year.
  1152
  What are these people supposed to do? Like most severely disabled, blind or mentally subnormal people living in the community, they cannot easily move across the boundary into another area. First, the cost of moving is far too great, and, secondly, suitable housing and support facilities would have to be available in the area. This is particularly unrealistic if we look at the number of special needs housing and mobility starts made now compared with 10 years ago. The number has decreased from 10,560 then to only 1,239 last year. We have reached a plateau of special needs housing, which means that there is not the flexibility to allow those disabled people to move easily from one area to another. In inner-city areas there are more low-income disabled, and their needs are one reason why those areas often have higher than average expenditure.
  The alternative for those disabled people and for the mentally subnormal, who are often included in this category, is to stay in institutional care. This is one of the great worries of disablement organisations, especially the Royal College of Nursing, which has written specifically about this to me.
  People in residential care do not have to pay the community charge, but if they move out into the community they will be liable to pay it. That runs counter to the Government's philosophy on the care in the community programme. Surely we should not penalise disabled people for moving into the community just because that area happens to have a high-spending local authority as opposed to a low-spending one.
  The principle of accountability for this small group of people, which runs through the debate and about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is anxious, is liable to act as a direct disincentive to the care in the community programme. Going back into residential care would, of course, cost astronomically more than the amount that would be required to make up the 100 per cent. rebate.
  What kind of disabled family are we talking about? Often, we find that one disabled person marries another disabled person. As we know, the community charge multiplies the payment that has to be made by the number of people in the household. Many disabled people are married, and they may have a handicapped child. There are many cases of families with two or three disabled and handicapped people living in the same house and needing special care at home. Often, they are not sufficiently severely mentally handicapped to qualify for exemption. From postbags and constituency experience, all hon. Members know of the stresses and strains inherent in looking after such handicapped adults in the family. Is it right to force another financial burden on those families, just because they happen to live in an inner-city area rather than in one where the community charge is lower than the average?
  When the Scottish Bill was going through the House of Lords, Lord Glenarthur, the Minister, gave a commitment that certain groups of disabled people would be eligible for 100 per cent. rebates. He repeated the commitment when he was questioned, but it was never honoured, although the Government carried out their side of the bargain, to the extent that they wanted, through the income support level and its uprating. The increase of £1·25, which is the national weekly average of the community charge, is hardly 100 per cent. compensation for the community charge in high-spending areas. A disabled person in a

  1153
  below-average area will get more than 100 per cent. of the charge, whereas others, who are equally poor and disabled but who live in above-average areas, will be penalised.
  Lord Allen's vital amendment seeks to ensure that disabled people on benefit will not face a new financial burden because of the community charge. The crucial point is that that does not contradict the basic principle of the Bill. Disabled people on low incomes will still have to make an initial payment of their community charge for the cost of local services. They will then have to apply for the rebate, which they will receive at a later date. All of them will receive the initial impact of the expenditure of their local authority and the amount that they will have to pay, so accountability will be preserved, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is so anxious to ensure.
  The amount of money involved is not large from the Government's perspective, but for the disabled person on the bottom level of income and who faces all the extra costs associated with disability, an extra £10, £20, £25, £50 or £75 can represent an impossible burden. I understand my right hon. Friend's concern about accountabilty and I support that principle. But when it is applied differently in different areas to people with similar disabilities it is wrong. I ask my hon. Friends to join me in voting for the retention of this worthwhile and compassionate amendment.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: When we discuss Lords amendment No. 171, we must consider Lords amendments Nos. 300, 302, 303 and 304, although they are timetabled to be debated later on. Lords amendment No. 171 is essentially a paving amendment to others that seek to help people with disabilities.
  The amendment was proposed in the other place by the Cross Bencher, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and it seeks to help elderly and disabled people to pay their poll tax. It is similar in that respect to amendments tabled by myself and others in the House of Commons. There are, however, crucial differences between the amendment that I moved and Lords amendment No. 171. I sought to introduce a potential 100 per cent. rebate for those on certain benefits. The Government's response was that the amendment was unacceptable because it undermined the concept of accountability. Lord Allen did all that he could to take that point on board and he modified his amendment as a result.
  Under the amendment, all old and disabled people, as defined by eligibility by certain benefits, will still have to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax. In theory, they should get that 20 per cent. contribution back through upratings in benefit that the Government have promised. As has been said, the problem is that the uprating will be based on the national average for the poll tax, so that people living in areas of higher than average poll tax will be out of pocket. Those people—by definition—will be the most vulnerable members of the community. Without exception, they will be those least able to pay the poll tax.
  The Lord Allen amendment proposes a community charge additional element to help those who would otherwise lose. It would bridge the gap between the amount that they receive in their benefit towards their 20 per cent. contribution and their actual poll tax liability.
  In promising benefit upratings, the Government acknowledge that the very poorest need help in paying their 20 per cent. poll tax contribution. It is on the basis of
  1154
  need that that help will be given. However, by linking the upratings to the national average poll tax level the Government would create a hopelessly imprecise system. Some people will not have enough to meet their poll tax bill, whereas others will gain. By contrast the amendment seeks to target resources precisely. It would carry through what the Government said they would do and what they acknowledge is necessary. After all, they are giving the money because it is needed; it is not a handout. It is riot a reward for living in a low-spending authority area. Its non-payment is not a penalty for living in a high-spending authority area. It is based on need.
  Mr. David Wilshire: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the Government and the Bill will not cause people to be out of pocket? It is the high-spending authorities that will cause the problems.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we are talking not about the present arrangements but about the arrangements that the Government wish to introduce, and that is an end to the matter.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Lords amendment prescribe that excess relief in low-spending authorities should be withdrawn and, if not, where is the logic in that?
  Mr. Taylor: If the Government or the hon. Gentleman should wish to propose such an amendment to help the disabled people who will lose, it would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, that is not the basis of the Government's argument, which is that there should be a penalty and an attempt to bribe people into voting one way or another—or more accurately, as they cannot do without the money, to force them to vote one way or the other.
  The precise targeting of benefit is one of the stock lines of the Department of Health and Social Security. We hear it from the Government whenever they threaten to abolish the universal payment of child benefit. Ministers tell us that resources must be directed to where they are needed most. Why, then, do they propose to add amounts to benefits that will be more than some people need but much less than others need? It is not even sensible in the Government's financial terms because it will force people out of community care and into residential care. That will cost more in the end because those disabled people will be unable to vote for proper community care services within their local authority.
  Perhaps the most despicable argument advanced by the Government against the amendment is that it would cost too much. A report in The Guardian on 19 July—no doubt the result of a Department of the Environment briefing—said that the Government found Lord Allen's proposal unacceptable because it could cost up to £100 million in lost poll tax revenue. But that £100 million of revenue represents the amount paid by the very poorest among the old and the disabled.
  Mr. Ridley: I may make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that in no circumstances should The Guardian ever be taken as representing what is one word of Government policy.
  7 pm
  Mr. Taylor: Perhaps the Secretary of State will elaborate. Can he tell the House whether the figure of £100 million is one that the Department of the Environment calculated, and whether it gave it to The Guardian? Can he confirm whether that is the scale of the expected cost? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to answer that question, obviously the answer must be yes.
  As I have said, that £100 million is the amount that will be paid by the very poorest and the oldest in meeting the differences between the help they receive in benefit to pay poll tax and their actual poll tax bill. It is not money from benefits but money from their own pockets. It is money that the Government said the very poorest—let alone the elderly and the disabled—would not have to pay. It is money that the Government said they needed to live on, to heat their homes, and to clothe themselves. Yet the Government will not allow them that money if the Lords amendment is rejected. If those payments add up to £100 million, that in itself is a condemnation of the poll tax. It is a £100 million tax bill being dumped on the elderly and disabled, with no rebate, no extra benefit, and no assistance being given.
  Conservative Members who have voted for a certain level of benefit, because the Government recognised the needs of the elderly and the disabled, should reflect on the fact that if they now back the Government in rejecting the Lords amendment, they are saying to them, "We said that you needed those benefits, and that you could not get by without them. But if you are unlucky enough to live in the area of a local authority that spends above the average, you will have those benefits taken away from you." Do Conservative Members accept that there is still that need for benefits, or will they reject that and go for the greed of a Government who would rather buy votes than accept their responsibilities?
  Sir George Young: I hope that the House will leave the Lords amendment untouched. I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he advised the House to resist the amendment. His argument rested on accountability, and that the philosophy behind the Bill was that councils should take spending decisions in the knowledge that they will have an impact on all the community charge payers in their area. He commented that it was patronising towards the disabled to exempt them and that they wanted to be treated as ordinary members of the community.
  My right hon. Friend's case begins to disintegrate, however, because the Government have accepted exemption for a group of people who have a lesser claim than those for whom the amendment seeks exemption. I refer to residents of nursing homes and residential care homes, many of which hon. Members have visited in their own constituencies. Everyone in such homes is entitled to vote. Many of them benefit from local authority services, particularly if the residential care home is run by a local authority. Many have substantial sums of money and are well off. Others suffer no disability but are simply fragile. They are all totally insulated from the community charge, and the Government have said that they are not part of the accountability argument.
  If such people are to be exempt, and if they are to be no worse off because of the community charge, the poor and disabled have at least as strong a case for exemption. I
  1156
  have general reservations about the whole impact of this policy, but if the Government have exempted well-off people in nursing homes—who can vote, who benefit from local authority services, and who know what is going on—then, in fairness, the Government ought also to insulate the poor and the disabled, whom another place has quite rightly identified in this amendment.
  Mr. Jack Ashley: Tonight is an occasion for frank speaking. We ought to recognise and remember that we hold in trust the hopes of many thousands of very severely disabled people. The House must choose between defending their interests and being spurred on by political claptrap. We have heard a great deal of political claptrap from the Secretary of State, who should be ashamed of the speech that he made. He was wise to refuse interruptions because, although he doubtless read his brief very well, he made one of the worst cases that I have heard for a very long time.
  It really gets my goat when the Government say it is a matter of pride for the disabled to participate in society, but then proceed to kick them, to hit their pockets, and to pretend that they are concerned with the pride of disabled people. If we are concerned about the disabled, the way to help them to keep their pride is to give them enough cash to live decently. The Secretary of State greatly upsets me when he claims that giving assistance would be to patronise the disabled. It is only patronising if one talks down to the disabled and says, "Of course they can play their part in society", but then refuses to help them. I am very sorry that the Secretary of State unfortunately made the kind of speech that he did.
  Lords amendment No. 171 gives to very disabled people on income support a 100 per cent. rebate of community charge, regardless of where they live, whereas the Government are forcing them to be reluctant participants in a monstrous lottery. In that enforced gamble, the disabled will win or lose according to where they live. The Secretary of State was wrong to say that it is not a matter of geography, because it is. The outcome will depend entirely on where a person lives as to whether he will gain or lose. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that most disabled are very poor and cannot afford to move. They find themselves hopelessly and helplessly trapped where they are, and they are being cornered by the Government. I believe that that is the Government's intention.
  I do not want to get too personal, but I wish to warn the Secretary of State that people are very worried that the Government are not doing what they can to help the disabled. In the House of Lords, Conservative peers were simply trying to help the severely disabled. I refer not to someone who has lost a finger or who is hard of hearing, but to the severely disabled.
  Tonight, the House must be left in no doubt about the consequences of voting down this amendment. The first consequence will be the imposition of severe and, in some cases, unbearable burdens on the losers among the severely disabled. I accept the Secretary of State's assurance that the mentally handicapped will not be included. He was right to correct their Lordships on that point, and I accept his correction. Nevertheless, there remain the gravely disabled who are paralysed or fragile and who are unable to wash, dress or feed themselves. They are in a dreadful situation. I am not speaking of people suffering only from

  1157
  minor physical blemishes. They will be the losers if this amendment is defeated, and I hope that Conservative Members will bear that in mind.
  Rejecting the amendment will mean dividing families, because some disabled people will be forced into institutions. There is no shadow of doubt about that. That will be at enormous personal cost to the people involved and tremendous financial cost to the Government.
  Forcing severely disabled people into institutions is to rob them of their independence. That is the crime of totalitarian Governments across the world—I place it as high as that. It is serious to rob anybody of his or her independence, yet that is what will happen if the amendment is defeated. I beg the Secretary of State to reconsider and I beg his supporters, who are entitled to back him on other issues, to think again.
  The defeat of the amendment will expose Ministers as dogmatic and heartless political theorists acting on a bogus political principle against people who are helpless. It will also establish the amazing precedent of a Government admitting their willingness—indeed, determination—to hit some very severely disabled people. No verbal dexterity can rationalise or excuse that.
  The defeat of the amendment will provoke the House of Lords into bringing it forward again and embarrassing the Government. If the Secretary of State wants to challenge that group in the House of Lords, it is a matter for his political judgment. I think that he is making a terrible political error, and I urge him to think again. I urge Conservative Members to ensure that the amendment is not defeated. If they obey the party Whips, they will be condoning a disgraceful and shameful attack on the most vulnerable members of our society. Only a sick society and a pathetic House of Commons would allow that.
  Mr. John Maples: The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is always listened to with great respect when he speaks on this subject. He has, as always, spoken with great conviction and passion on behalf of the disabled. His arguments may amount to a good case for more generous treatment of the disabled by our social security system, but I do not think—I hope that I can demonstrate why—that his arguments amount to a case for a blanket exemption from a general system of local taxation, which is different.
  The Labour party's enthusiasm for the amendment makes one wonder why it did not propose it and why it waited for an Independent peer to do so. It makes one wonder whether their enthusiasm is slightly artificial and whether it is yet another opportunity to make mischief and drag out the debate.
  The provisions in the amendment are unnecessary and misconceived. They are unnecessary because already under the rebate system substantial additional provisions are made for the disabled, designed to take account of their additional needs, and that is right. The applicable amounts for deduction from the incomes of disabled people are considerably higher. If disabled people were receiving the additional social security benefit to which they are entitled, they could be receiving an income of up to about £80 a week more than an able-bodied person before losing any of their community charge rebate. Therefore, a substantial move has already been made towards making the system easier on the disabled.
  We are talking about relatively small sums of money. I know that what may appear to be small sums of money for
  1158
  most of us may not be so for those on benefit. However, in this case we are talking about small sums of money. The large community charge figures bandied around are notional figures. They ignore the safety net. I think that I am right in saying that of all the community charge areas in London that will have high figures, very few of them will be over £300 or £350 in the first year of the safety net. Therefore, we are talking about £20 or £25 over the year, or about 40p a week.
  I do not believe that the community charge in areas such as mine—Lewisham—will be equivalent to the figures bandied about. Enormous savings can be made and there are five years in which to make them. The scope for the reduction of the community charge is great. Lewisham at present has a notional figure of £575. Incidentally, it is £100 less than last year, with no appreciable pain and suffering among the users of Lewisham council's services. The scope for reducing that by a further £100 a year for another three years and having a community charge of about £275 is easy to realise. If that is the case, one would be talking about the amendment saving people about 30p or 40p a week. Therefore, we are talking about a minimal sum.
  7.15 pm
  The amendment is misconceived for two reasons. First, it runs counter to the principle of accountability, which is central to the idea of the community charge. That principle is that people should play some role in local government by their vote or their participation in it. It makes sense to exempt the mentally handicapped on the ground that they cannot participate, but it is palpably untrue to say that the physically handicapped cannot do so.
  Secondly, there may be arguments for providing particular groups in our community with additional social security benefit. However, those are not of themselves arguments for exempting those people from particular systems of taxation. I believe the contrary. It is part of the universal benefits argument. It results in the misapplication of money. If disabled people ought to be receiving higher social security benefit, let us have an argument about that. However, it is not an argument for exempting them from part of a general system of taxation. There are plenty of other groups which I am sure the Opposition could latch on to in the same way if they so desired.
  If this is such an important matter and such an important principle is at stake, one cannot help wondering why the Opposition did not think of it themselves. I cannot understand why they did not propose it in respect of the 20 per cent. of rates that people have to pay in the intervening period.
  Mr. RookerOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that we are under a guillotine motion, but what the hon. Gentleman is saying from a Central Office brief is not true. The Labour party proposed the amendments in Committee and the Government rejected them.
  Mr. Maples: I do not think that that was a point of order and I am reading, not from a Central Office brief, but from my own handwriting. I asked why the Opposition needed an Independent peer to propose the amendment and why they did not do so themselves.
  Mr. Rooker: What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Maples: It leads one to believe that they are jumping on a bandwagon that somebody else has set in motion. The Opposition are dragging out this debate on something that is unnecessary and misconceived.
  Mr. Douglas: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who referred to a group of people who will be totally exempt from the community charge—those who live in residential homes. What do politicians do when elections are called, either for local government or central Government? One of the first groups of people that we ensure are covered by the provision of a vote are those who reside in old folks' homes. We want them to vote. The Secretary of State's principle of accountability is nullified in relation to that group of people.
  In my constituency we would be foolish politicians if we did not make darn sure early in the campaign that everyone who is eligible is given a postal vote. However, the Secretary of State says that he is exempting that group of people. Where is the principle of accountability?
  The Secretary of State said that we have maligned the disabled because there is a suggestion that they are not fit to participate in the affairs of the community. What does the Secretary of State have to say about the severely mentally handicapped who are exempt under the Bill? Does that mean that someone who is exempt under this obnoxious Bill should be removed from the electoral roll? Is that a quid pro quo?
  Earlier, the Minister of State alluded to my perambulations. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to cry, "Stupid," from a sedentary position, let me tell them that the Minister of State alluded to my perambulations. I do not want to detain the House in this important debate, but my impression, within the past two or three weeks, is that the more the people of this country know about the Bill, the less they like it. I challenge any of the pussy-footing guys on the other side of the House to come back with me to Edinburgh and explain the Bill to the folk, particularly in England.
  My last speech of the last Parliament related to the subject of the severely mentally handicapped. The Bill states:
  "A person is severely mentally handicapped if he is suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which involves severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning."
  That must be certified by a medical practitioner. The Secretary of State is not just asking people to identify the poor, which is bad enough; he is also asking people with elderly relatives to identify them so that they can obtain exemption when this spurious piece of legislation is on the statute book. I believe that, on other occasions, the Secretary of State is quite humane.
  This is a farce of a Bill. The more people get to know about it, the less they like it. If it is so good, why do we not all have it at the same time? If it is so good, let us all have it in 1989 or, conversely, let the people of Scotland wait until 1990, like the rest of the people in the United Kingdom, so that we can all suffer equally.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has won the argument to date. He has a record of working very hard on issues of this kind; that is well recognised on both sides of the House.
  1160
  I am sorry to have to say it, but the principle of everyone paying at least 20 per cent. is not the only valuable principle. It has its merits, and I certainly support it as a general principle, but that does not mean that there cannot be any exceptions to it. Legislating is to do with general principles. It is also to do with making human exceptions to those. It is a matter of balance. That is what our legislation is about, and I have to say that the balance of the argument goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and those who have supported this important set of amendments—people from all parties in the other place—and that is why I shall find myself in the Lobby in favour of the series of amendments passed from another place.
  Mr. O'Brien: A couple of points should be placed on record on the important subject of the poll tax and how it applies to the disabled. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) raised a number of issues which were not new. They were raised by Labour Members in Committee. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not read the Official Report or taken note of what was said in Committee and I must put it on record that the points that we raised were turned down by his colleagues in Committee.
  I also want to make it clear to the Secretary of State that, when the Labour party was in office, it increased expenditure on the disabled over five years by over 300 per cent. One of the issues with which we dealt was the mobility allowance, which is very much appreciated by people. The Labour Government therefore made considerable provision for expenditure on the disabled.
  We also hope that the Minister will clarify the issue of the uprating of the compensation element year on year because no provision has been made for the uprating of the element and it will soon lose value in relation to the poll tax if there is no assurance that uprating will take place each year.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of some of the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the important issue of the application of the poll tax to disabled people. I hope that we shall uphold the decision of the House of Lords on this important issue.
  Mr. Ridley: I shall first answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about the compensation element. All DHSS benefits, of which that is one, are uprated annually in the annual social security review according to the figures at that time.
  Typically, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) scored a pretty good own goal at the beginning of our debate. He quoted Lord Allen and went on to say that it was difficult to see how many authorities in the inner city would ever be anything but above the average. Let me draw his attention to the fact that, in Birmingham, on this year's figures, the charge is £218, whereas the average is £246. I congratulate that inner city area of Birmingham.
  Mr. Rooker: What about the surcharge?
  Mr. Ridley: Throughout the debate, we have referred to figures without including the safety net. The hon. Gentleman will not get away with that.
  That is an inner-city area where the disabled benefit from what we have proposed, as have other people who will be on rebates because they have a council that performs effectively at a low community charge rate. If

  1161
  councils want to help the less well-off, whether or not they are disabled, they will have it in their own means to have a below-average community charge, like the inner-city area of Birmingham.
  Mr. Tom Clarke rose——
  Mr. Wigley: That is not the fault of disabled people.
  Mr. Ridley: I pay tribute to that. The way that the Opposition have suggested that it is an accident that there are high community charges in some places and not in others is absolutely monstrous.
  Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State does not give a damn for disabled people.
  Mr. Ridley: If the Opposition want to have low community charges for people on low means, they have the solution in their own hands.
  Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State is using disabled people.
  Mr. Ridley: Let me deal with the crux of the argument.
  Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself.
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) got the point right. He pointed out that the highest amount in Camden by which anybody could fall short on their 20 per cent. payment was £1·30 a week or £83 a year, not the £100 that has been quoted.
  Mr. Wigley: That is a lot of money to disabled people. Has the Secretary of State ever tried living on that sort of money?
  Mr. Ridley: That figure is the highest of all councils in this country. I challenge Camden council to reduce its figure. It is up to Camden to do that.
  I should like to make it quite clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) has said, the amount that the Government have added to the average weekly income of disabled people in the social security review is £4·50 per week, which in many cases leaves disabled people £80 per week better off than their able-bodied counterparts——
  Mr. Tom Clarke rose——
  Mr. Ridley: The way to help disabled people is the way that the Government have chosen over the years—to give disabled people more disposable income of their own——
  Mr. David Winnick rose——
  Mr. Wigley rose——
  Mr. Ridley: That is the right way to do it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign".]—and Opposition Members know it.
  It being half-past Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 216.

  Division No. 428]

  [7.30 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Alexander, Richard

  Amos, Alan

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  1162

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Ashby, David

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Atkins, Robert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Atkinson, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baldry, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Batiste, Spencer

  Franks, Cecil

  Bellingham, Henry

  Freeman, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  French, Douglas

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fry, Peter

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gale, Roger

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gardiner, George

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Body, Sir Richard

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gorst, John

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gow, Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bowis, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gregory, Conal

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bright, Graham

  Grist, Ian

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Ground, Patrick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

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

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Buck, Sir Antony

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

  Burns, Simon

  Harris, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butcher, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butler, Chris

  Hayward, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Heddle, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Cash, William

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hill, James

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chope, Christopher

  Holt, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Hordern, Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Irving, Charles

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David

  Jackson, Robert

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

  Janman, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Kilfedder, James

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Durant, Tony

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Knowles, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Farr, Sir John

  Lang, Ian

  Favell, Tony

  Latham, Michael

  1163

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Ryder, Richard

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lightbown, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  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

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Speed, Keith

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Madel, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maples, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sumberg, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mellor, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Miller, Sir 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

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tracey, Richard

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Tredinnick, David

  Mudd, David

  Trippier, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Trotter, Neville

  Nelson, Anthony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neubert, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Ward, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Warren, Kenneth

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Watts, John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wells, Bowen

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whitney, Ray

  Portillo, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Price, Sir David

  Wilkinson, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wilshire, David

  Redwood, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Riddick, Graham

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Woodcock, Mike

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rost, Peter

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Rowe, Andrew

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Adley, Robert

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Allen, Graham

  1164

  Alton, David

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Anderson, Donald

  George, Bruce

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Gould, Bryan

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Graham, Thomas

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Battle, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Beckett, Margaret

  Hannam, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Hardy, Peter

  Bell, Stuart

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Benyon, W.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Henderson, Doug

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hinchliffe, David

  Blair, Tony

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Boateng, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bradley, Keith

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Buckley, George J.

  Illsley, Eric

  Caborn, Richard

  Janner, Greville

  Callaghan, Jim

  John, Brynmor

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cartwright, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lambie, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lamond, James

  Clay, Bob

  Leighton, Ron

  Clelland, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cohen, Harry

  Lewis, Terry

  Coleman, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cousins, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Cox, Tom

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cryer, Bob

  McCartney, Ian

  Cummings, John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McKelvey, William

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McLeish, Henry

  Dalyell, Tam

  McNamara, Kevin

  Darling, Alistair

  McTaggart, Bob

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McWilliam, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Madden, Max

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

  Maginnis, Ken

  Dewar, Donald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dixon, Don

  Marek, Dr John

  Dobson, Frank

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Doran, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Douglas, Dick

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Martlew, Eric

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Eastham, Ken

  Meacher, Michael

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Meale, Alan

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Michael, Alun

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Fisher, Mark

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Flannery, Martin

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Flynn, Paul

  Morley, Elliott

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foster, Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Foulkes, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Nellist, Dave

  Fyfe, Maria

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galbraith, Sam

  O'Brien, William

  Galloway, George

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Parry, Robert

  1165

  Patchett, Terry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pike, Peter L.

  Squire, Robin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prescott, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Straw, Jack

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Redmond, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Vaz, Keith

  Reid, Dr John

  Wall, Pat

  Richardson, Jo

  Walley, Joan

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robertson, George

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wray, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

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

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Adam Ingram.

  Soley, Clive

  Question agreed to.
  Lords amendment 171 accordingly disagreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 24 and 26:—
  The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 177.

  Division No. 429]

  [7.46 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Burt, Alistair

  Alexander, Richard

  Butcher, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Amos, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkins, Robert

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Chope, Christopher

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Baldry, Tony

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

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Colvin, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Conway, Derek

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Couchman, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Curry, David

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

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

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Day, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Devlin, Tim

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dicks, Terry

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brazier, Julian

  Dover, Den

  Bright, Graham

  Dunn, Bob

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Durant, Tony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Evennett, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  1166

  Fallon, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Farr, Sir John

  Lightbown, David

  Favell, Tony

  Lilley, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lord, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forman, Nigel

  McKelvey, William

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maclean, David

  Forth, Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Freeman, Roger

  Madel, David

  French, Douglas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, George

  Maples, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gow, Ian

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mellor, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gregory, Conal

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grist, Ian

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moate, Roger

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hannam,John

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

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

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayward, Robert

  Neubert, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hill, James

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hind, Kenneth

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Paice, James

  Holt, Richard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Howard, Michael

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Portillo, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Price, Sir David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Irving, Charles

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jackson, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Janman, Tim

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rost, Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Ryder, Richard

  Kilfedder, James

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Knowles, Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  1167

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Tracey, Richard

  Speed, Keith

  Tredinnick, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Viggers, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Walden, George

  Stern, Michael

  Wallace, James

  Stevens, Lewis

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stokes, Sir John

  Watts, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wilshire, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thorne, Neil

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Allen, Graham

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Anderson, Donald

  Eastham, Ken

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fatchett, Derek

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Fisher, Mark

  Barron, Kevin

  Flannery, Martin

  Battle, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Beckett, Margaret

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Galbraith, Sam

  Blair, Tony

  Galloway, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Boyes, Roland

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bradley, Keith

  George, Bruce

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Graham, Thomas

  Buckley, George J.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Canavan, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Cartwright, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clay, Bob

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Home Robertson, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Ingram, Adam

  Cummings, John

  John, Brynmor

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Darling, Alistair

  Lambie, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lamond, James

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Leighton, Ron

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

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dixon, Don

  Lewis, Terry

  Dobson, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Doran, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Douglas, Dick

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  1168

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  McAllion, John

  Reid, Dr John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Richardson, Jo

  McCartney, Ian

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  McLeish, Henry

  Rogers, Allan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rowlands, Ted

  McWilliam, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Maginnis, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Short, Clare

  Marek, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meacher, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Strang, Gavin

  Michael, Alun

  Straw, Jack

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Turner, Dennis

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Vaz, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wall, Pat

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Walley, Joan

  Morley, Elliott

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Nellist, Dave

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Parry, Robert

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Patchett, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wray, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Prescott, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. William McKelvey.

  Redmond, Martin

  Question agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 26 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Mr. Alistair Burt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It should be noted that the Government offered a concession on the last group of amendments on which the House was forced to vote. Have we not just been through an enormous waste of time——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I have taken the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a debating point, not a point of order for the Chair.
  Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 218 to 233:—
  The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 157.

  Division No. 430]

  [7.57 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Amos, Alan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Atkinson, David

  Bowis, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Baldry, Tony

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Bellingham, Henry

  Brazier, Julian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Bright, Graham

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Bevan, David Gilroy

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

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  1169

  Burt, Alistair

  Hind, Kenneth

  Butcher, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Butler, Chris

  Holt, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Howard, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cash, William

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Irving, Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jack, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Jackson, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Janman, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jessel, Toby

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Couchman, James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Cran, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Key, Robert

  Curry, David

  Kilfedder, James

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Devlin, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knowles, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dunn, Bob

  Lang, Ian

  Durant, Tony

  Latham, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Favell, Tony

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  McCrindle, Robert

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  McKelvey, William

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Maclean, David

  Forman, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Forth, Eric

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Madel, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  French, Douglas

  Mans, Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Maples, John

  Gale, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marlow, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gow, Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mellor, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gregory, Conal

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moate, Roger

  Grist, Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hannam, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

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

  Mudd, David

  Harris, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Neubert, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayward, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Page, Richard

  Hill, James

  Paice, James

  1170

  Patnick, Irvine

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Portillo, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Price, Sir David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Redwood, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thorne, Neil

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Tracey, Richard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tredinnick, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Trippier, David

  Rost, Peter

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rowe, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Walden, George

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Ward, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Watts, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wheeler, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whitney, Ray

  Sims, Roger

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wilshire, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speed, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stern, Michael

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mr. Richard Ryder.

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cummings, John

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Darling, Alistair

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dixon, Don

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Battle, John

  Douglas, Dick

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Beggs, Roy

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Bell, Stuart

  Eastham, Ken

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fatchett, Derek

  Blair, Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boateng, Paul

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

  Bradley, Keith

  Fisher, Mark

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Buckley, George J.

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Canavan, Dennis

  George, Bruce

  Cartwright, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clay, Bob

  Graham, Thomas

  Cohen, Harry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Corbett, Robin

  Hardy, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cousins, Jim

  Haynes, Frank

  Cox, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  1171

  Home Robertson, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Parry, Robert

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Prescott, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ingram, Adam

  Redmond, Martin

  John, Brynmor

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Richardson, Jo

  Kennedy, Charles

  Rogers, Allan

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leighton, Ron

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Litherland, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Loyden, Eddie

  Short, Clare

  McAllion, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  McKelvey, William

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McLeish, Henry

  Strang, Gavin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Straw, Jack

  McWilliam, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Vaz, Keith

  Maginnis, Ken

  Wall, Pat

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Walley, Joan

  Marek, Dr John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Maxton, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Meale, Alan

  Winnick, David

  Michael, Alun

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Worthington, Tony

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mullin, Chris

  Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mr. George Galloway.

  Murphy, Paul

  Nellist, Dave

  Question agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 218 to 233 agreed to.

SCHEDULE 2

  COMMUNITY CHARGES: ADMINISTRATION
  Lords amendment: No. 234, in page 87, line 51, at end insert—
  "13A.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may include provision that no duty of confidentiality shall prevent the Secretary of State from disclosing relevant information to a registration officer for a charging authority.
  (2) Information is relevant information if—

  (a) it was obtained by the Secretary of State in exercising his functions 1986 c. 50, under the Social Security Act 1986,

  (b) the Secretary of State believes it would be useful to the registration officer in exercising his functions under this Parliament, and

  (c) it falls within a prescribed description."

  Read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a) and Lords amendments Nos. 235 to 237, 246, 249, 253 to 255, 257, 259, 260, 261 and 265.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), at end insert—
  '(3) Where the relevant information is personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1984, any interpretation of the meaning of the first data protection principle, or any restriction in the exercising of the powers of the data protection registrar in relation to any of the data protection
  1172
  principles shall not apply, and any disclosure of personal data shall not be subject to the non-disclosure provisions of the Act.'.
  It would be helpful perhaps to explain what Lords amendment No. 234 is about. It means that
  "no duty of confidentiality shall prevent the Secretary of State from disclosing relevant information to a registration officer"
  for the collection of the poll tax. Then it describes the relevant information. If it is obtained by the Secretary of State under the Social Security Act 1986 for social security purposes it can be passed to the poll tax registrar. If the Secretary of State believes that such information would be useful for the collection of the poll tax, or even if it falls within the prescribed description and was previously not allowed to be passed on, the Secretary of State can do so. That means that he can pass that information to the poll tax registrar.
  The amendment gives the Secretary of State remarkable powers that are not just excessive but almost dictatorial in nature. My amendment (a) seeks to correct the situation and to bring some sense to the measure. If it is not changed, Lords amendment No. 234 would dramatically compromise three of the eight data protection principles. That compromise would be fundamental and the other principles would also be adversely affected. The first principle to be compromised is the principle that personal data shall be obtained and processed fairly and lawfully. As a guide to interpreting this principle, the data protection registrar was advised that data users should, first, explain to the person why the information was required; secondly, ensure that people are not misled about why the information is required; and, thirdly, explain why the information would be used or disclosed. Those recommendations are in the data protection registrar's guideline No. 4.
  The problem is that in the public sector most personal data are deemed to be collected fairly and are often required to be collected according to some statute or other. That is often true of personal data collected by the Secretary of State for the purposes of carrying out his statutory functions. The Secretary of State need not follow the registrar's advice that I have mentioned and need not explain to a person why information is required. The worst part is that it is quite lawful for him to mislead people about why the information is required, used or disclosed. It is unacceptable for such a state of affairs to be enshrined in statute.
  The possibility of duping people should never be an acceptable means of administration and it could have damaging consequences. For example, people might be afraid to come into contact with officialdom in any way, shape or form and, for that reason, might not get the rights to which they are entitled. Secondly, it could well lead to the build-up of hatred against an untrusted and untrustworthy administration. Those are the dangerous consequences of allowing people to be duped. In any case it is against the whole philosophy of the Data Protection Act 1984, which aims at fair treatment and protection for people against the misuse of information held about them. It is wrong that the Secretary of State should be able to breach that first data protection principle.
  8.15 pm
  The third data protection principle is seriously compromised. For example, section 34(5)(a) of the Data Protection Act describes the non-disclosure condition whereby personal data are disclosed by or under any

  1173
  enactment. Section 26(3) of the Data Protection Act says that such a disclosure is not subject to the enforcement powers of the registrar. The registrar has such powers for any other sort of disclosure but not in this respect.
  The section also says:
  "by reference to any data protection principle inconsistent with the disclosure in question."
  The key word in that part of the Act is "any," because it means that all eight of the data protection principles are at risk. These non-disclosure exemptions need not be registered with the data protection registrar, so there is a reduced chance of his ever finding out about them. That is a complex aspect of the matter. In short, it means that the registrar is utterly powerless to prevent abuse and in many cases he will be ignorant of the myriad disclosures of personal data that will be required to produce the poll tax registers. The data protection registrar's important role as a quasi-ombudsman and investigator of data abuse is seriously undermined in respect of information obtained for collecting the poll tax under this Lords amendment.
  The final data protection principle to be abused is the fourth one—that personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which the data are used.
  The principle allows the data protection registrar to investigate the reason for an item of personal data being held. That is not the case for the poll tax register and the Secretary of State's powers. The Bill is littered with powers enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations about the personal data to be kept. It is the Secretary of State who will decide the items of data to be kept. Those could very well be excessive and not relevant to the purpose for which the personal data are held. That is intolerable. It drives a coach and horses through the principles underlying the Data Protection Act.
  Lords amendment No. 234 provides that information is relevant information which can be disclosed for poll tax purposes even
  "if … it falls within a prescribed description."
  That is information that would otherwise not be allowed to be disclosed under the terms of the Data Protection Act. The amendment would give the Secretary of State carte blanche to decide what is to be prescribed and what is not. It also empowers him to breach the duty of confidentiality under which the information might originally have been obtained.
  No personal information is sacred to the Secretary of State if he wants to pass it on to the poll tax registrar, and that includes information which the Data Protection Act says shall be secret. It must be wrong for the Government to seek to enact such a blanket power. It is worth reiterating the problems about the amendment. The data protection registrar cannot exercise any of his enforcement powers in relation to disclosures by the Secretary of State. The disclosure made by the Secretary of State may not appear on the registration and is therefore hidden from the registrar and the public.
  According to the clause, personal data are always deemed to be obtained fairly by the Secretary of State, however unscrupulous or immoral the means used to obtain such data. That applies even if the data subject is blatantly misled about why information on him is being collected. The registrar cannot serve an enforcement notice about the obtaining of personal data by the Secretary of State in the way that he can do for many items of information collected by other data users. He cannot act if
  1174
  the items of data to be collected by the Secretary of State for poll tax purposes are excessive or not relevant. He cannot prevent gross breaches of confidentiality by the Secretary of State.
  As a result of the amendment the Government will be given an appalling list of powers. My amendment to amendment No. 234 solves all the problems, and the registrar will have his powers restored to safeguard an individual's privacy. My amendment ties up the relevant information with the Data Protection Act 1984, which the Government are trying to separate from the poll tax legislation. The relevant information is
  "personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1984".
  My amendment provides that
  "any interpretation of the meaning of the first data protection principle, or any restriction in the excercising of the powers of the data protection registrar in relation to any of the data protection principles shall not apply".
  That would restore the powers of the registrar so that he could act if there were abuses, especially in relation to the first and fourth data protection principles. My amendment also states that
  "any disclosure of personal data shall not be subject to the non-disclosure provisions of the Act."
  That restores the powers of the third data protection principle.
  In their haste to impose the poll tax, the Government are trampling on the privacy and data protection rights that are essential for the protection of individuals. Lords amendment No. 234 will create a secret service state, which has no bounds or restrictions. Data on everyone, however confidential or personal, are permitted if the Secretary of State wants that information. Such information may be wildly excessive for the purposes of poll tax collection. It is a draconian and expensive tax and the Government are giving themselves draconian powers to impose it. My amendment will restore sanity to this matter.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): In the past half-hour we have seen the extent to which the debate on the Lords amendments has been reduced to a farce by the Opposition. The start of this debate was delayed by half an hour by two completely pointless Divisions. They are certainly pointless if the Opposition are serious about needing time to debate the issues. The first Division was on a concession that was granted pursuant to an undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government, and implemented in another place. The second Division was on nothing more than a drafting amendment. Now the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 234 and his amendment is obscure and defective. It does not even provide what the hon. Gentleman intends.
  Effectively, the hon. Gentleman's amendment would disapply the first data protection principle of the data protection act 1984 by providing that
  "any interpretation of the meaning of the first data protection principle"—
  whatever that may mean—should not apply. The amendment would also disapply any restriction of the powers of the Data Protection Registrar, although it is not at all clear what those restrictions might be. It would also disapply the principle enshrined in the Data Protection Act 1984 that data must be fairly and lawfully disclosed. At best, the amendment is confused, and it is difficult to comment on it in detail. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that disclosures of community charge

  1175
  information for the purposes of the community charge will have to conform to the provisions of the Data Protection Act. That Act provides all the protection that is necessary in such cases and there is no need for an amendment of this nature.
  The first data protection principle will not be compromised, because individuals whose details are passed to the registration officer will always be told by the Department of Health and Social Security that the disclosure is taking place. The hon. Member for Leyton has got that wrong.
  The third data protection principle will not be compromised. It is perfectly true that the Data Protection Act disapplies the third principle in certain circumstances, but that is a provision of that Act—it does not flow from anything in the Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the DHSS will register the disclosures with the data protection Registrar. Nothing in the provision restricts the powers of the data protection registrar, and information transferred will have to be up to date, relevant and not excessive. The hon. Gentleman has got it all completely wrong.
  On Report my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government announced that the Government intended to amend the Bill to allow for two things: the disclosure of information to community charge registration officers by DHSS local offices, and direct deduction from income support as a remedy where an income support recipient defaults on his community charge payments.
  People receiving income support will have included in their benefit an element reflecting the fact that they will have to pay 20 per cent. of their community charge. Surely it is perfectly reasonable to ensure that they should actually register for the charge. Amendment No. 234 accordingly provides that no duty of confidentiality shall prevent the Secretary of State from passing information to the community charge registration officers.
  We intend to make regulations that will prescribe the information that local offices may pass on. It will be restricted to the names and addresses of income support claimants. People who are eligible for income support are automatically entitled to an 80 per cent. rebate of their community charge. Claimants will therefore be invited to complete a rebate application form. If they do so, and if their claim for income support is allowed, the DHSS local office will send the form to the local authority, which will arrange for their rebate to be paid. In most cases this will be done through a reduction in the claimants' community charge bills.
  Mr. William McKelvey: How much will that additional exercise cost?
  Mr. Chope: It will not cost anything like as much as it would if the money that was being paid to those in receipt of income support did not end up in the coffers of the local authorities, thus enabling them to provide services. If, however, a claimant does not wish to apply for a rebate, the DHSS local office will pass his or her name and address to the CCRO to enable him to check his register. That is a sensible measure designed to provide an extra source of
  1176
  information to CCROs in carrying out their statutory functions and ensuring that benefit paid for a particular purpose is actually used for that purpose.
  The Lords amendment also provides that people on income support who default on their payments and get into arrears with their community charge may have sums deducted direct from their income support and paid to the local authority. That again is a sensible measure, which parallels the provision for the attachment of earnings of people who are in work. Without that provision there would be no alternative to distress or imprisonment, which would put people on income support at a disadvantage compared with those in work—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on.''] It would. Because we are a sympathetic Government, we have provided that a local authority that has obtained a liability order may apply to have deductions made from income support and may ask the debtor to provide information about his income. Regulations will set out the circumstances and manner in which direct payments may be made, and will set a limit on the amount that may be deducted.
  I do not believe that either of the two measures discriminates at all unfairly against people who are receiving income support. Everyone has a duty to register. Income support is a passport to a maximum rebate and will contain an element to reflect the remaining 20 per cent contribution. It is therefore right to seek to ensure that those receiving it are properly registered. As for direct deductions, those merely parallel the existing provisions for attachment of earnings and provide a way in which income support recipients who get into arrears may remedy the situation without the need for distress.
  In case hon. Members think that there is something novel about that, let me remind the House of some of the other purposes for which deductions may be made from income support. They include housing arrears and current costs, miscellaneous accommodation costs, service charges for fuel and rent, gas arrears and current consumption, electricity arrears and current consumption, water arrears and current consumption, recovery of over-payment of benefit, including housing benefit and social fund loan repayments. All those categories are purposes for which deductions can be made directly from income support.
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The difference between the poll tax and the other charges that the Minister has listed is that the recipient of income support must give consent for deductions to be made for the purposes of electricity arrears, rent arrears and so on. However, the community charge arrears will be deducted compulsorily from income support. It will mean that food will be taken out of people's mouths because the Social Security Ministers have been too mean to give them the full benefit in the first place.
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Lady is talking nonsense. We are talking about money that has been paid by taxpayers to recipients of income support. The hon. Lady seems to be suggesting that, although that money has been paid specifically to enable people to pay their community charge, they should have the freedom to spend it on whatever they like. We cannot accept that proposition.
  I hope that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton will be rejected and that the House will agree with these sensible Lords amendments.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Rooker: That was another disgraceful performance by the Minister. He has learnt nothing since Committee and Report stages while trying to defend the indefensible.
  Amendment No. 234 is a classic example of what has been happening. Earlier today we were told, "This is what was discussed earlier and it is only what you asked for." First, we did not ask for amendment No. 234, and, secondly, the transfer of information from the DHSS to poll tax officers was not discussed in Committee. It was hinted at in the media and referred to on Report. We were told that applicants for income support would be given a rebate application form and that if they did not submit it, someone would chase them up. That sounds administratively convenient for the civil servants involved, but that is not what is stated in the amendment. It provides that all information collected by the Secretary of State under the Social Security Act 1986 can be passed to poll tax registration officers. Why has it been drawn so wide?
  Mr. David Harris: Why not?
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman may not understand that one of the great prerequisites about information on the poll tax was that all national sources of information would not be available to poll tax registration officers; all local sources of information would be available. In other words, no income tax records, no health authority records, and no gas or electricity records would be available, but all local authority information of births, marriages, deaths, schools, housing, roads and rebates—the whole gamut—would fit the bill. All of a sudden, all DHSS information is to be available to poll tax officers, and we have not had a satisfactory explanation why.
  Mr. Harris: If the DHSS makes that money available for a specific purpose surely it has every right, and indeed a duty, to pass that information on to poll tax officers. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. Rooker: Why does that not happen today?
  Mr. Harris: Perhaps it should.
  Mr. Rooker: The more this Bill is debated, the more we learn about what is in the minds of Conservative Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Harris rose——
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman voted for the guillotine and we did not, and I have already done him the courtesy of giving way once.
  Amendment No. 234 is drawn much wider than was hinted at previously. We never had any amendments along these lines, so we could not amend the proposal. We had no inkling of this until the Bill went to the Lords. The debate there was on 30 June, so only then was the Government's plan known. We have not had a satisfactory explanation.
  It is interesting that recipients of social security benefit and income support are not automatically checked for attendance allowance and mobility allowance. My hon. Friends and I constantly find people, whom we are seeing in another connection, who have been dealing with the DHSS, social workers and health visitors yet who are not paid mobility or attendance allowance when they should be. Nobody has ever bothered to check. Why is there no amendment to deal with people who are not receiving
  1178
  sufficient money from the DHSS? There is nothing along those lines. This provision is one-sided, which is why we object so much to it.
  I have another point to raise with the Minister about the DHSS and the transfer of information. The DHSS is responsible for running the census, and its Ministers are responsible for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Every citizen now knows that DHSS information will go to poll tax officers, and people will be worried. I alluded to this on Second Reading. The Bill threatens the accuracy of the census, and there are many reasons why we need a census to be accurate—for example, locating schools in the right places. People will co-operate with the census only if they are absolutely certain that the information is locked into it. The DHSS runs the census and tonight it will receive new powers under amendment No. 234 to disclose information to poll tax officers.
  Before the Minister or any Conservative Member jumps up and says, "That is all covered by the Official Secrets Act," I must say that I do not believe them. I do not trust the Government any longer; indeed, I do not think that I ever did. I do not trust them to conduct public administration fairly and above board.
  I have a constituency interest in this. In April 1989, when the poll tax register for England will start to be assembled two years ahead of the census, a test will be carried out on 85,000 households, 23,000 of which are in my constituency in Birmingham and in four wards in the constituency of Birmingham, Small Heath. It is voluntary, and I shall advise my constituents to have nothing whatever to do with it. At the same time as census officers will be knocking on their doors, poll tax officers will also be at their doors. They will be falling over each other in my inner-city wards, where single people will have to pay more in poll tax than they now pay in rates.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is making a series of excellent points. Is he aware that under amendment No. 234 poll tax officers who knock on the doors of his constituents can dupe those constituents and claim to be census officers? They could choose to do that under these powers.
  Mr. Rooker: I am coming to that. It would save a lot of public money for one person to do both jobs. That is common sense. I shall advise my constituents not to trust the Government over the voluntary census in April 1989. They cannot be trusted with that information. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) takes the same view.
  Ministers cannot say that they have not been warned about the census being affected. We want it to be accurate, but British people will not respond to the census in 1991 in the full-hearted way that they normally do because of the operation of the poll tax. They simply will not trust the Government for this intrusion into their privacy. If the Government wish to shift ministerial responsibility for the operation of the census to another Department, that is for them. It may be a good idea because the letter dated 19 July sent by the Department to the chief executive of Birmingham was addressed to a person who ceased to be the chief executive back in March.
  The Minister claimed that amendment No. 249 comes as no great surprise to us, and that we already knew about it. We did know about it, because we found out about amendment No. 249 in a newspaper report. When we were

  1179
  discussing attachment of earnings and other poll tax matters in Committee, the guillotine was about to fall. It is not true, as the Minister of State said, that we had dealt with the poll tax in Committee. We had dealt only with a substantial part of the clauses relating to the poll tax in the early part of the Bill. If I remember rightly, just as we were discussing the rebate system, the guillotine came down. There were other later clauses relating to the poll tax.
  I will plead guilty, and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will share the guilt, if guilt there be, but we did not ask about attachment of benefit, partly because of the constraint of time and partly because it never crossed our minds. However, Ministers were unhappy about the matter and told their friends in the Press Gallery that attachment of benefit was talked about in a Cabinet Sub-Committee. The story then appeared in The Independent, which is where we found out about it. It was never discussed in Committee. No Minister ever proposed it and it was not in the Bill.
  That happened in February, but the Government could not even get the amendments ready for Report in April, so that the House could discuss the matter at length and we could try to amend the Government's proposals. Tabling amendments tonight would have been a complete waste of time, as the debate will be for only an hour and a half. We would not waste the time of the House, the Clerks, Hansard or the printers of the Order Paper. This debate on amendment No. 249 is the first opportunity that the House of Commons has had to discuss the attachment of benefit to poor people—those who already have the so-called 20 per cent. in the benefit, which we learned from an earlier debate will probably be half the population. Constituents of all hon. Members will be affected.
  This measure is ludicrous because the very poorest people in the country, by definition, will be on income support. There are no poorer people in the country than those on income support—formerly supplementary benefit. They have been given this little extra in benefit—which we think will be eroded, but that is a matter for another time—to pay their poll tax. However, they cannot quite make that payment, because they have not yet had the full 20 per cent. because they live in an area with a poll tax slightly above average. Perhaps they have had a few extra bills for gas, for electricity or because their iron has broken. They do not receive money to replace capital goods. However, they choose to buy a new iron instead of paying the 20 per cent. of the poll tax.
  The Minister intends to deduct from the income support—plus any fine or penalty—the money that the Government have already put in in the first place. There is a natural solution, and one that would save a lot of trouble. If the 20 per cent. is put into the benefit and is taken out before the people get their hands on it, because they may want to spend it on some emergency and transfer is straight to the local authority, would it not make more sense to stop people using the money as a piggy bank on the mantelpiece when it is not poll tax day but crisis day?
  The Minister's argument will be accountability. Because people have not paid the pennies with their own hands, they will not understand about voting at local elections. That is ludicrous, as is the Minister's defence of this proposal. He is a member of the legal profession and must know about the courts of this country. Do we still
  1180
  have free courts? I cannot believe that the magistrates and the courts will stand any nonsense. The proposal is impractical. It is nasty and mean. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Minister is prepared to defend it. He is the only Minister who has had to defend it, as it is the first time it has been debated in the House. Where are the Secretary of State and the Minister of State? The attachment of benefit is a disgrace.
  8.45 pm
  I invite the Minister in the short time available to put up a better and a more honest case than he was able to put earlier. I do not accuse him of personal dishonesty, but I invite him to put up a more honest and open case to explain to my hon. Friends and the millions of people outside why this system is necessary, especially as it has not been deemed necessary under domestic rating. The treasurers I have spoken to think that the domestic rating system is good administration and they never dreamed that they would have to have recourse to this kind of decision to collect the rates. If a system has been good enough for the rates, why cannot it not be good enough for the poll tax? There must be a simple answer somewhere.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I have deliberately chosen to speak on this group of amendments, because it includes two important principles that I feel should be rejected. We are all aware that the Government have allowed insufficient time to debate the important changes made in the other place. We have been forced to skip over many today. There has not been time to put many of them to the vote. The two important principles, included in the amendments against which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) spoke, are very different, compared with the time when they were dealt with in Committee.
  Attachment of benefit was not debated in Committee at all. Although the Secretary of State and the Minister of State referred to it on Report, we were precluded from debating it because we had no amendment before us. This is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss the principle involved in amendment No. 249. During the debate that we had on attachment of earnings and other matters, I put one question to the Minister of State. I said that we were opposed to the principle, and asked what, if the Government were forcing us along this line,
  "will be the position if the attachment of benefit to pay the poll tax reduces that person's level of income, through benefit or income support, below what the statute decrees that person needs for his or her requirements?"—[Official Report, 20 April 1988: Vol. 131, c. 876.]
  That is another issue that the Minister needs to explain. Amendment No. 249, in subsection (2)(b), says:
  "which may include provision to secure that amounts payable to the debtor by way of income support do not fall below prescribed figures".
  I stress that it uses the word "may". It does not say "it must not". Even if we are forced to accept the principle, to which we are completely opposed, if the amendment is passed, in some cases it will be possible for magistrates to reduce a person's income—which may affect the family—to a level below that prescribed by statute as being the absolute minimum for his or her requirements. We all know that many people live in poverty and degradation. In relative terms, a few pence or a pound a week are of crucial importance to them. The Government cannot callously dismiss them, as they have done on other occasions.

  1181
  The matter is extremely important. Opposition Members believe that the principle behind the amendment is completely wrong. The benefit should be paid. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) said that there was a considerable difference between the Minister's points about electricity and gas. That is an essential point for people who choose to have their benefit deducted to pay gas and electricity bills. That option should be available if people believe that it helps their money management and budget control, while recognising the difficulties in which they live. That must be a personal choice.
  The amendment does not involve any choice on the part of the people involved. They will be compelled to go along a certain line if a magistrate so determines. That is appalling and should be strongly opposed. Conservative Members—I note that they are not in evidence here to debate the matter—should recognise the importance of the principle involved.
  We all know that the Government introduced the amendment in the Lords and introduced the attachment of earnings amendment on Report because the tax is unpopular throughout the country as it fails to take account of ability to pay. There will be many court cases. Many people will choose to go to prison rather than pay. To try to prevent the legal and prison systems being clogged up, the Government introduced the attachment of earnings. and attachment of benefit provisions. The Government know that people will not accept that the poll tax system is fair. It shifts the method of support of local government from ability to pay. The people who can afford to pay now pay more. Whatever anomalies and faults may exist in the present system, it is certainly fairer than a system that will make the poorest people pay an ever increasing share of local government expenditure.
  Amendment No. 234 deals with the passing of DHSS information to community charge poll tax officers—call them what one will. It is an important issue. Despite what the Minister said, it is not true to say that the Government have stated that his was the direction in which they intended to go all along. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is absolutely right. Time and again in Committee and on Report the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State emphasised that, although information will be available from other local government sources, whether it be from housing departments, grants departments, libraries and so on—we have many criticisms of such aspects, but we are not debating them today—information will not be available from Government Departments such as the Inland Revenue and the DHSS. Of course, they said what will happen when a person asks for a particular benefit.
  Amendment No. 234 is quite different. The Department will give information to the local authority. I have no doubt that, when they consider it necessary, the Government will change the legislation. They may as well open the door and say that information obtained may be from everywhere. As several of my hon. Friends have said on many occasions, to make the system work the Government will have to accept the inevitability of identity cards or some other form of national registration. A Library research note, which is available to all hon. Members, states:
  "This amendment was promised during the Commons proceedings."
  I do not believe that that is strictly correct. It goes on:
  1182
  "It will allow regulations to be made which would permit the Social Services Secretary to disclose prescribed information to registration officers. The Minister promised that the information would be restricted to the names and addresses only of those people in receipt of income support who have not applied for a community charge rebate."
  That is a dangerous precedent. We all know that once the first foot is in the door of the DHSS, other information will be available. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr referred to the census. If we operate a fair system, there will be a willingness to co-operate. The Government know that this system is not fair, that there will be difficulties in getting people to register, and that they will have to take increasingly draconian powers to ensure that information is given to community charge registration officers if they are to be able to collect the poll tax.
  The amendments are completely wrong. They should be defeated because they are not acceptable. As I have said, I hope that some Conservative Members will be prepared to reject the amendments, because they move along a dangerous line. Conservative Members should carefully consider the implications of the amendments before they decide to go into the Division Lobby with the Government.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Whenever we have debated civil liberties and the poll tax, the Government have repeatedly assured us that information will not be passed from one body to another without restriction, and, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, that national information will not be passed to local bodies. The amendment seems to give the Secretary of State just such carte blanche to pass information to local authorities. It states:
  "no duty of confidentiality shall prevent the Secretary of State from disclosing relevant information".
  If personal social security information is given to officials in good faith, should it not remain confidential? Does not the amendment make any reference to confidentiality by DHSS officers completely worthless? It may be that the personal information involved is sensitive—for example, information regarding personal relationships—but of no interest in terms of poll tax liabilities. Should not claimants be guaranteed confidentiality? Clause 13A would prohibit such a guarantee. We have tabled an amendment precisely to take out the clause.
  If an hon. Member on the Labour Front Bench could get me a glass of water, it would be helpful. Meanwhile, I am sure that I shall survive.
  The main Opposition party has many purposes, and one of them is to give glasses of water to those hon. Members who are too far away from the Table to do so for themselves.
  Mr. McKelvey: The hon. Gentleman would not get a glass of water from that bunch of gangsters over there.
  Mr. Taylor: Water will be privatised as well and there will be a tax on it soon, so we had better take the opportunity while we have it.
  The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has tabled a constructive amendment. The Minister has said that there are drafting problems, and I would not like to say that he is wrong. However, the intention behind the amendment is good, and the Government should accept the spirit behind it.
  Although confidentiality is important, the essential issue arises in Lords amendment No. 249. The

  1183
  Government's intention to introduce a provision for attachment of benefit was leaked in the press on 26 February, by which time the House of Commons Standing Committee had missed the opportunity to debate it. By the time the Bill reached the Floor of the House on Report, Tory Back Benchers had already threatened to revolt on other key parts of the Bill and, not surprisingly, the relevant Government amendments failed to appear. After all, why risk trouble when the Government already had trouble? As a result, we had no chance in the Commons to discuss the amendments.
  The Government's caution is understandable because adding attachment of benefit makes an already appalling Bill even worse. The Government's statements defending their position completely miss the fundamental difficulty.
  9 pm
  Ms. Primarolo: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) makes a point about confidentiality of information and attachment of earnings. Is it not legitimate for us to say that we expect to see in the next Finance Bill clauses that will instruct accountants of those who attempt to evade payment of taxes to disclose that information to the Treasury? The Treasury can then put an attachment on the earnings. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that would be a comparable measure? If we were talking about tax evasion, we would see the Conservative Benches full.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady is right. I am appalled by the way in which benefit fraud, which accounts for much less than tax fraud, is more fiercely treated. The Conservative Government are not the first to act in that way—it has had a long history. I do not understand why they allow it to happen. It is not right.
  The position is even worse than the hon. Lady suggests. It is not a simple question of whether one gives the money that one should. The Government will assume that all those who do not pay their poll tax have sufficient funds to do so. One would assume that that was right for the income tax system, by definition. But that will not happen by definition under the Government's poll tax system. All those asked to pay the poll tax may not be receiving through the benefit system the money that they need to pay it. That point was put appropriately in the debate on disabled people and the elderly on low incomes.
  The uprating will be based on the national average poll tax. The amount added to benefits will reflect average poll tax liabilities. Unfortunately, the person who has to pay that tax may not be Mr. or Mrs. Average. In fact, he or she may be the poorest in society and may be unfortunate enough not to live in an average local authority area. Such people are likely to live in an especially poor local authority area. The average poll tax bill in poor local authority areas will tend to be rather higher than the average nationally. These people will be asked to pay cash that they have not received and asked to pay bills that they are unable to pay.
  Examples of the losers may be found in Southwark and Bermondsey.
  Mr. Harris: What about Cornwall?
  Mr. Taylor: According to the poll tax figures for 1988–89 issued by the Department of the Environment, the
  1184
  poll tax in Southwark will be £515 per annum. Every person in Southwark on income support will have to find £53·80 per annum they do not have to pay the poll tax bill.
  The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has rightly asked about Cornwall. This will not happen there. People in our area are fortunate. This is neither the fault of the people who live in the inner cities nor anything that people in Cornwall have deliberately set out to achieve, although people in Cornwall have good councillors. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the grant system works, sensible councils in other parts of the country will not necessarily have the same benefits. Many people will not be able to affect the running of their council. Perhaps all the people who are badly hit will change the way in which they vote, although it is difficult to understand why they should change their vote to vote for a party that introduced the problem. Their vote might not change the complexion of the council in any case. There is no guarantee that someone who has lost out as a result of the poll tax will be able to affect the running of the council.
  The clause will force people to pay money that they do not have in circumstances in which they cannot change things. As was said earlier, it will literally take the food out of people's mouths. The prospect for such people is grim. They will have to pay more in the first instance than they have. If they are unable to pay the poll tax, an attachment order will be placed on them.
  Ms. Primarolo: That is why the attachment order is unfair.
  Mr. Taylor: As the hon. Lady said, the attachment order is unfair. It cannot be fair to ask people to pay the poll tax when they do not have the money to do so.
  The Minister referred to electricity and gas bills, but the principle behind them is rather different because people can directly affect the amount of their gas and electricity bills. I would argue in fact that that system is not perfect. There should be a right to supply, and people should get the heat and warmth that they need as they pay. However, in the case of the poll tax, people have no such direct effect on what they pay. They cannot be careful with their poll tax, although the Government argue that they can through the vote. It will not work as simply as that. Individuals cannot make a decision on it.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Was the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber a couple of hours ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) said that the rates in a certain London borough had already fallen by £100 in anticipation of the poll tax and that they can be expected to fall still further in other districts that are ill-governed at present?
  Mr. Taylor: I only wish that it was as simple as that. It does not work like that, and even if it did, I am sure that it would not be because poor old Joe Soap living in a certain district on income support thought, "I shall have to pay out a fortune if I do not change my vote." The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) knows that it does not work like that. If she thinks that she is too highly rated—I suspect that she does—and wants to change that, there is nothing that she can individually do about it. She can vote until she is blue in the face——
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) agree that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E.

  1185
  Kellett-Bowman) has no idea about the kind of people to whom he is referring? She has enjoyed a European salary as well as a salary from this House, her husband has also enjoyed a European salary and she has farming interests. How can she expect to understand poor people's problems?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman was so insulting in his reference to me. I remind him that I have not been in the European Parliament for five years, and neither has my husband. I am full-time in this Parliament and I gave up my career at the Bar to be full-time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would withdraw.
  Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to hear that unlike many of her colleagues the hon. Lady is a full-time Member of the House—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am keen to hear the hon. Member who has the Floor.
  Mr. Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster on being full-time; I only wish that more of her colleagues were. I must gently remind the hon. Lady, however, that the income that she receives from this place is rather different from income support. Unless I am much mistaken, she does not sacrifice much of the salary that she earns in the process of her duties to try to understand the difficulties of those whom she attempts to represent. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) is right that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends do not understand. Perhaps I can explain to her with some mathematics. It is generally accepted that income support is the very least that is needed to sustain someone. If one tries to take more away from the poor than they have, they cannot survive. This penal measure should be dropped from the Bill, and I hope that Conservative Members will recognise that.
  Mr. Harris: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) normally speaks about the poorest of the county of Cornwall. On this occasion it is noticeable that he did not volunteer Cornwall as an area that would be clobbered by the community charge. Because rates in Cornwall have historically been kept at a reasonable level, people on income support there will benefit from the average nature of the DHSS contribution to their community charge. The hon. Gentleman will know, because it is his party that is basically calling the tune in Cornwall, that a rate increase of 14 per cent. has been suggested for Cornwall.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor rose——
  Mr. Harris: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, because the Minister must reply shortly.
  Under the influence of the hon. Gentleman's party there is to be a 14 per cent. rate increase, and Cornwall is catching up fast in that regard.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor rose——
  Mr. Harris: No, I cannot let the hon. Gentleman interrupt me.
  I link those remarks with the comments of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who talked a lot—as Opposition Members have done in this debate and before—about inability to pay. The question that is never posed is whether under the existing system councils consider the ability of people to pay their rates—rates that are subject
  1186
  to the 14 per cent. increase that is now being levied by Cornwall county council. Such a consideration never enters the argument.
  I refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), as it is because of them that I intervene. The hon. Gentleman advanced the proposition that it is no business of the DHSS to tell the poll tax officer that the Department had paid someone an average 20 per cent. contribution towards his community charge. To my simple mind, it seems to flow from that that the hon. Member for Perry Barr is claiming that it is no business of the DHSS to pass on such information, and that if people can evade the community charge they should be left free to do so.
  Mr. Rooker rose——
  Mr. Harris: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, for the reason that I have explained, and he would not give way to my intervention.
  Mr. Rooker: I did.
  Mr. Harris: Not to my second intervention. I must continue, because my hon. Friend the Minister has only three minutes in which to reply.
  The DHSS has a duty and a moral obligation——
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman should not talk about morals.
  Mr. Harris: If the DHSS has made a contribution to an individual's community charge, that information should be declared to the poll tax officer. That is only fair. We must remember always that it is not the Government who are paying, but people not on income support who are helping to finance those contributions. Many are themselves on very small incomes. In fairness to them, information about DHSS contributions should be made available to the poll tax officer in order to cut down on evasion once the community charge is introduced.
  Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives. (Mr. Harris) is absolutely right and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is absolutely wrong. The hon. Member for Truro spoke about poor local authority areas, but it is poorly administered local authority areas that will result in large community charges. There will be needs assessments of all areas so that those that are poorer will receive more grant than others that are not so poor. However, that grant system will not make up for the extravagance or poor administration of individual local authorities. For example, on this year's figures, Southwark would receive £711 per adult support grant, compared with a national average of only £264.
  Much of this debate was wasted by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) boxing with shadows. I give the House an absolute assurance that there is no question of census data being made available to community charge registration officers. Nothing in the Bill, and nothing in these amendments, would empower those officers to have access to census information. To suggest otherwise is nothing short of evil scaremongering. The hon. Gentleman said that all the information collected by the Secretary of State for Social Services would be passed to the community charge registration officer. As I have already explained, only names and addresses will be passed on. We shall make that clear in regulations made under this provision.

  1187
  I referred earlier to farce, and I shall refer to more Opposition humbug. The hon. Member for Perry Barr expressed concern about census information. I assure him that no census data will be made available to CCROs. I point out that any system of local income tax, which I believe his party supports, would require a register to be drawn up showing the address of every taxpayer, and a lot more information besides.
  It being a quarter past Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 288.

  Division No. 431]

  [9.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Allen, Graham

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Faulds, Andrew

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  Battle, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Beckett, Margaret

  Flynn, Paul

  Beggs, Roy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

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

  Foster, Derek

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foulkes, George

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fraser, John

  Blair, Tony

  Fyfe, Maria

  Boateng, Paul

  Galbraith, Sam

  Boyes, Roland

  Galloway, George

  Bradley, Keith

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Buchan, Norman

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Buckley, George J.

  Gould, Bryan

  Caborn, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cartwright, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Clay, Bob

  Henderson, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Illsley, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ingram, Adam

  Darling, Alistair

  John, Brynmor

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

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

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dewar, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Lambie, David

  Doran, Frank

  Lamond, James

  Douglas, Dick

  Leighton, Ron

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Litherland, Robert

  Eastham, Ken

  Livsey, Richard

  1188

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Redmond, Martin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Loyden, Eddie

  Reid, Dr John

  McAllion, John

  Richardson, Jo

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  McCartney, Ian

  Robertson, George

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Rogers, Allan

  McKelvey, William

  Rooker, Jeff

  McLeish, Henry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rowlands, Ted

  McTaggart, Bob

  Ruddock, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Madden, Max

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Maginnis, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Short, Clare

  Marek, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meacher, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Strang, Gavin

  Michael, Alun

  Straw, Jack

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Turner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Vaz, Keith

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Wall, Pat

  Morley, Elliott

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Murphy, Paul

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Nellist, Dave

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  O'Brien, William

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Parry, Robert

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Patchett, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wray, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Prescott, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen Adams.

  Radice, Giles

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Alexander, Richard

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Amos, Alan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkins, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Atkinson, David

  Butler, Chris

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Butterfill, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Baldry, Tony

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chope, Christopher

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Churchill, Mr

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Colvin, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Couchman, James

  Bowis, John

  Cran, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Curry, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bright, Graham

  Day, Stephen

  1189

  Devlin, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dicks, Terry

  Knapman, Roger

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dover, Den

  Knowles, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lang, Ian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Evennett, David

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fallon, Michael

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Farr, Sir John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Favell, Tony

  Lightbown, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lilley, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lord, Michael

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  McCrindle, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Maclean, David

  Franks, Cecil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  Gale, Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, George

  Malins, Humfrey

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Maples, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marland, Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gregory, Conal

  Mellor, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grist, Ian

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moate, Roger

  Hannam, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

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

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Harris, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hayward, Robert

  Mudd, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Heddle, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Neubert, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hill, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hind, Kenneth

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Holt, Richard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Howard, Michael

  Paice, James

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

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Portillo. Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Irving, Charles

  Price, Sir David

  Jack, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jackson, Robert

  Redwood, John

  Janman, Tim

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kilfedder, James

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rost, Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rowe, Andrew

  1190

  Ryder, Richard

  Thorne, Neil

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Trippier, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Speed, Keith

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Watts, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Stern, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Whitney, Ray

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wilkinson, John

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Wilshire, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sumberg, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Summerson, Hugo

  Woodcock, Mike

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tony Durant.

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Question negatived.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their amendment No. 234:—
  The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 204.

  Division No. 432]

  [9.29 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Amos, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butler, Chris

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Butterfill, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Atkinson, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Cash, William

  Baldry, Tony

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chope, Christopher

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Colvin, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Conway, Derek

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Cran, James

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Curry, David

  Bowis, John

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

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Devlin, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Dicks, Terry

  Bright, Graham

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dover, Den

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

  Dunn, Bob

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Durant, Tony

  1191

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Farr, Sir John

  Lilley, Peter

  Favell, Tony

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Forman, Nigel

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maclean, David

  Forth, Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Freeman, Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fry, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Gale, Roger

  Maples, John

  Gardiner, George

  Marland, Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gow, Ian

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mellor, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gregory, Conal

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grist, Ian

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Roger

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

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

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mudd, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayward, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hill, James

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Holt, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Howard, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

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

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Pawsey, James

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Price, Sir David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Irving, Charles

  Redwood, John

  Jack, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jackson, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Janman, Tim

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Key, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  Kilfedder, James

  Rowe, Andrew

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Ryder, Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lang, Ian

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Latham, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  1192

  Sims, Roger

  Tracey, Richard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tredinnick, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Trippier, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Trotter, Neville

  Speed, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Viggers, Peter

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Walden, George

  Stern, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Stevens, Lewis

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Watts, John

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Wells, Bowen

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wheeler, John

  Sumberg, David

  Whitney, Ray

  Summerson, Hugo

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thorne, Neil

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dewar, Donald

  Allen, Graham

  Dixon, Don

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Doran, Frank

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Douglas, Dick

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barron, Kevin

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Battle, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Beckett, Margaret

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Beggs, Roy

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

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

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

  Blair, Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Boateng, Paul

  Flannery, Martin

  Boyes, Roland

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Keith

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Foulkes, George

  Buchan, Norman

  Fraser, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Canavan, Dennis

  George, Bruce

  Cartwright, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clay, Bob

  Graham, Thomas

  Clelland, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hardy, Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cousins, Jim

  Henderson, Doug

  Cox, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cummings, John

  Holland, Stuart

  Dalyell, Tam

  Home Robertson, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Hood, Jimmy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  1193

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  O'Brien, William

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Parry, Robert

  Illsley, Eric

  Patchett, Terry

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Janner, Greville

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  John, Brynmor

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Charles

  Radice, Giles

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Redmond, Martin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lamond, James

  Reid, Dr John

  Leighton, Ron

  Richardson, Jo

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Robertson, George

  Lewis, Terry

  Rogers, Allan

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  Livsey, Richard

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ruddock, Joan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Salmond, Alex

  McAllion, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Ian

  Short, Clare

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  McTaggart, Bob

  Spearing, Nigel

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Gavin

  Maginnis, Ken

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marek, Dr John

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Vaz, Keith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wall, Pat

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wallace, James

  Maxton, John

  Walley, Joan

  Meacher, Michael

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Meale, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Michael, Alun

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wilson, Brian

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Winnick, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Worthington, Tony

  Morley, Elliott

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Murphy, Paul

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Nellist, Dave

  Mr. Allen Adams.

  Question agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 234 agreed to.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in their amendment No. 33:—
  The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 202.

  Division No. 433]

  [9.42 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Amos, Alan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Atkins, Robert

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Atkinson, David

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bowis, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Batiste, Spencer

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Bendall, Vivian

  Brazier, Julian

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Bright, Graham

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  1194

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

  Heddle, John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hill, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Hind, Kenneth

  Butcher, John

  Holt, Richard

  Butler, Chris

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Butterfill, John

  Howard, Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

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

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cash, William

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Irving, Charles

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Jack, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jackson, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Jessel, Toby

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Couchman, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cran, James

  Key, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Kilfedder, James

  Curry, David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

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

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Day, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knowles, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dover, Den

  Lang, Ian

  Dunn, Bob

  Latham, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Farr, Sir John

  Lilley, Peter

  Favell, Tony

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fishburn John Dudley

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Forman, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Franks, Cecil

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Fomst)

  French, Douglas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, George

  Maples, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marland, Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gow, Ian

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mellor, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Gregory, Conal

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Grist, Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

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

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mudd, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayward, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  1195

  Neubert, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stevens, Lewis

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Paice, James

  Summerson, Hugo

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Portillo, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Price, Sir David

  Thorne, Neil

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Redwood, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Riddick, Graham

  Tracey, Richard

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Trippier, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Viggers, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Walden, George

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Waller, Gary

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Ward, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watts, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wheeler, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilshire, David

  Sims, Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Speed, Keith

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Richard Ryder.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Allen, Graham

  Clay, Bob

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cohen, Harry

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbett, Robin

  Battle, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Beggs, Roy

  Cox, Tom

  Bell, Stuart

  Cryer, Bob

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cummings, John

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blair, Tony

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

  Boateng, Paul

  Dewar, Donald

  Boyes, Roland

  Dixon, Don

  Bradley, Keith

  Dobson, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Douglas, Dick

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Buchan, Norman

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Buckley, George J.

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Caborn, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  Callaghan, Jim

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fatchett, Derek

  Cartwright, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  1196

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fisher, Mark

  Maxton, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Meacher, Michael

  Flynn, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Michael, Alun

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foster, Derek

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Foulkes, George

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Fraser, John

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Galbraith, Sam

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Galloway, George

  Morley, Elliott

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  George, Bruce

  Mullin, Chris

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Murphy, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Nellist, Dave

  Graham, Thomas

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Brien, William

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Parry, Robert

  Grocott, Bruce

  Patchett, Terry

  Hardy, Peter

  Pike, Peter L.

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Prescott, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hinchliffe, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Radice, Giles

  Holland, Stuart

  Redmond, Martin

  Home Robertson, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hood, Jimmy

  Reid, Dr John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Richardson, Jo

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Illsley, Eric

  Salmond, Alex

  Ingram, Adam

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Janner, Greville

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  John, Brynmor

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kennedy, Charles

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Soley, Clive

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lamond, James

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Leighton, Ron

  Strang, Gavin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Lewis, Terry

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Litherland, Robert

  Turner, Dennis

  Livsey, Richard

  Vaz, Keith

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wall, Pat

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wallace, James

  Loyden, Eddie

  Walley, Joan

  McAllion, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McCartney, Ian

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  McKelvey, William

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McLeish, Henry

  Wilson, Brian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Winnick, David

  McTaggart, Bob

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McWilliam, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Madden, Max

  Wray, Jimmy

  Maginnis, Ken

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Marek, Dr John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen Adams.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Question agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 33 disagreed to.
  Amendment ( a) made in lieu of Lords amendment No. 33 disagreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 239 to 241, 29, 30A, 32, 36 to 41,44,45,47,49, 50,53 to 62,65,66,72,76 to 78, 78A, 79, 80, 266 to 270,87 and 271 to 276 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Lords amendments Nos. 235 to 238, 242 to 265, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 42, 43, 46, 48, 51, 52, 63, 64, 67 to 71,73 to 75, 81 to 86 and 277 agreed to.
  Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will he aware of the great arguments earlier about whether we should have a guillotine. Having heard the Opposition argue so much against it, it seems strange that they have taken up so much time on Divisions. Could it be because today the Labour party announced changes in the rating system and is having great internal arguments which it does not want to bring into the Chamber?
  "(2) The regulations may contain such provisions as are mentioned in subsection (3) below as regards any case which falls within a prescribed description and where—

  (a) as regards a hereditament or hereditaments the chargeable amount for a chargeable day falls to be determined under section 39, 41 or 46 above, and

  (b) the day falls within the financial year concerned.

  (3) The provisions are that—

  (a) the chargeable amount shall be such as is found in accordance with prescribed rules, and

  (b) sections 39(4) to (6) and 40 above, sections 41(4) to (4B) and 42 above, or section 46(4) to (7) above (as the case may be) shall not apply.

  (3A) A chargeable amount found in accordance with rules prescribed under this section may be the same as or different from what it would be apart from the regulations.
  (3AA) Rules prescribed under this section may be framed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State thinks fit."
  Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 19, at end add
  'having regard to the need to promote local employment'.
  Lords amendments Nos. 90, 91, 195 and 196.
  Mr. Chope: These amendments are all concerned with the transitional protection that we should give to those businesses which would otherwise face large rates increases in 1990, resulting from revaluation or the introduction of the national non-domestic rate. The amendments discharge commitments given when the Bill was before the House. Before explaining their purpose and effects, I should put them in context.
  There have been many predictions about the effects on business of a revaluation and introduction of the NNDR, and it is time to consider the facts. The first is that, as the Government are committed to raising broadly the same from the NNDR as is raised from business rates now, there is no question of a rates increase for business as a whole. The second is that the greater impact on rates bills in most areas will be that of revaluation. Revaluation will be necessary irrespective of the introduction of the NNDR, and it will be necessary whichever party is in office. On 3 March the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) confirmed in Committee that his party accepted the need for revaluation.
  The third fact is that after 15 years without a revaluation rateable values are undoubtedly out of line with commercial rents and with the relative economic strengths of different sectors of the economy and regions. Many businesses, often in the most hard-pressed areas, are paying too much, which is why revaluation is expected to
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a question for the Chair. The Standing Orders have not been breached in any way.

Clause 49

  SPECIAL PROVISION FOR 1990–95
  Lords amendment: No. 88, in page 27, line 35, leave out "before the beginning of the year"
  Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 89, in page 27, line 36, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
  confer major benefits worth hundreds of millions of pounds on manufacturing industry, especially in the north and the midlands.
  The fourth fact, contrary to the forecasts of some organisations, is that there is little evidence that small businesses will face larger rates increases than large businesses. The big increases are likely to be confined to areas which have prospered most over the past 15 years and whose rates as a result are way below what they should be—the prime high street retail sites and, possibly, out-of-town superstores. These are activities where large businesses predominate. The secondary neighbourhood shopping centres and corner shops are likely to face appreciably smaller increases, since it is commonly accepted that they have done less well than prime shops in the past 15 years. Small manufacturers are likely to gain, but it may be more difficult for small businesses to absorb increases quickly, and I shall come to that point.
  The introduction of the NNDR linked to the retail prices index will ensure that businesses throughout the country can plan investments in a climate of unprecedented rates stability.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are being criticised by Derbyshire county council for the alleged problems of the health authority? Southern Derbyshire health authority allocated a 4·5 per cent. increase for its rates this year, but was landed with a 13 per cent. increase, which cost the authority an extra £234,000. It was difficult for it to budget for that, and the money has to come out of that allocated for other services. The proposed link to inflation will help authorities, such as health authorities, plan their budgets sensibly.
  10 pm
  Mr. Chope: As usual, my hon. Friend makes his point very well. It is spot on, because the stability that will be introduced by these changes will be welcomed, not only by businesses, but by all ratepayers, including hospitals.
  Small businesses stand to gain from this more than most, as they are less well equipped to cope with unpredictable increases and cannot trade off high rates in one area for low rates elsewhere. We are thus moving to a simpler, fairer and more stable rating system for all businesses, as many of the business organisations have come to recognise. We are determined though that it should be done without any businesses having to face the sort of rate shock so frequently forced on them in recent years by local authorities run by the Labour party. We are determined that, for the limited number of businesses that will face large rate increases, these will be introduced gradually in stages to give them time to adjust.
  We are especially sensitive to the difficulties of small businesses. We have made it clear at all stages that there will be generous transitional arrangements, taking the form of a ceiling on the percentage by which rate bills may rise from one year to the next. We have had some representations from the business organisations about what that ceiling might be, but we shall not reach a final decision until after we have better forecasts of the likely effects of revaluation, which will be available in the autumn.
  The Opposition amendment to Lords amendment No. 89 would require the Secretary of State, in setting the rules for finding the chargeable amount due under the transitional arrangements, to do so
  "having regard to the need to promote local employment".
  If only the Opposition would practise what they preach. Our whole policy has
  "regard to the need to promote local employment".
  That is why the Government have succeeded in reducing unemployment by more than 500,000 since the last general election.
  As I have just explained, we are eliminating two major factors which discourage local employment where it is most desperately needed—in the north of England and in the inner cities. We are ending once and for all the situation in which inefficient Labour authorities can bleed local industry dry to pay for their profligacy. We are creating the stability necessary for investment, and through revaluation we are ending the situation in which monstrously out-of-date valuations result in businesses in these areas paying far more in rates than they should. Our whole policy encourages employment in those areas where it is most needed—those areas where the policies of the Labour party have often had the freest rein.
  We had made a start through rate capping. For example, in Waltham Forest we have reduced rates this year by 28 per cent., and in Ealing by 22 per cent. We do not want to delay the benefits due to those who have been paying too much any longer than is necessary, but the transitional arrangements will have to be self-financing. There is no reason to make other taxpayers or community charge payers pay for protection for businesses.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: Will the hon. Gentleman please have the honesty to explain the consequences of self-financing? Self-financing means that manufacturing industry in the north and the midlands will
  1200
  pay relatively more to finance the transitional arrangements of much more prosperous business, commerce and industry elsewhere. Will the Government be honest and concede that the self-financing mechanism is one that claws back many of the advantages about which the Minister has just been talking?
  Mr. Chope: It is true that the full benefits of the large reductions will not come through straight away for some businesses, but they will come through in due course.
  Mr. Allen McKay: How long?
  Mr. Chope: We estimate that within about two years most businesses will receive the full benefits of the reductions, but for some businesses it will take a little longer.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I should not have intervened but for the fact that I am deeply worried because the amendment gives my hon. Friend—in whom I have a great deal of faith—the opportunity to introduce regulations. I know that basically the amendment relates to regulations with regard to non-domestic premises, but we have heard today that the Labour party proposes to replace the community charge with two taxes. Would that enable the Opposition to replace what my hon. Friend honourably and decently is trying to do to make things more helpful with two, three, four or even five taxes? If that is the case, we have every right to be worried and concerned, because it is rather open-ended.
  Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right to express concern about these matters. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) may tell the House that his party proposes to have two new taxes to replace domestic rates or the community charge, but Opposition Members have not yet made it clear what will happen with non-domestic rates, which is what we are discussing.
  I expect the substantial majority of the rates increases and reductions to go through completely within two or three years. Moreover, all businesses due to benefit will have their rates reduced at the outset, and they will be able to plan their business in the knowledge of the full reduction that they will eventually receive.
  As the Bill left this House, it contained provisions for setting such a ceiling for the years 1990–95 and for the costs to be met by a premium on the NNDR poundage, which would have been phased over the same period. As a result of the views expressed in the House and by business representative organisations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on Report on 21 April that we would make some modifications to the arrangements. These amendments give effect to those commitments.
  The debate was originally timed to go on for much longer, but, because of the antics of the Opposition, much of that time has been wasted on pointless Divisions. Notwithstanding that, I shall make my remarks shorter than I otherwise would have done.
  Mr. Rooker: The Minister has a damned cheek. Earlier this afternoon, with other Conservative Members, he voted to stop us debating the Lords amendments and thereby deprived us of the chance of voting against any or all of those to which we object. He then complained when we, Her Majesty's Opposition, decided—it was not the Government deciding for us—what we will vote against,

  1201
  without orders from the Government. He had a damned cheek to make that remark. We choose what happens when he has cut our time.
  Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not give way. The Minister took too long anyway. The debate finishes at 10.15. The Minister has a damned cheek, and I am entitled to make a complaint about his remark, just to set it on the record.
  On 9 June, in another place, the Earl of Caithness said:
  "This is not to deny that there will be some businesses in particular locations that will face large increases."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 June 1988; Vol. 497, c. 1539.]
  I wait in due course—it will not be this year, but some time before the howls of protest from Conservative Members—for the time when the effects of revaluation and the operation of the national business rate—I do not know why we changed it, but it is still our unified business rate—come together. That will cause horrendous problems in many parts of the country.
  It is not only industry that will gain. Obviously, old factories, which, tragically, not many people want to rent, will tend to fall relatively in rateable value. But not all old factories are in the north. There are many manufacturing areas in the south. Rates will go through the roof. In Committee, reference was made to an enterprise in Canterbury—not a factory, a nursery. The effect of the national business rate and revaluation will put up rate payments by 722 per cent. It is the case that I always remember, because we did not have a higher example. The increase will be 722 per cent. because of the operation of revaluation, along with the unified business rate.
  It is true that many aspects of business have been led to believe that, on paper, they will gain. That is right. In the midlands and in the north, on paper, many businesses, particularly traditional businesses, will gain, and new businesses—high-tech offices, high street shops and so on—will pay more.
  The gainers will have their gains capped to buttress the losses for those who are to lose. Business men in the north of the country were told, "There is a stack of money coming off the rates. People down south are going to pay a lot more". That is not true. The business men in the midlands and the north will pay such a surcharge so that, for example, people in that nursery in Canterbury do not have to pay that 722 per cent. all in one go. [Interruption.] The fact that they will not get all the gains that Ministers said they would get has not been fully explained to business men in the midlands and the north. I do not say this as a criticism; I must take this brief opportunity, which is all I am permitted, so that in 1989 and 1990, when the scheme is introduced, no Conservative Member will be able to say that the Opposition did not warn them.
  When the howls of protest come from small and large businesses all over Britain, it will be the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Even in the south, some businesses will be hit. The Opposition have warned about this—to their credit, so did one or two Conservative Members—in Committee and on Report. We have said that the system will not quite work as the propaganda says. We do not have the details. The Minister still cannot tell us the length of the transitional periods when the gainers have their money capped. He said that it would be two years for some but a lot longer for other businesses.
  Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), applauded the fact
  1202
  that the poll tax will be tied to the rate of inflation. That is fine, as long as Conservative Members can say to their constituents in due course that the personal poll tax went through the roof exponentially in two or three years, even under Tory authorities, because the business rate was capped artificially in line with inflation. We all know that by no stretch of imagination can local authority expenditure normally be compartmentalised in the retail price index. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] For the same reason that NHS expenditure cannot be compartmentalised in the RPI.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Lady voted to limit our remarks and to stop us from debating, so I do not intend to give way to her.
  Local authority expenditure cannot be compartmentalised, for an obvious reason—its nature. It is labour intensive. Even some local government capital increases by much more than the RPI. The same applies to the health authorities, as the hon. Lady knows. If the business rate and Government grant are capped in line with inflation, for every 1 per cent. that local authority expenditure is above the Government's imposed norms—what Whitehall thinks is best for the hon. Lady's local authority—the poll tax of her constituents will increase by 4p. That is 4p for 1 p. The hon. Lady will have a job explaining to her constituents that it is not a matter of one for one. She will have to explain why the business rate is capped. Businesses will not be paying a rate that is at all relative to what they receive from local authorities.
  It is important that local authorities talk to businesses. I want that to happen. We support the revaluation. It should have occurred in the domestic sector, let alone in the industrial sector. But revaluation at the same time as the national business rate causes the problem. In due course, the Government may decide to go ahead with one and not the other. They cannot say that they will not because they do not yet have the figures and will not have the sample survey until later in the year.
  The Minister told businesses that some will lose and some will gain, but overall the Government would be merely collecting the same amount, so it would he OK. Exactly the same argument applies to the poll tax. It only collects the same amount as domestic rates, although there are massive differences in how people will lose and gain. It will be the same in the business sector. It is no good the Minister saying, "We are only collecting the same amount of money," when small business men and others are queueing up in his office saying, "You did not explain, Minister, that you were putting us out of business by what you did. You did not tell the House of Commons how much extra we would have to pay, but you pushed the legislation through without proper debate. You said that you would give us some transitional protection, but we now find that that does not work for our businesses in our part of the country." That is bound to happen, as the Minister knows.
  In the interests of good order and good debate, I draw my remarks to a close so that all hon. Members who voted for the guillotine can actually participate.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Thirty seconds of the debate remain. That shows the ludicrousness of the guillotine procedure.

  1203
  The Government have come to the House with no figures and have resisted the demand made by small businesses for a lower rate. The Minister knows that he and his Government will still be in power when small business men say, "You did not tell us the truth." The figures do not add up. They have never been given, and the Government have not——
  It being a quarter past Ten o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 88 agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Question put forthwith, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in their amendment No. 300:—
  The House Divided: Ayes 293, Noes 206.

  Division No. 434]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Alexander, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Amos, Alan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Couchman, James

  Ashby, David

  Cran, James

  Atkins, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Atkinson, David

  Curry, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

  Baldry, Tony

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Day, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Devlin, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dicks, Terry

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Dover, Den

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dunn, Bob

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Durant, Tony

  Body, Sir Richard

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fallon, Michael

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Farr, Sir John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Favell, Tony

  Bowis, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bright, Graham

  Forman, Nigel

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

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

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Franks, Cecil

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Freeman, Roger

  Buck, Sir Antony

  French, Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Fry, Peter

  Butcher, John

  Gale, Roger

  Butler, Chris

  Gardiner, George

  Butterfill, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  Gorst, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gow, Ian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Chope, Christopher

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Gregory, Conal

  1204

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mellor, David

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Ground, Patrick

  Mills, Iain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hannam, John

  Moate, Roger

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

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayward, Robert

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mudd, David

  Heddle, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Neubert, Michael

  Hill, James

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Holt, Richard

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howard, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Paice, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Irving, Charles

  Portillo, Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert

  Price, Sir David

  Janman, Tim

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jessel, Toby

  Redwood, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Key, Robert

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rost, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ryder, Richard

  Knowles, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lightbown, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lilley, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Speed, Keith

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stern, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Madel, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Marlow, Tony

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thorne, Neil

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  1205

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Wells, Bowen

  Tracey, Richard

  Wheeler, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Whitney, Ray

  Trippier, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilkinson, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wilshire, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Woodcock, Mike

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walden, George

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Waller, Gary

  Ward, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Alan Howarth.

  Watts, John

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Allen, Graham

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fatchett, Derek

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Faulds, Andrew

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fisher, Mark

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Flynn, Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Battle, John

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Foster, Derek

  Beggs, Roy

  Foulkes, George

  Beith, A. J.

  Fraser, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Fyfe, Maria

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Galbraith, Sam

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

  Galloway, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Blair, Tony

  George, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Boyes, Roland

  Gould, Bryan

  Bradley, Keith

  Graham, Thomas

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buchan, Norman

  Grocott, Bruce

  Buckley, George J.

  Hardy, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Haynes, Frank

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cartwright, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clay, Bob

  Holland, Stuart

  Clelland, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cohen, Harry

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southward)

  Cox, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Janner, Greville

  Cummings, John

  John, Brynmor

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kennedy, Charles

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Dixon, Don

  Lamond, James

  Dobson, Frank

  Leighton, Ron

  Doran, Frank

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Douglas, Dick

  Lewis, Terry

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Livsey, Richard

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  1206

  Loyden, Eddie

  Redmond, Martin

  McAlhon, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reid, Dr John

  McCartney, Ian

  Richardson, Jo

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  McKelvey, William

  Robertson, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Rogers, Allan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooker, Jeff

  McTaggart, Bob

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McWilliam, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Madden, Max

  Ruddock, Joan

  Maginnis, Ken

  Salmond, Alex

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon J (Monk'ds E)

  Meale, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Alun

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Strang, Gavin

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Turner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliott

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wall, Pat

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Walley, Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Murphy, Paul

  Waremg, Robert N

  Nellist, Dave

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  O'Brien, William

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Parry, Robert

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Patchett, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Pike, Peter L

  Wray, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Prescott, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Mrs Llin Golding and Mr Adam Ingram.

  Radice, Giles

  Question agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 300 disagreed to.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with i he Lords in their amendment No. 302:—
  The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 205.

  Division No. 435]

  [10.29 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Alexander, Richard

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Amos, Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ashby, David

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Atkinson, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Baldry, Tony

  Burt, Alistair

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butcher, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butler, Chris

  Bendall, Vivian

  Butterfill, John

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cash, William

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter

  Churchill, Mr

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bowis, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Conway, Derek

  1207

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Robert B (Harts W)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Couchman, James

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  Kilfedder, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Curry, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dicks, Terry

  Knowles, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lang, Ian

  Dover, Den

  Latham, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Durant, Tony

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Farr, Sir John

  Lilley, Peter

  Favell, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lord, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Forman, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Franks, Cecil

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  French, Douglas

  Madel, David

  Fry, Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gardiner, George

  Mans, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maples, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gow, Ian

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mellor, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gregory, Conal

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grist, Ian

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Ground, Patrick

  Moate, Roger

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

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

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mudd, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayward, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hill, James

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Holt, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Howard, Michael

  Paice, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Irving, Charles

  Price, Sir David

  Jack, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Janman, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  1208

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thorne, Neil

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rost, Peter

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tracey, Richard

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Tredinnick, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Trotter, Neville

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walden, George

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waller, Gary

  Sims, Roger

  Ward, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Watts, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, John

  Speed, Keith

  Whitney, Ray

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wilshire, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Sumberg, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Alan Howarth.

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cohen, Harry

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Allen, Graham

  Corbett, Robin

  Anderson, Donald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cox, Tom

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cryer, Bob

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cummings, John

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Darling, Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Battle, John

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

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dewar, Donald

  Beggs, Roy

  Dixon, Don

  Beith, A. J.

  Dobson, Frank

  Bell, Stuart

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Douglas, Dick

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

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Blair, Tony

  Eastham, Ken

  Boateng, Paul

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Boyes, Roland

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bradley, Keith

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Buchan, Norman

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

  Buckley, George J.

  Fisher, Mark

  Caborn, Richard

  Flannery, Martin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Cartwright, John

  Foster, Derek

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Foulkes, George

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Fraser, John

  Clay, Bob

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clelland, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Galloway, George

  1209

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Michael, Alun

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  George, Bruce

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Gould, Bryan

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Graham, Thomas

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morley, Elliott

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Murphy, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Nellist, Dave

  Haynes, Frank

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  O'Brien, William

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Parry, Robert

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Patchett, Terry

  Holland, Stuart

  Pike, Peter L.

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Prescott, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Reid, Dr John

  Illsley, Eric

  Richardson, Jo

  Ingram, Adam

  Robertson, George

  Janner, Greville

  Rogers, Allan

  John, Brynmor

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Charles

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Salmond, Alex

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lambie, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lamond, James

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Leighton, Ron

  Short, Clare

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & Fbury)

  Livsey, Richard

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Strang, Gavin

  McAllion, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McCartney, Ian

  Turner, Dennis

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Vaz, Keith

  McKelvey, William

  Wall, Pat

  McLeish, Henry

  Walley, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McWilliam, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Madden, Max

  Wilson, Brian

  Maginnis, Ken

  Winnick, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Marek, Dr John

  Worthington, Tony

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Maxton, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Meacher, Michael

  Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Meale, Alan

  Question agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 302 accordingly disagreed to.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in their amendment No. 303:—
  The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 205.

  Division No. 436]

  [10.43 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Ashby, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Amos, Alan

  Atkinson, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  1210

  Baldry, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gardiner, George

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gill, Christopher

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gorst, John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gow, Ian

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Body, Sir Richard

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gregory, Conal

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Grist, Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Ground, Patrick

  Bowis, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hannam, John

  Brazier, Julian

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

  Bright, Graham

  Harris, David

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hawkins, Christopher

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

  Hayes, Jerry

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hayward, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Heddle, John

  Burt, Alistair

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Butcher, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Butler, Chris

  Hill, James

  Butterfill, John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Holt, Richard

  Cash, William

  Howard, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Howarth, G. (Cannock S B'wd)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Irving, Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jack, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Jackson, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Janman, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jessel, Toby

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Couchman, James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Cran, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Key, Robert

  Curry, David

  Kilfedder, James

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwatgr)

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Devlin, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knowles, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dunn, Bob

  Lang, Ian

  Durant, Tony

  Latham, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Evennett, David

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Farr, Sir John

  Lightbown, David

  Favell, Tony

  Lilley, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lord, Michael

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCrindle, Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Maclean, David

  Franks, Cecil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  1211

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Sims, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Maples, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Marland, Paul

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marlow, Tony

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Speed, Keith

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Mellor, David

  Stern, Michael

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mills, Iain

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Moate, Roger

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Sumberg, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Summerson, Hugo

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mudd, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N

  Neubert, Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tracey, Richard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Paice, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Patnick, Irvine

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pawsey, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Portillo, Michael

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walden, George

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Redwood, John

  Ward, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Riddick, Graham

  Watts, John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wheeler, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wilkinson, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wilshire, David

  Rost, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Woodcock, Mike

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Yeo, Tim

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Scott, Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mr. Richard Ryder and Mr. Alan Howarth.

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

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

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allen, Graham

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Anderson, Donald

  Blair, Tony

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Boateng, Paul

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Boyes, Roland

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bradley, Keith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Barron, Kevin

  Buchan, Norman

  Battle, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Beckett, Margaret

  Caborn, Richard

  Beggs, Roy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beith, A. J.

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cartwright, John

  1212

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lamond, James

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Leighton, Ron

  Clay, Bob

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Clelland, David

  Lewis, Terry

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Litherland, Robert

  Cohen, Harry

  Livsey, Richard

  Coleman, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  Loyden, Eddie

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McAllion, John

  Cousins, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cox, Tom

  McCartney, Ian

  Cryer, Bob

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Cummings, John

  McKelvey, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  McLeish, Henry

  Darling, Alistair

  McNamara, Kevin

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McTaggart, Bob

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

  McWilliam, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Madden, Max

  Dixon, Don

  Maginnis, Ken

  Dobson, Frank

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Doran, Frank

  Marek, Dr John

  Douglas, Dick

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Maxton, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Meacher, Michael

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meale, Alan

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Michael, Alun

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fisher, Mark

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Flannery, Martin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flynn, Paul

  Morley, Elliott

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foster, Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Foulkes, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Nellist, Dave

  Fyfe, Maria

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galbraith, Sam

  O'Brien, William

  Galloway, George

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Parry, Robert

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Patchett, Terry

  George, Bruce

  Pike, Peter L.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Graham, Thomas

  Prescott, John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Radice, Giles

  Grocott, Bruce

  Redmond, Martin

  Hardy, Peter

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Reid, Dr John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Richardson, Jo

  Haynes, Frank

  Robertson, George

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rogers, Allan

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Henderson, Doug

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Holland, Stuart

  Salmond, Alex

  Home Robertson, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hood, Jimmy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Short, Clare

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

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

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

  Illsley, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Ingram, Adam

  Spearing, Nigel

  John, Brynmor

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Turner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Vaz, Keith

  Lambie, David

  Wall, Pat

  1213

  Wallace, James

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Walley, Joan

  Wilson, Brian

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Winnick, David

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  1214

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Question agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 303 accordingly disagreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 304 disagreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 91, 278, 281, 283, 284, 92 to 114, 292, 293, 115 to 117, 294, 118, 119, 139, 142, 182, 183,296 to 299,301, 305 to 311,313 to 316, 319 to 321, 324 and 327 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Lords amendments Nos. 279, 280, 282, 285 to 291, 120 to 138, 140, 141, 143 to 170, 172 to 181, 184, 185, 295, 312, 317, 318, 322, 323, 325, 326 and 328 to 334 agreed to.

Schedule 15

  AMENDMENTS
  Lords amendment: No. 335, in page 139, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 44.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 206, 339, 405 and 408.
  Mr. Lang: Lords amendments Nos. 335, 339, 408 and 206 are drafting amendments to the structure of schedule 15, which presently consists of two parts. Part I contains amendments relating to England and Wales and part II refers to amendments relating to Scotland. However, several of the Acts amended in part I apply to Great Britain, and therefore it is preferable that a third part of the schedule should contain the amendments to those Acts. That is achieved by Lords amendment No. 408. No policy change is involved.
  Lords amendment No. 405 is a technical one intended to clarify the wording of the power under the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 to enable the Secretary of State to provide a grant "safety net" for local authorities so that the changes to the grant system that have been brought forward can be phased in rather than for the full effect to be felt within a single year. Again, no change of policy is involved.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I do not wish to detain the House long because there are a number of other matters that we wish to consider.
  If the amendments are purely technical, why are they being introduced at this stage? Why were they not spotted earlier? I understand that amendments Nos. 335 and 339 are taking sections of the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966 and the International Organisations Act 1968, as well as others, out of the Bill. Those sections are being replaced by amendments Nos. 405 and 408. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is so?
  I understand that the International Organisations Act 1968 relates to diplomatic exemption. That is a controversial matter in terms of taxation and criminal charges. Widespread concern has been expressed about those issues. How many organisations are covered by the International Organisations Act, which is the subject of the amendments?
  Mr. Lang: With regard to amendments Nos. 335, 339, 408 and 206, I have already made it clear that part I of the schedule contains amendments relating to England and Wales and part II contains amendments relating to Scotland. Some of the Acts that are amended by part I apply to Great Britain and, as a result of the progress of the Bill through the House, it has been considered
  1216
  appropriate to redesign the schedule to clarify what applies to Great Britain and what applies to Scotland. If my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) can contain himself, we shall cover diplomatic exemptions in a later amendment.
  Amendment No. 405 relates to the clarification of the safety net provision. Paragraph 2(4) was included in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 to allow the Secretary of State to provide a grant safety net. We were concerned that the changes in grant distribution among local authorities as a result of that Act—although not large in comparison with the total sums involved—might cause short-term problems for some authorities and obstruct a smooth transition to the new system of local government finance.
  The intention is to allow the Secretary of State to phase the shifts in grant entitlement rather than to have a sudden change. The original paragraph 2(4) was confusing in that context. For the sake of clarification, we are proposing amendment No. 405. I hope that my hon. Friend will find that it makes the position much clearer.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 335 and 340 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Lords amendments Nos. 336 to 339 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 341, in page 141, line 8, leave out from "prescribe" to end of line 9 and insert—

  "(a) the manner in which and the principles, rules and considerations by reference to which the net annual value of lands and heritages is to be arrived at under subsection (8) above;

  (b) that the principles, rules and considerations referred to in paragraph (a) above or any of them shall be such as are determined in accordance with the regulations."

  Mr. Lang: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 342 to 344, 346 to 349, 351 to 354, 409 and 410.
  11 pm
  Mr. Lang: The amendments deal with several aspects of rating and valuation. Amendment No. 341 provides power to prescribe principles of valuation, and it may be helpful to explain the purpose of the provision and outline the area in which the regulation-making power may be used.
  The amendment provides a means whereby the Secretary of State may, if necessary, introduce measures further to harmonise valuation practice north and south of the border. We do not envisage that wide use will be made of the power, but there is one area of difference which requires to be brought into line before the 1990 revaluation and the power provided by amendment No. 341 may be used to achieve this. It is the decapitalisation rate used in the contractor's principle valuations in Scotland and the contractor's test valuations in England and Wales.
  Amendments Nos. 342 and 343 deal with provisions for de-rating. Amendment No. 342 deals with the exemption from rating of certain church buildings. The broad intention underlying the amendment is to provide de-rating on certain buildings used for church administration, and there will be consultation before the relevant order-making powers are used. Amendment No. 343 deals with exemption of certain salmon fishings from ratings—[Interruption.]—on the same basis as the

  1217
  equivalent provisions for England and Wales. It prevents the element of double taxation which could arise in circumstances where fisheries board assessments are payable as well as local authority rates.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: If no district fisheries board rate is assessed. will normal rates be paid by the salmon proprietor?
  Mr. Lang: That will be the case. Our expectation is that the number of district fisheries boards will probably increase considerably, although special features apply to the Tweed and the Esk which may be of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: As the only representative of the impoverished aristocracy, may I say that we recognise that the Government are making an important concesssion to a needy group? Can the Minister give us some idea of the value of this concession and how many people will take advantage of it? Will they include people such as the Duke of Roxburghe? Can it be that this concession is being made on the same night as the Government resisted an amendment to benefit disabled people?
  Mr. Lang: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the number of people involved, but I shall write to him if he wishes to pursue that matter. We estimate that the loss of income to local authorities may be in the region of £1 million to £1·5 million.
  Amendment No. 344 increases the level of mandatory rate relief for charities to 80 per cent., in line with the increase proposed for England and Wales.
  Amendments Nos. 348 and 349 are part of the same measure, and I shall explain them together. Amendment No. 348 requires a ratepayer to pay his rates bill in full, pending the outcome of his appeal, which is in line with the existing provisions in England and Wales. If the appeal is successful, amendment No. 349 requires the rating authority not only to repay the amount overpaid, but, where that amount is in excess of a prescribed limit, interest on that amount at a rate prescribed by the Secretary of State. The remaining amendments are technical.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: It is late and many people are tired, but this is not a routine measure. The Minister has plodded through his notes haplessly with his characteristic elan and spirit, but for all that we should pause and consider what we are about.
  I believe—and I speak for many of my hon. Friends—that this is not a routine or ritual occasion, but a serious one. Often in this Chamber there is anger and sometimes it is ritualised. It is often contained and formalised within the rules of the House. Tonight there is a very real edge to anger and discontent, because we are seeing in this thicket of amendments an abuse of process and contempt for the House that is made no more palatable by the fact that English colleagues have been treated equally badly.
  We have in this group of amendments and in the others that we will be considering in the very short time available perhaps 70 or more amendments. Some may be technical, but others will raise matters of substance and of acute public interest. There is absolutely no way in which the House can look at them sensibly, in depth or in the sort of detail that the people of Scotland would expect of us when we consider a matter of this importance. The group that
  1218
  we are discussing deals with a whole range of matters—for example, the principles of valuation, harmonisation, the rating of charitable premises and, as the Minister has said, the concession to the owners of salmon fisheries.
  The debate on salmon fisheries alone would take many hours in Committee, perhaps many sittings, yet we have been placed in the position where at the most we have a little more than an hour to consider this group. However, if we were to take that time, it would be at the cost of not debating a whole range of important amendments dealing with, for example, exemptions, joint and several liability, the severely mentally impaired and other matters which I know many hon. Members feel strongly about. It is a disgrace. That word is often used very lightly in political debates, but I use it with its full weight—it is a disgrace in every sense that we have been placed in this position. I am entitled—no, more than entitled, I have a duty—to protest about what is happening.
  These amendments have not been debated before in the House. They were not debated in the Committee that considered the Bill, although a number of my colleagues were members of that Committee specifically so that they could deal with any amendments to the Scottish legislation. The amendments were introduced through the back door. They have been squeezed in almost by stealth and they make a mockery of any attempt at proper parliamentary scrutiny. Conducting our business in this manner makes a farce of our proceedings.
  Mr. George Foulkes: And of the glorious revolution.
  Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend mentions the revolution of 1688. Ministers were in serried ranks upon the golden carpets this morning hearing about our essential liberties, while in the House of Commons we are proceeding in a way that makes a mockery of those very same liberties.
  There has been a good deal of debate about the concession on salmon fisheries, and I will take that as an example—not because it is the most important, but because it is reasonably accessible even within this group of amendments. The Minister has said that about £1·5 million a year is being handed out to a very special and limited group of Scotsmen, Englishmen and foreign nationals of every description—a ragbag of humanity, whose only similarity is that they could not possibly be considered as needy.
  The explanation for this concession comes in the note on amendments, which says that the amendments were introduced
  "In fulfilment of undertakings given to Lord Moran and to Lord Kimball"
  in another place—and I remember Mr. Marcus Kimball as he then was. We do not know the circumstances in which those undertakings were given, but I know that Ministers could not nave any idea of the opinion of the elected representatives of Scotland or other hon. Members, because amendments were not debated in the House, and cannot be properly debated tonight.
  We are told
  "that the amendments are being introduced to provide that salmon fishings which are subject to a fishery rate shall no longer be subject to a local authority rate".
  Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that Conservative Members do not take this seriously, but is it in order for one hon.

  1219
  Member to be resting her eyes, and for another to be reading a novel with his feet up during the debate on this important group of amendments?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I always assume that when hon. Members are reading they are preparing themselves for the debate.
  Mr. Dewar: Your legendary reputation as an optimist will be reinforced by that assumption, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We are told:
  "salmon fishings which are subject to a fishery rate shall no longer be subject to a local authority rate, thus avoiding an element of what is arguably double taxation. In Scotland fishery rates are payable to district fishery boards constituted by the proprietors of fishing rights on particular rivers."
  Using a voluntary organisation constituted by the proprietors as a reason for exempting hereditaments from local rates is an extremely suspect principle. We shall not have time to probe and discuss this proposal, just as we shall not have time to probe and discuss many more important proposals, to which we might have been able to come, given decent time to work our way through the massive list of Lords amendments.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that he and his colleagues would have had 30 minutes more in which to debate these matters if the Labour party had not insisted on two wholly unnecessary Divisions on the last group of amendments?
  Mr. Dewar: That is insulting, and the smirk on the hon. Gentleman's face makes the point. He is suggesting that we could have had 30 minutes more to debate this massive group of amendments if we had not voted against some offensive, unpleasant and unwanted amendments. If that is his idea of how to expedite business in a democracy, I can only say that he is in the right party.
  I recognise that many of my hon. Friends, and hon. Members in other parties, will want to speak to these amendments. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is here, so that I can tell him that these proceedings reflect no credit on this Parliament and make it no easier to work the business of the House. They are bad for Parliament and for the democratic process. The House depends on a delicate balance. Its rules are often illogical and sometimes indefensible, but they are workable only when there is trust and Governments recognise the rights of the Opposition and of the electorate in Scotland. If the tacit agreement is to operate, it must not be put under the strain that this charade and farce are putting on our business.
  We are concerned not only about this exercise tonight. I cannot go into the details, but I remind the House that this is just another chapter in a sorry story. We have no Select Committee—it was killed off because hon. Members like the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) have neither the commitment nor the sense of duty to serve upon it. They have shown a disgraceful abdication of responsibility.
  Even during the negotiations on the Scottish Grand Committee debates, the Government showed no enthusiasm or willingness to go to Edinburgh to debate matters of central importance to Scotland. There was a perverse refusal at the end of the day. Now the Government are bulldozing through this tangled mass of amendments
  1220
  without giving the House the opportunity to debate them. That is a recipe for confusion, and it will bring down on the Government not only our anger but the anger of anybody who has at heart the interest of good government and the tidy creation of the body of the law in Scotland.
  This may be a small point, but it is worth making. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to give an assurance that a new copy of the Scottish Act will be published soon, one that incorporates this extraordinary confusion of changes that we shall rubber-stamp in the next hour or so. It would be ridiculous if those who wanted to check on the law of Scotland could not do so in one Act, and had to chase their way through the labyrinth of English legislation.
  The whole exercise is cynical and indefensible. Ministers often lecture us about the law, our duty and the constitution of the kingdom. But they, too, must recognise that they have responsibilities, and in flouting them, as they have tonight, they become the enemies of the very principles that they so often preach. I believe in making systems work. There is no secret in that. I talk unashamedly and as an individual. Opposition Members have had a lively debate about the best way forward. I advise Ministers that bully-boy tactics affect the balance of that argument for me and for many of my colleagues. If Ministers continue in that way, they do so at their peril.
  11.15 pm
  The amendments do nothing to alter or soften the bleak outline of the poll tax in Scotland. There is no attempt to tackle the basic objections to a regressive tax, with all its built-in administrative problems. Perhaps there is a tacit admission that it would be impossible to tackle the problems. The surgery would be so radical that it would be better to scrap the whole ludicrous exercise. We should like to do that. We know that we cannot do it tonight, but we certainly intend to continue the fight against a form of taxation that is unwanted and unworkable. We shall continue to argue the case for sanity and social justice. We shall do so responsibly and persistently, because that is what we were elected to do. I again warn the Government that if they continue to treat Opposition Members, the House and Scotland in that way, they will inevitably bring about friction and problems that they will regret.
  Sir Hector Monro: I do not know what the past 20 minutes have added to the debate. They seemed to consist of a tirade. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) talked about bully-boy tactics. If he had not used such tactics last November, we might well have a Select Committee. [Interruption.] That is what I said. If the hon. Member for Garscadden had not started dictating to Conservative Members about who should be a member of the Committee, we would probably have a Committee. The fact that we do not have one is entirely the fault of the Labour party.
  I shall talk for a short while about salmon. I am quite open about the subject. I have no salmon fishing interest to declare, except the rights of my constituents and all others in Scotland who are interested in tourism and developing fishing for the many people who enjoy the most important recreation in the country.
  Mr. MaxtonMany Opposition Members find it sickening that the hon. Gentleman, who went through the

  1221
  Division Lobby to ensure that blind and disabled people pay the poll tax is now supporting fishermen who can well afford to pay every tax that they must pay.
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. There are many less well-off people in my constituency, and there are many such people in Scotland, who enjoy fishing at a cost of so much a day. The fact that it will be less expensive in future should be welcomed by all hon. Members, particularly those hon. Members who are interested in one of the largest recreational sports in the country.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Hector Monro: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. His constituency contains the largest stretch of the most important river in Scotland. He should know quite a lot about the subject that I am about to discuss.
  Mr. Home Robertson: For that reason, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Hector Monro: No.
  I wish to refer to a subject about which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) recently blatantly misinformed the Scottish Grand Committee. He tried to bring in the issue of rating relative to district boards and local authorities. His remarks were totally out of context and were made from great ignorance. It is important to get to the heart of harmonisation of sporting rates throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that, in the not-too-distant future, all sporting rates will be harmonised, including those for shooting, which are more expensive in Scotland than in England. [Interruption.] I shall not hurry if the Opposition natter away the whole evening.
  It is important to be clear about what the Government are doing. They are removing one of two forms of rates imposed on all river fishing in Scotland where a district board is in place. Those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to read the debate on the Salmon Bill in the last Parliament will know that hon. Members, especially the Opposition, argued about the importance of high-quality fishing in Scotland to develop the tourist industry and thereby Scotland's economy.
  One of the main thrusts of the Bill was to encourage the formation of district boards to improve the fishing, and thereby to encourage more angling, to the benefit of those interested in that recreation. If riparian owners pay high rates to local authorities, it seems unreasonable that they should also pay substantial sums to the district boards to improve the rivers. I am glad that the Government agree that it is important to separate the two issues and that the rates paid to the local authority will be paid only if a district board is not in place. We should do all we can to encourage district boards to promote the sport of fishing, which is so popular throughout Britain and so important to Scotland's economy.
  The Opposition think that only wealthy people with titles own fishing areas. My local authority, which has a Liberal majority, owns stretches of river and netting. That authority has always been keen to promote fishing. The income goes to the common good and is dispensed to all local ratepayers. It is wrong to say that all fishing is owned by the wealthy.
  1222
  Many stretches of Scottish rivers are owned by local fishing associations, which for a few pounds a day or a season let out water for salmon, sea trout or brown trout fishing. That should be encouraged, and the Government's actions are very satisfactory.
  I want to come to one point of detail.
  Mr. Foulkes: Sit down.
  Sir Hector Monro: I shall not hurry just because the hon. Gentleman moans. If he would stick to looking after his constituency instead of everyone else's, we might make some progress.
  My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the River Tweed, which has always been given special consideration through the Tweed commissioners. As my hon. Friend knows, the River Esk in my constituency is managed by the North West water authority. I want to know whether special arrangements are being made because of the changes in valuation. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, in next year's water legislation, the National Rivers Authority will take account of the River Esk?
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister supports Lords amendment No. 433, because it will be of great value to angling in Scotland. Many thousands of people will benefit from the fact that fishing will be cheaper and of a far higher quality in the years to come.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: One might have thought that everything that could have been said about the poll tax legislation had already been said, yet here we are discussing yet another bunch of amendments that has been foisted upon us. We cannot possibly discuss all the amendments, but we realise that the Bill remains fundamentally offensive. It is deeply resented in Scotland and it is alien to our sense of fairness.
  It was accepted that the rates system needed to be reformed, but even fair-minded Conservatives feel a deep sense of unease and shame about the Bill. Even those who will benefit and who rightly urged the Government to reform the rates never at any time believed that one unfair tax would be replaced by another that was even more regressive and unfair.
  I shall deal with Lords amendment No. 343. It is ironic that certain salmon fishing; are being exempted from the rates only weeks after the Government went for the salmon net fishermen by increasing the weekly close time. We did not want the poll tax, and we certainly do not want the amendments. How will the changes affect the process in Scotland? If the Government are intent on sticking to their timetable, and to the implementation date of April 1989, the changes are coming far too late. I would suggest that the Government give up that timetable. It is all very well their introducing legislation for England and Wales, but the Scottish authorities have only nine months' preparation time left. Surely the sensible thing to do now would be at least to delay the implementation of the poll tax.
  To be introducing the amendments at this late stage and allowing less than two hours debate is disgraceful. Worse still, we are debating them late at night, and at the tail end of the debate—as usual with matters concerning Scotland. That shows once again the Government's disregard for the democratic rights of the Scottish nation and its people.
  The Government have behaved like a demented octopus with its tentacles flailing uncontrolled in all directions and hitting out at all in sight. They have gone

  1223
  for the old, the young and the less well-off. They have gone for local government, for the crofters and the Churches. They have ignored the wishes of the people of Scotland and treated them with contempt.
  The Government have demeaned not only themselves but the House. The Scottish people will never again believe that justice can emanate from here.
  Mr. Deputy SpeakerMr. Allan Stewart. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I am sorry that hon. Members are creating such a din; I have spoken once, on the previous group of amendments, for one minute, and I do not propose to speak for more than two or three minutes on these amendments.
  First, I shall respond to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). In my constituency there is massive support for the community charge legislation and I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not be tempted by the hon. Lady's invitation to delay its implementation. The legislation is on schedule, and Opposition Members' campaigns of non-registration and delay have failed completely. That is why they are making such a din. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that there was a lack of control by the Government. I should have thought that the events of this evening showed, from an early stage, that the Opposition were totally out of control of their tactics on the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke with his customary authority and expertise about the amendment relating to salmon fishings, which perhaps is the most important in this group. I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions concerning other amendments in the same group.
  11.30 pm
  First, will my hon. Friend say a few words about amendment No. 351, which deals with the change in the method of calculating the base month for the retail price index formula? I am not sure that I quite understand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sure that Opposition Members do not understand it. In any event, I do not wholly understand what amendment No. 351 will mean in practice.
  Secondly, I should like my hon. Friend to comment on amendments Nos. 342 and 344. My understanding is that amendment No. 342 continues the total exemption from rates of religious bodies, such as Churches. I do not want to widen the debate, but I am not sure whether one ought in principle wholly to exclude religious bodies from the rating system. However, my understanding is that that is what amendment No. 342 achieves.
  Amendment No. 344 increases the remission of rates payable from charities and similar organisations from one half to 80 per cent. of the rates bill that would otherwise be payable. If that is so, it will benefit considerably a very large number of charities and similar organisations. Can my hon. Friend quantify the financial consequences for charities in Scotland—my understanding is that amendment No. 344 is limited to Scotland—of that concession, which will be widely welcomed? It will be helpful if my hon. Friend can quantify the positive effects of that considerable concession to charities and other bodies.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I suppose that we should all be grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) for proving categorically that an association with fish does not lead to brains.
  I make no apology for dwelling on one aspect of these amendments. My position on the poll tax is reasonably well known. I believe that it is insidious and vicious, and there is no category of people against whom it is more insidious and vicious than the people of rural Scotland. Therefore, it becomes doubly insulting and offensive that at the very last moment in the House of Lords, without there being any debate in this House, any public notice, any intimation from the scribblers of the Scottish Information Office, or any attempt to stimulate public discussion on this matter, a clause has been slipped into the legislation giving a £1·5 million handout to the owners of Scottish rod salmon fishings. It has nothing to do with the poll tax. By the backdoor of the English and Welsh poll tax legislation, a small number of salmon rod proprietors in Scotland will be given this handout.
  Lord Moran and Lord Kimball have been lobbying in the House of Lords for another concession. The Minister might tell us whether that concession will be slipped in as well. They are demanding yet another pot of gold for their vested interest—the abolition of shooting rates in Scotland. The Minister might care to tell us now whether that will be slipped in so that we do not have to read about it in a few days' time in the House of Lords Hansard.
  The note on the amendment—this is the untruth that has to be nailed—says that the reason for giving the fishing proprietors of Scotland £1·5 million is that they are
  "arguably subject to double taxation."
  That is nonsense. They pay a levy to district salmon fisheries boards. Those boards have a curious quasi-public status. However, the dominant force since the Salmon Act 1986 has to be the salmon proprietors themselves. To all intents and purposes, it is their private association. Because of a law—we cannot go into that tonight, but it should be swept away in any democratic society—the salmon fisheries boards are entitled to hire their own private police forces. The levies to the boards pay for those police forces. They are not used to construct roads or provide local authority services. They have nothing to do with local authority rates. There is no double taxation. One might as well say that, because hoteliers pay levies to their local hotel associations, they should be exempt from non-domestic rates. That is the exact parallel.
  In the buffoonery of the hon. Member for Dumfries we are told that it is all about tourism. It has nothing to do with tourism. There is a salmon enterprise, about which I know a little, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). It is the syndicate of Grimersta estate and it has 20 members, including several of the jokers who turned up to vote against an ability-to-pay principle being introduced into the poll tax. Perhaps they are not such jokers; perhaps they are the bright lads. The Scottish peers who turned up to vote for that legislation receive a minimum £2,000 a head direct gain under the poll tax and, in addition, they are to get this little bonus thrown in.
  That syndicate is not interested in tourism. Not one extra tourist comes to Scotland because of it. Yet if this provision had been in existence in the present financial year the members of the syndicate would have made a saving of £5,500. That would have been a reduction in income to the Western Isles council. I spoke to the assessor

  1225
  in the Highland region today. He said that rateable values of £230,000 will be wiped out by the amendment. That is roughly £160,000 in the Highland region that will not be paid in rates on salmon fishing but will be paid in rates from somewhere else. The same is true in Strathclyde, because there is plenty of salmon fishing in Argyll.
  Who will compensate for the fact that those people will be given £1·5 million? It will be the poor, the disabled and all the categories of people who are being penalised under the poll tax. The Government have the effrontery to introduce an amendment that gives a £1·5 million handout to the salmon rod proprietors of Scotland. It is a disgrace with which people will be able to identify.
  The people of urban Scotland, as well as the people of rural Scotland, know that the owners of those salmon fishings do not attract tourists to Scotland, but are the biggest deterrent to tourism in Scotland. They close off vast acreages of Scotland as their own private playgrounds, and for that service to the nation they will be given this additional handout. The people of urban Scotland know that the curse of rural Scotland is landlordism, yet at the same time——
  Mr. Harris rose——
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Wilson: At the same time as crofters are losing their 50 per cent. de-rating under the legislation and at the same time as the people living in the remotest corners of my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) are losing the rating advantage which reflected the remoteness of their homes and the services with which they are provided, the salmon rod proprietors of Scotland are being given another £1·5 million. That transfer of wealth is as comprehensible to those inner cities of Scotland as it is in the rural areas.
  As I said in the Scottish Grand Committee—I advise the hon. Member for Dumfries that every word that I said in the Scottish Grand Committee has been proven true—in the great swathe of the highlands and islands, the Tories have been eradicated along with wolves and TB. Part of the reason is this kind of special pleading and offerings to the landowners of Scotland. That is part of the reason why there is no way back for them.
  I finish on this note. When it suits them—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) wishes to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way to him.
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for giving way. He knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) cannot intervene, so I shall ask the question that he and every Conservative Member is dying to ask. In his strictures on landlords and those who own the fishing rights and who will get, according to the hon. Gentleman, this great handout, does the hon. Gentleman include his hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)? If so, has the hon. Member for East Lothian told him whether he will give the money back?
  Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can assist me. We have heard the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) say from a sedentary position that he cannot intervene in the debate.
  1226
  Can you keep him in order and restrain him from intervening in the debate, especially from a sedentary position?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get on with the debate. Mr. Wilson.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Crawley does not bother me at all. When I hear him, I recall the old maxim, "All you expect from a pig is a grunt."
  I shall conclude my remarks because I have no wish to turn the debate into a comedy show about Tory Members. The amendment is an affront to the people of urban and rural Scotland. In a real sense, it sums up what the poll tax is about. It is about taking away from those who have least and giving to the most privileged groups in society. It is perhaps not inappropriate that we finish these debates on such a symbolic note.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I always listen to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) with a great deal of sympathy—not with understanding and certainly not with agreement—because I understand that when a 16-year-old goes to New St. Andrew's house in Edinburgh for a job, the first test that that youngster is set is, "See if you can write a speech for Allan Stewart." The irony is that if the hon. Gentleman can read the speech, the youngster is regarded as being below the level of intelligence required for the Civil Service, and he does not get a job. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, yet again it is clear that some other youngster's career has bitten the dust.
  11.45 pm
  I only wish that the Strangers Gallery had been packed with my constituents to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H:. Monro). I wish that old-age pensioners, the disabled and the blind, and others who will be clobbered by the poll tax. had been present to hear the hon. Gentleman pleading the case for those who have the privilege of owning the salmon rod fisheries. He laid open the real concept of the proposed legislation. When the Bill was introduced, we were told that those who use services will contribute to the cost of providing them. That does not apply to those who own the salmon rod fisheries. They will enjoy refunds. They will get back the money.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries has pleaded for those who own shoots as well. That contrasts starkly with a decision that was taken earlier this evening, which the hon. Gentleman supported. It was supported also by the hon. Member for Eastwood. There will be no option for those on income support who are unable to pay poll tax, or who refuse to do so. They will not be asked for their agreement to have poll tax deducted from their benefit. For those on the lowest level of income, poll tax will be deducted from their benefit. They will not even be asked whether that money can be taken from them.
  The hon. Member for Eastwood shakes his head. He should understand that there will be a few in his constituency who will suffer that form of deduction. I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall make damned sure that those of his constituents who are on income support and who have their benefit abated because of poll tax will learn about his activities this evening.
  I can understand that complaints have been made about the fact that we have divided the House on this issue. The hon. Member for Eastwood and others wanted to hide

  1227
  behind an absence of Divisions. We ensured that we divided the House because we wanted to expose the hon. Members for Eastwood and for Dumfries, who are frightened to death. We wanted to drive them out of their holes and place their names on the record, and we succeeded. We shall ensure that the record is read the length and breadth of Scotland, especially in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Dumfries and for Eastwood.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has handed me a note, which I shall read out. I take strong exception to its terms. My hon. Friend was elected to this place at the last general election, and he is young and inexperienced. He is complaining bitterly to me, however, that I am being too hard on the hon. Member for Eastwood. My hon. Friend owes his seat to Michael Ancram, who was such an outstanding communicator on the poll tax. He was such a great communicator that the people of Edinburgh, South threw him out. My hon. Friend is here as a result of that. I will speak privately to my hon. Friend after the debate, but I must tell him in public that he needs a bit more of a cutting edge to him.
  Having witnessed the conduct of the hon. Members for Dumfries and for Eastwood, it was right and proper for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and Opposition Back Benchers to express anger at the way in which the Scottish people are being treated with contempt by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden was right to express his anger about the way in which the House is being treated and the number of amendments that have been introduced at this late stage. He was wrong to express surprise about that, because the Government have treated the Scottish people with contempt since 1979. The Scottish people and the House of Commons do not mean anything to the Government. Had it not been for the restraint shown by Opposition Members, there would have been much trouble in the House. We have shown considerable restraint, but it has been taxed to its maximum. Tonight it has been taxed to its limit. The people of Scotland are of prime importance to Opposition Members.
  Mr. McKelvey: All Opposition Members wish that they had had an opportunity to express their anger and frustration. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) is frustrated almost to the point of breaking, but will he join me and other Labour Members in not paying this tax?
  Mr. Ewing: Like my hon. Friends, I am always open and honest. If any of my constituents send me a letter asking whether I will pay the poll tax, I will answer that I will. That must not be misinterpreted as my agreeing with what the Government are doing to the people of Scotland. Yes, I will pay the poll tax. I have always made my position perfectly clear to constituents who have written to me about this issue. It is for every individual to take his own decision whether to pay. I tell my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and Livingston (Mr. Cook) that I will not criticise anybody who says that they
  1228
  will not pay the poll tax. There is no possibility of my joining any campaign of condemnation of anyone who refuses to pay the poll tax.
  Tonight, the Government have ensured that anyone receiving income support or state benefit will not have the same choice as I or my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West and I can choose whether to pay the poll tax. Nobody on state benefit can choose whether to pay it.
  Mr. James Wallace rose——
  Mr. Ewing: I am in danger of not speaking to the amendments, but I shall after I have given way to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman said that he will pay the poll tax; I agree with him, and I will also pay it. But does he accept that the arguments in favour of obeying the law become much more difficult to sustain when the Government ride roughshod over parliamentary democracy and limit time to deal with these important matters?
  Mr. Ewing: I have always found that those who mouth platitudes about obeying the law are the biggest law-breakers. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State have put strains and stresses on the people of Scotland, and it is understandable that some people will adopt a position different from mine. That is why I will not join a campaign of condemnation.
  My main point remains valid, and I shall repeat it because it should be heard. Vast groups of people in Scotland will not have the choice that we have of whether to pay. All on state benefits will pay the poll tax, whether they want to or not.
  I come now to the amendments. The hon. Member for Eastwood compared the present 50 per cent. mandatory rebate for charities with a possible 80 per cent. rebate under this legislation. With that innocent air that he acquired during his time in the Scottish Office—which saw him out of its doors before his backside was on the seat—he asked the Minister of State for an assessment. I shall give him one: in almost the whole of Scotland—if not all of it—these charities enjoy the 50 per cent. mandatory relief, plus another 50 per cent. discretionary relief. So they pay no rates at all. Under this legislation and the amendments to it, they will pay the first 20 per cent. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, so the Minister need not answer it.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member will be able to return to his fine textual examination of the amendments in a second.
  The proceedings tonight are undemocratic and farcical, and the Scottish National party would have liked to be able to say that in the course of them, especially as the non-payment campaign in Scotland is growing by the minute.
  Mr. Ewing: I am not sure that it is. It is certainly not growing in east Angus or Perth and Kinross—and I see no evidence of it growing in Falkirk. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point on behalf of his party. It is entitled to be heard, the same as the rest of us. The hon. Gentleman will have other opportunities to discuss this matter.
  Another amendment that the Minister mentioned almost in passing related to using the contractor's

  1229
  principle in assessing industry in Scotland for rating and valuation. The Minister is harmonising the systems of Scotland and England, which are different now. The Minister thinks that the contractor's principle has never been heard of. He is harmonising a bad system. Scottish industry, especially the chemical industry, wants to be rid of the contractor's principle in rating and valuation. Instead of harmonising it, we should get rid of it. But the Minister has no intention of doing that. He is harmonising a bad practice. Let no one think for a moment that he is doing industry in Scotland any favours. The amendments do nothing at all in favour of Scottish industry. Nobody will benefit from them except, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the owners of the salmon rod fisheries.
  Mr. Home Robertson: People like me will benefit.
  Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is saying that he is all right. He can speak for himself. If all the owners of the salmon rod fisheries take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, they will vote Labour. I guarantee Conservative Members that whatever benefits——
  It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 201.

  Division No. 437]

  [12.00

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Alexander, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Amos, Alan

  Churchill, Mr

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Ashby, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cran, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bendall, Vivian

  Curry, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Day, Stephen

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dicks, Terry

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dover, Den

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Durant, Tony

  Bowis, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evennett, David

  Bright, Graham

  Fallon, Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Farr, Sir John

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

  Favell, Tony

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Burt, Alistair

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Butcher, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Butler, Chris

  Forman, Nigel

  Butterfill, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Cash, William

  Franks, Cecil

  1230

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  French, Douglas

  Madel, David

  Fry, Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gardiner, George

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Maples, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marland, Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gregory, Conal

  Mellor, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grist, Ian

  Mills, Iain

  Ground, Patrick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Roger

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

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

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayward, Robert

  Neubert, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heddle, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Holt, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Howard, Michael

  Paice, James

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

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, John

  Jack, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jackson, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Janman, Tim

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Key, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rowe, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knowles, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Latham, Michael

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sims, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lilley, Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  1231

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Walden, George

  Sumberg, David

  Waller, Gary

  Summerson, Hugo

  Ward, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wheeler, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thorne, Neil

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Wood, Timothy

  Tracey, Richard

  Woodcock, Mike

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Trippier, David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Allen, Graham

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Beckett, Margaret

  Flannery, Martin

  Beith, A. J.

  Flynn, Paul

  Bell, Stuart

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Foster, Derek

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foulkes, George

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fraser, John

  Blair, Tony

  Fyfe, Maria

  Boateng, Paul

  Galbraith, Sam

  Boyes, Roland

  Galloway, George

  Bradley, Keith

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Buchan, Norman

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Buckley, George J.

  Gould, Bryan

  Caborn, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cartwright, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Haynes, Frank

  Clay, Bob

  Henderson, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cohen, Harry

  Holland, Stuart

  Coleman, Donald

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Illsley, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ingram, Adam

  Darling, Alistair

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  John, Brynmor

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Dewar, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Lambie, David

  Doran, Frank

  Lamond, James

  Douglas, Dick

  Leighton, Ron

  1232

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Radice, Giles

  Litherland, Robert

  Redmond, Martin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Reid, Dr John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Richardson, Jo

  McAllion, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, George

  McCartney, Ian

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Rogers, Allan

  McKelvey, William

  Rooker, Jeff

  McLeish, Henry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rowlands, Ted

  McTaggart, Bob

  Ruddock, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Madden, Max

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Maginnis, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Meale, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michael, Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Turner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Vaz, Keith

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wall, Pat

  Morley, Elliott

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Mullin, Chris

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Nellist, Dave

  Wilson, Brian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, William

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Worthington, Tony

  Parry, Robert

  Wray, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Question agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 341 accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Lords amendment: No. 389, in page 147, line 28, at end insert—
  ".—(1) Section 24 of that Act (duty to provide for rebates from community charges) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph (a)—

  (i) for the words "local authorities" there shall be substituted the words "levying authorities"; and

  (ii) for the words from "community charges" to "this Act)" there shall be substituted the words "personal community charges and (except in relation to residence in premises which are special designated premises for the purposes of section 11(4B) of this Act) collective community charge contributions".

  (3) In paragraph (b) for the words "local authority in respect of each year" there shall be substituted the words "levying authority".
  (4) That section as so amended shall be subsection (1) and there shall be added the following subsection—
  "(2) This section shall have effect only in respect of the financial year 1989–90."."
  Read a Second time.
  Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 8, leave out

  1233
  '(except in relation to residence in premises which are special designated premises for the purposes of section 1 1(4B) of this Act)'.
  Lords amendment No. 389, as amended, agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Lords amendment No. 390 disagreed to.
  Lords amendments: Nos. 342 to 344, 347, 351, 355, 360, 361, 364, 366 to 369, 392, 393, 396,405,407,408, 189, 190, 192, 198, 202, 203, 410, 413 and 415 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Lords amendments: Nos. 345, 346, 348 to 350, 352 to 354, 356 to 359, 362, 363, 365, 370 to 388, 391, 394, 395, 397 to 404,406, 186 to 188, 191, 193 to 197, 199 to 201, 204, 205, 409, 411, 412, 414 and 206 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 389 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 22, 171, 300, 302 to 304 and 390 to the Bill:
  The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 22.

  Division No. 438]

  [12.17 am

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alexander, Richard

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Amos, Alan

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Curry, David

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

  Ashby, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkins, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dover, Den

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dunn, Bob

  Bendall, Vivian

  Durant, Tony

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Farr, Sir John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Favell, Tony

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowis, John

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bright, Graham

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Forth, Eric

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

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

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Franks, Cecil

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Freeman, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  French, Douglas

  Butcher, John

  Fry, Peter

  Butler, Chris

  Gale, Roger

  Butterfill, John

  Gardiner, George

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  Gorst, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gow, Ian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Chope, Christopher

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gregory, Conal

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Grist, Ian

  Colvin, Michael

  Ground, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  1234

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hannam, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Heddle, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Portillo, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Holt, Richard

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Howard, Michael

  Redwood, John

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

  Riddick, Graham

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jack, Michael

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Janman, Tim

  Ryder, Richard

  Jessel, Toby

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knowles, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Speed, Keith

  Latham, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stern, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lilley, Peter

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lord, Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Sumberg, David

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Summerson, Hugo

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maclean, David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Madel, David

  Thorne, Neil

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maples, John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B heath)

  Marland, Paul

  Tracey, Richard

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Trippier, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Viggers, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mellor, David

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Walden, George

  Mills, Iain

  Ward, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Watts, John

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Wells, Bowen

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wheeler, John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Whitney, Ray

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Wilshire, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wood, Timothy

  Neubert, Michael

  Woodcock, Mike

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Yeo, Tim

  1235

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Lamond, James

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  McWilliam, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Madden, Max

  Callaghan, Jim

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cohen, Harry

  Parry, Robert

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cryer, Bob

  Salmond, Alex

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Douglas, Dick

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. James Wallace.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 22, 171, 300, 302 to 304 and 390.
  That Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Michael Howard, Mr. Peter Lloyd, Mr. William O'Brien and Mr. Jeff Rooker be members of the Committee.
  That three be the quorum of the Committee.
  That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Ridley.]
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  Local Authority Publicity
  12.26 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move,
  That the draft Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, which was laid before this House on 30th June 1988, be approved.
  Section 4 of the Local Government Act 1986 provides for the Secretary of State to issue codes of recommended practice as regards the content, style, distribution and cost of local authority publicity and such other related matters as he thinks appropriate. Local authorities are required by section 4, as amended by section 27 of the Local Government Act 1988, to have regard to the provisions of any such code in coming to any decision on publicity.
  The 1986 Act requires that before issuing a code the Secretary of State shall consult local authority associations and any local authority with which consultation appears desirable. It provides also that a draft of the code shall be laid before each House of Parliament for approval.
  Full and extensive consultation has taken place over the past two years with the local authority associations and a number of other bodies concerned. Those consultations, which have included meetings between Ministers and members of associations, have considered in detail a succession of drafts of the code. This history of consultation has demonstrated the extent to which we have endeavoured to take local authorities with us on the drafting of the code and our willingness, where appropriate, to make amendments designed to allay their concerns.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: After all the consultations, have any of the local authority associations been persuaded that the code should exist at all?
  Mr. Chope: The local authority associations have had relatively few quibbles about the contents of the code in its latest draft, but it is right to say that local authorities wish to carry on spending money on publicity without any restraint. That is a regrettable state of affairs.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that the associations of local authorities represent all parties? It is the united view of all parties in local government that there should be no code from the Government, and that they should be allowed to keep their own house in order, without the Government, whether Conservative, Labour, Liberal or other party, yet again interfering.
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make a speech during the debate if he wants to do so. Many people in local government consider that, because of the irresponsible actions of a relatively small minority of councils, we must take some action against excesses. The Government are determined to ensure that there is responsible behaviour in local government in the same way as we have for national government with a code of recommended practice for publicity.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister brings national government into the debate. What does local government think about the excesses of Mr. Ingham and his cohort of 140 press officers?
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to deploy his arguments later. There is no doubt that there has been a lot of abuse of budgets, especially by some Labour-controlled local authorities.
  Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend will recall that when the clause was amended in Committee, I made representations to him about the subsidy that a number of Left-wing authorities were providing for literature. They were subsidising a monopoly which favoured the co-operative movement. The London Labour party receives a substantial subsidy every year from the co-operative movement. There is no mention in the code of conduct of the practices to which I drew my hon. Friend's attention. Unlike the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I believe that the representations have by no means been unanimously against the code. There is considerable concern about these practices, and this code does nothing to prevent them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. That is enough of an intervention.
  Mr. Chope: The fact that my hon. Friend thinks that the code does not go far enough. and some Opposition Members believe that it goes too far, is perhaps a sign that we have got it about right.
  Mr. Bill Michie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chope: I shall give way once more. Having regard to the hour, it is only fair that I should be reasonably brief so that others can participate if they wish, and if they do not we can all go home.
  Mr. Michie: Why do the Government always talk about the cost of political publicity, when at any time of the day I can watch television publicity on the privatisation of the steel industry, the sale of council houses and so on, and no one questions it? Why should local authorities not defend their services and tell the people exactly what is happening?
  Mr. Chope: The Government lay down conventions on publicity and advertising for themselves. Local authorities should comply with similar conventions on their publicity and advertising. That is all we are asking. We are being perfectly reasonable about it.
  The introduction to the code explains its status and scope. I draw particular attention to paragraph 5. This explains that the code is concerned, not with the statutory ban on party political publicity, but rather with all publicity that local authorities are empowered to issue. It remains self-evident that observance of the principles of good practice set out in the code would ensure that a local authority did not contravene that prohibition.
  The code is not a series of rules and regulations to which local authorities must adhere in all cases. On the contrary, the code sets out principles of good practice to act as a benchmark against which authorities must judge their publicity proposals. In each case they will need to consider whether the publicity that they propose to issue is in keeping with the principles set out in the code. If it is not, they will need to consider whether special circumstances exist which justify departure from the code.
  The introduction to the code also acknowledges the vital role that local authority publicity has to play in the
  1238
  interests of ensuring local accountability. It welcomes good, effective publicity, aimed at improving public awareness of a council's activities. It explains that the purpose of the code is to set out principles of good practice which will ensure that local authority publicity decisions are properly made.
  I draw attention to paragraph 8 in the introduction to the code. This paragraph, together with paragraph 43, explains that the code will not affect the ability of local authorities to assist charities and voluntary organisations which need to issue publicity as part of their task. Local authorities are, however, called upon, in giving such assistance, to take into account the principles contained in the code. To the extent appropriate, local authorities should incorporate the relevant principles in any published guidance for applicants for grants, and make observance of that guidance a condition of the grant. Where appropriate, local authorities should monitor the observance of the guidance. The extent to which any such monitoring is necessary must remain a matter for the local authority concerned, but, in the Government's view, prior vetting of all publicity by assisted voluntary organisations would be unnecessary.
  The main body of the code is divided into nine sections. They deal with the following: the subject matter of local authority publicity; its cost, content, style and dissemination; particular considerations to be taken into account with general advertising and recruitment advertising; publicity about members of the authority; the timing of publicity and assistance given to others for publicity.
  I shall not take up the time of the House by giving a detailed summary of each of those sections. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members who are interested will have familiarised themselves with them. However, some provisions merit particular mention, because history has proved that some authorities—I stress "some"—have failed to observe the accepted conventions which traditionally have governed publicity issued at public expense.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Give us examples.
  Mr. Chope: I am sure that we shall hear some examples——
  Mr. Rooker: Give us some examples.
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman must wait for examples. He will probably hear plenty during the debate.
  No one can deny the onslaught of political propaganda in some areas. I have in mind material such as publicity whose cost is wholly disproportionate to its purpose and which benefits relatively few people. That is dealt with in paragraphs 6 and 10 of the draft code.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I have a particular problem in one of the local authorities in my constituency, Middlesbrough borough council. Every month it brings out a little magazine called 'Middlesbrough News". This month, the first two pages of "Middlesbrough News" carry a long article and a glamorous photograph of the Labour leader of the council holding a huge petition against the poll tax which he proposes to take to No. 10 Downing street. The article says that Middlesbrough borough council is opposed to the introduction of the poll tax for 95 reasons. It is the most blatant piece of political propaganda. How will the code——
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is this a speech or an intervention?
  Mr. Devlin: It is an intervention, and the point of it is to ask how the code of practice will affect such publications.
  Mr. Chope: I refer my hon. Friend to paragraphs 11 to 19 of the code, which set out matters relating to style and content. Paragraph 13, in particular, deals with publicity being used to comment on or respond to the policies and proposals of the Government. I hope that a debate will develop in different local authorities, and that if authorities put forward proposals that contravene the code they will be hauled over the coals locally and be given adverse publicity because they have behaved unreasonably. That is exactly what would happen to the Government if they were in breach of their conventions on publicity.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: How will the code stop Sheffield issuing a newspaper called the "City of Sheffield News" at a cost of £100,000 to the ratepayers? In effect, it is a broadsheet issued on behalf of the Labour party and consists of articles knocking the Government. How will the code stop that?
  Mr. Chope: The code will not stop all council newspapers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Some of my hon. Friends are disappointed about that. In parts of the country there are some quite good, informative, factual, objective council newspapers, many of which are produced by Conservative-controlled authorities. I know what my hon. Friend has to put up with in Sheffield, and I hope that Sheffield city council, like other city councils, will comply with the code of practice.
  Mr. Bill Michie: Never.
  Mr. Chope: The code deals with publicity on political or otherwise sensitive matters, which is highly subjective, often inaccurate and relies on slogans to make its point. A partisan political attack on the views of others is not an adequate means of disseminating information; nor is it a justifiable use of ratepayers' money.
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: In view of the comment from a sedentary position of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) that he will never obey this code of practice in Sheffield, will my hon. Friend say whether a council that disregards this guidance will be liable to surcharge?
  Mr. Chope: It will be for the district auditor to take into account this code and whether the council decides either to comply with or to be in breach of it. The mere fact that a council does not comply with every part of the code will not automatically result in a surcharge. That will depend on whether it behaves reasonably and approaches the matter in a sensible way.
  Mr. Bill Michie: Sheffield city council and other local authorities have always abided by the law.
  Mr. Patnick: Rubbish!
  Mr. Michie: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) says, "Rubbish!" I am saying that if there is a bad law, one challenges it. If one does not do so, there is dictatorship.
  Mr. Chope: Sheffield city council is notorious for over-spending and irresponsibility. Often, it has not been slow to pull the wool over the eyes of its local citizenry by presenting biased comments, particularly in relation to Government legislation. It has tried desperately to get around Government legislation, particularly that relating to compulsory competitive tendering, and so on.
  Mr. Corbyn rose——
  Mr. Chope: I am answering the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). I shall give way to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Heeley may or may not be influential in Sheffield city council. I suggest that he, as a Member of the House, ought to impress on his local council the desirability of complying with the law.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister move away from his obsession with attacking councils that are trying to maintain a decent level of service for the people whom they were elected to represent, and turn his attention to Westminster city council and its gift of several million pounds to property developers in London, and examine the case for bringing surcharges and criminal charges against Westminster officers and councillors for their sale of cemeteries?
  Mr. Chope: That matter has precious little to do with the subject of this debate. I speak from recollection, but I believe that Islington's district auditor had much to say about the behaviour of certain Islington councillors. It is right to say that district auditors do not hold party political views, but act on behalf of ratepayers in any district council area, be it under Conservative or Labour control.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister note that the Islington district auditor is pursuing the councillors there because they were against rate capping and were trying to protect services for the people of Islington? There is no suggestion of any Islington councillors selling public property at low prices to property speculators. In Westminster, we are having to deal with a wholly different form of corruption in local government. That is what the Minister should be examining—not pursuing councillors who are attempting to protect services for the poorest people in many of the poorest boroughs of this country.
  Mr. Chope: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman that he wants one law for his friends in Islington and a different law for everybody else. Publicity distributed unsolicited to vulnerable sections of the community and containing inaccurate and scaremongering claims and allegations—for example, on the social services reforms—is covered by paragraph 22 of the draft code.
  Taken together, the principle of good practice set out in the code provides an essential and comprehensive yardstick against which local authorities should judge their publicity proposals. We intend that as soon as parliamentary approval is forthcoming the code will be brought into effect by issuing it under cover of a circular to local authorities.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I have read carefully through the code of recommended practice, but I cannot find anywhere guidance in respect of town meetings. Last Thursday, I and the hon. Member for Lewisham,

  1241
  Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) addressed a town meeting in Lewisham on the subject of the community charge. Part of the way through, the Labour mayor, who was chairing the meeting, refused me permission to reply to points put by the hon. Member for Deptford. I was on the platform at the invitation of the Conservative group. The meeting then broke up in disorder. Is it intended that town meetings, if they are to be held, should be held on a balanced basis, with a neutral chairman, and not at the expense of ratepayers' money as Labour party meetings?
  Mr. Chope: The code does not deal with the point made by my hon. Friend. As he will know, the wider issue of the conduct of local authorities was looked into by the Widdicombe committee. The Widdicombe report has been issued and the Government will shortly make their response to it. The point made by my hon. Friend is just another example of the irresponsible and biased way in which some Labour councillors behave.
  So that some of my hon. Friends will have an opportunity to give the House some examples of the abuses that have been taking place, I shall stop now and commend the code to the House.
  12.45 am
  Mr. William O'Brien: The hour may be late but the business is important because the code of recommended practice submitted by the Minister prompts some key points that should be considered. The code will apply to publicity by local authorities which is legal but which is not appropriate or desirable in the view of the Ministers. Therefore, we are again giving additional powers to the Ministers if they feel that local authorities are not acting in accordance with the code.
  The Minister said that he is prepared to allow others to submit examples but he has failed to produce a single example of publicity that the code will affect and has dismissed examples given by others.
  Mr. Chope: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with what has happened recently. The latest edition of Labour Party News, the official Labour party publication mailed to all members of the party, includes an advertisement for Manchester city council which says that the council is countering the effects of mass unemployment and working to develop a common front on issues such as the job training scheme. The cost of that half page advertisement, according to the published rates of Labour Party News, would be £500 plus £75 value added tax. That is the sort of subsidy going from the ratepayers to the Labour party which the code will outlaw.
  Mr. O'Brien: That is not covered by the code. That advertisement could be put in any newspaper and it would be legal. What is wrong with advertising in a circular that goes around the areas? The Minister is clutching at straws because of the challenge that has been thrown out.
  Mr. Batiste rose——
  Mr. O'Brien: I want to draw attention to the fact that the draft code has been rewritten six times because the Conservative party has not had an opportunity to get the matter right. It has taken six attempts to bring the code before the House.
  Mr. Batiste rose——
  Mr. O'Brien: The code is jointly opposed by all local authority associations, irrespective of party. The Government have chosen to ignore a voluntary code agreed by local government as a whole, although the Minister has suggested that there is a voluntary code for central Government. Why can there not be a voluntary code for local government? That is one of the questions that the Minister has to address.
  In seeking parliamentary approval for the draft code of practice the Government are attempting to complete the ring of restrictions placed on local authorities and their publicity since the Widdicombe report in 1985. Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986, which is now strengthened by the Local Government Act 1988, outlaws "political publicity" on what local authority associations believe to be an excessively broad definition of what constitutes political publicity. Section 3 places restrictions on local authorities' use of existing powers to issue publicity. In writing into statute a code of practice on
  "the content, style, distribution and cost of local authority publicity,"
  the Government rejected Widdicombe's recommendation that such matters should be left to self-regulation by local government for local government.
  The Minister should tell us why the Government have rejected Widdicombe's recommendation that local authorities should be self-regulating. The Widdicom.be report stated:
  "We believe that tone and presentation is important, but it would undoubtedly be best if it were the subject of self-regulation,"
  which is what the Minister has suggested should apply for central Government. The report also stated:
  "it would be best, in our view, if this could be done by self-regulation within local government, or through the agency of the local authority Associations".
  All the local authority associations—the Association of' Metropolitan Authorities; the Association of County Councils; the Association of District Councils; the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities—have worked together on this issue from the start. They have shown that there is unanimity in local government about the principle of self-regulation and that they can produce and get widespread agreement for a voluntary code of practice.
  Mr. Patnick rose——
  Mr. Batiste rose——
  Mr. O'Brien: A draft of the voluntary code of practice was produced and received widespread approval and endorsement from many authorities and from the professional. bodies involved. Authorities expressing support in principle for the voluntary code included the full spectrum of political views and all types of local authorities, from Liverpool to the Corporation of the City of London. There was a wide area of agreement on the practice of self-regulation.
  In passing the Local Government Act 1988, Parliament has now decided that the code should be statutory. There has been a long history of discussions at official and ministerial level about the code of practice, and between the local authority associations, the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. The Minister has referred to the consultations that have taken place. There have been three meetings on the code of

  1243
  practice with the Ministers responsible for local government. On each occasion—this is a measure of the importance which the Department of the Environment has attached to those meetings—different Ministers attended. In other words, there was no consistency from the Department of the Environment in the meetings that it held with the local authority association.
  Mr. Patnick rose——
  Mr. O'Brien: Following the last meeting on 8 June, only two changes of substance have been made to the draft code that was published in November 1987.
  The further restrictions on local authority publicity should be contrasted with the growth in scale and degree of controversy of much central Government advertising.
  Mr. Patnick rose——
  Mr. O'Brien: There are those who think—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way]—that that has strayed well beyond the guidelines of the Cabinet Office—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to hear what is being said. There is too much noise from both sides of the House. [Interruption.] Order. I said that there is too much noise from both sides of the House. We want to hear what is being said. Mr. O'Brien.
  Mr. Batiste: On a point of order, My Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that Front Bench spokesmen give way a reasonable number of times? My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary allowed Opposition Members to intervene in his speech. Is it not provocative and an abuse of the procedures of the House that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) should plough through a written speech without giving way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Member who has the Floor at the time. It is difficult to hear what is being said in this short debate, and I hope that the remainder of the debate will be heard in silence.
  Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) wishes to contribute to the debate, he has only to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should attend Mr. Deputy Speaker's office for some instruction on the code of practice that applies in the House. He is obviously not aware of it.
  In the introduction to the code, the section on why there should be a code was largely redrafted in the course of a series of meetings with local authority associations. It now gives a more positive picture of the importance of good and effective publicity by local authorities. It recognises especially the political nature of local government. The fourth paragraph makes that point——
  Mr. Patnick rose——
  Mr O'Brien: Note should be taken of the following section of the fourth paragraph of the introduction. I make the point for the benefit of Conservative Members who have little interest in local government. The principles
  "take account of the fact that some local authority publicity will deal with issues that are controversial because of particular local circumstances, or because of a difference of view between political parties locally or nationally. The
  1244
  principles do not prohibit the publication of information on politically sensitive or controversial issues, nor stifle public debate."
  That is the claim.Those two sentences are lifted from the local authority association's initial proposals for a code. But does the code measure up to the claim——
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will my hon. Friend expose the hypocrisy of Conservative Members? The Government have used massive resources in planting television programmes and putting over their policies. This has not been acceptable to the masses. Local authorities have been deprived of their traditional right to inform the public of their benefits and rights. That right is one of the best traditions of local government.
  Mr. O'Brien: Conservative Members have asked me to give way, and I gave way to my hon. Friend, who made a valuable contribution to the debate. He has made it clear that local government publicity is for the benefit of the local electorate.
  It is claimed in paragraph 5 that the code
  "is not concerned with the interpretation of section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986."
  That section seeks to prohibit party political publicity. The code will, in the view of the local authority associations——
  Mr. Patnick rose——
  Mr. O'Brien:—extend the prohibitions of the Act in practice. It should be remembered that the code
  "is concerned with all the other publicity which a local authority may publish."
  Mr. Patnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I sit on the Opposition Benches, will the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) allow me to intervene?
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman would not qualify to sit on the Opposition Benches.
  It should be remembered that the code is concerned with all other publicity that a local authority may publish, including legal publicity. In practice, it will operate to prohibit such publicity.
  Paragraph 4 of the code of recommended practice contains restrictive provisions. The Act provides that local authorities may publish information relating to their
  function. Paragraph 4(iii) says:
  "local authorities should issue publicity only on matters that are directly relevant to their own functions."
  Mr. Patnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is patient, I will give way.
  In discussions with officials, the associations were told that the intention is to control publicity that is legal under the Act but not appropriate in the view of Ministers.
  Mr. John McWilliam: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is in order for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) to read a newspaper in the Chamber? I think that it is not.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is seeking to intervene. I think that he will do so in a moment.
  Mr. O'Brien: Will the restriction on publicity mean that a proposal by British Rail to close a railway station or line, a proposal by the Post Office to close a village post office

  1245
  or a proposal by a regional health authority to close a hospital will be prohibited under the code? We have been discussing the final stages of the poll tax Bill. Will local authorities be able to publish information about how the poll tax will affect the people they represent? The restriction under the code will prevent people being made aware of how the poll tax will affect the disabled, the chronically sick and the poor.
  Mr. Patnick: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I thought that my time would never come.
  I have here the City of Sheffield News, which costs £100,000 to publish. According to my hon. Friend the Minister, this legislation does not prevent it being published. The top of page 3 mentions the community charge. The bottom of the page states:
  "The Beginner's Guide to the Poll Tax (illustrated) is available from the communications unit at the Town Hall" in Sheffield. Such articles bring local government into disrepute and are the reason for this code of practice.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member makes the point that I was seeking to make. Will publicity giving information to the people of Sheffield be prevented by the code of practice? Sheffield council wishes to advise its ratepayers and council house tenants about what is happening in Sheffield. I assume that the Minister will say that the Government do not intend to stop local authorities issuing information in such circumstances. The inclusion of paragraph 4 (iii) means that local authorities will be inhibited from doing so, especially when there is not unanimity in a local authority.
  Paragraph 4 refers only to public authorities of various types. Presumably it would not apply to publicity by British Telecom, British Gas or other services in local authority areas.
  The code should not attempt to inhibit local authorities' legitimate role as the voice of the communities they serve. Paragraph 4 provides reasons enough for Parliament not to approve the code. I draw Conservative Members' attention to it.
  Although patronising, paragraphs 5 to 10 are now acceptable to local authorities, but they perhaps provide an opportunity to contrast the modest extent and cost of local authority publicity advertising with the massive expansion of central Government advertising, particularly on matters of political controversy, on the most expensive medium—television. Hon. Members must have witnessed the expense to which the Government have gone in the sale of public utilities and the amount they have spent to prevail on their supporters to buy them. The same will happen again with the privatisation of water.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Government are trying to prevail on their supporters to buy shares in public utilities. Will he explain why the chief Labour whip on Derbyshire county council bought two lots of British Telecom shares?
  Mr. O'Brien: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman asks whoever it was who bought the shares. I cannot explain that. But I say that the real purpose behind the sale of national assets is to line the pockets of Conservative Members' supporters.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike rose——
  Mr. O'Brien: Like paragraph 15, paragraph 19 has been amended following meetings with the Minister. It now acknowledges that publicity campaigns
  "about the authority's policies in relation to that function and the reasons for them"
  can be appropriate.
  As for dissemination, the Government have not responded to the points made by local authority associations that positive reference should be made in paragraph 21 to the particular needs of ethnic minority communities whose first language is not English, and that material should be provided in other languages as appropriate to the communities served by local authorities——
  Mr. Bill Michie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) to stop reading the newspaper?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The reading of a newspaper is welcome only if it is relevant to the debate. I am referring to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick). The reading of a newspaper in the Chamber is not welcome unless the hon. Gentleman expects to speak and refer to it.
  Mr. O'Brien: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).
  Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend realise that when I and my hon. Friends have written to the Minister and his colleagues about the poll tax legislation they have usually sent us back not one but four or five copies of their booklet about it? I now have 227 spare copies on my desk. And most of the contents are untrue, anyway.
  Mr. O'Brien: I hope that the Minister has taken note of that.
  The Minister said that it was not desirable to include a positive suggestion for good practice such as the one I mentioned for assisting ethnic minority groups. What then is the purpose of a code of practice—merely to inhibit the presentation of information?
  In the context of recruitment advertising, the Widdicombe committee accepted that people might be employed by councils as political assistants to politicians. The most cost-effective way to recruit staff such as that suggested by Widdicombe is through party political publications. A blanket prohibition on the use of party political publications for recruitment and advertising is not desirable.
  Paragraphs 39 to 42 of the report suggest a simple provision. It is that local authorities should not issue publicity that simply reports the views of individual members or their activities except when they are acting in an official capacity. That is how I sum up those four paragraphs. The future ability of council press officers to deal professionally with press and other media people who, quite understandably, are constantly seeking statements and quotes from identifiable people—in this case councillors—must be contrasted with the freedom of central Government press officers, especially in No. 10 and in Government Departments, to personalise even the most political, controversial statements by Ministers. There must be some parity between local and central government on this issue. Against that background I ask the House to reject the order.
  1.11 am
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I came to the debate expecting to hear some encouraging news from the Government. I have read the guidance notes with which we have been provided and find them the most wet and inadequate guidelines that I have ever seen. I listened to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) who opposes the guidelines and who spoke at enormous length. I have searched to find out why he opposes them but can find no extra powers or sanctions. It is made clear in the first paragraph of the notes that they are only for guidance. That means that a local authority could happily carry on doing the things that I think all my hon. Friends have complained about. When we look through the code of practice we see that some types of advertising are intrusive and we are told that advertising should be cost effective. That does not tell us much that we do not already know. Let us have a look at what is happening in Cleveland. Today, Cleveland county council appointed Vincent Hanna to operate its public relations. It already has a large public relations department which is inadequate to the task of whitewashing the county in the light of the Butler-Sloss inquiry. It will not tackle the real issues raised in the learned judge's report, but will seek to do a nice cover-up job and get Mr. Bishop and the other members of the social services department out with a nice clean bill of health. The council has had to go outside the county to get a nice glitzy outfit from London to come to Cleveland to manage our PR because it is not prepared to address the real issues.
  Let us look at the other complaints by my hon. Friends about local authority publicity. A book list has been provided for lesbians by Lambeth borough council so that lesbians will have a guide to good reading. What has that to do with the ratepayers of Lambeth or anywhere else? Why should such a list be provided by a local authority? In the code of practice I found one point about not promoting immorality. That is weak and, as I have said, the code of practice is only for guidance.
  Mr. Patnick: Can my hon. Friend tell me what sanctions are available to people who feel that somehow a council has gone wrong? To whom do such people appeal and what sanctions and fines, if any, can be imposed?
  Mr. Devlin: We have enacted some legislation banning party political propaganda, but it does not cover the range of subjects about which local authorities can promote their political views.
  Each month "Middlesbrough News" pumps out Labour party propaganda and its distributors make sure that it goes through every door in the city. That paper also ensures that every piece of Government legislation, which is designed to benefit Middlesbrough, such as the inner urban programme and the urban development corporation, is carefully disguised as an achievement of the Labour council. There is no redress against such action.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government have already passed legislation to ensure that it is illegal for certain literature to influence support for political parties. The hon. Gentleman cannot complain about such literature when the remedy lies with him or someone else who can
  1248
  make a complaint to the courts. If that complaint were upheld, the hon. Gentleman's arguments would be more credible.
  Mr. Devlin: It depends whether the literature is specifically party political, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware from some of the publications that are pushed out in Bermondsey that that is not always the case.
  I asked my hon. Friend the Minister a number of questions and I shall conclude by asking one of the Opposition. Would they object if the Government started to take half-page advertisements in "Conservative Newsline"?
  1.16 am
  Ms. Diane Abbott: I speak with rather more information and experience than some hon. Members as I was a Lambeth council press officer. I believe that it would help our debate if hon. Members were more honest, because there is no doubt that the intention of the code is to stop and block some of the successful, and legal, publicity campaigns that Labour authorities have run in the past. One such campaign was that run by the Greater London council about what its abolition would mean. The code means to stop such campaigns.
  Conservative Members strike a moral attitude about spending public money for party political purposes, but we would take them more seriously if they spoke with similar vehemence about the way in which the Government have spent public money for such purposes. Consider the millions of pounds that were spent promoting the Telecom flotation and other privatisation ventures. The Scottish Office is just about to spend a huge amount on promoting Government activities in Scotland. We could point to the advertising campaign on the poll tax proposals.
  Mr. Corbyn: What about Ministry of Defence advertising?
  Ms. Abbott: That is another example.
  If all those examples do not amount to spending public money for party political purposes, I do not know what does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has said, all we ask for is parity between national and local practice in this matter. If it is well and good for the Scottish Office to promote its activities by using advertising agencies, why is it wrong for local authorities to follow a parallel practice?
  Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have deliberately given an awful lot of business to particular advertising agencies, which seem to have extremely close relationships with the Tory party, and taken work away from the well-qualified and experienced staff employed by the Central Office of Information? Does my hon. Friend agree that that might have happened because the professional standards of the COI were being undermined by the blatantly party-political nature of the Ministry of Defence advertisements, the 1992 Euro-market advertisements and the publicity that has been produced, at great expense, to con people into believing that there is genuine training for our young people when, in reality, such training is merely workfare?
  Ms. Abbott: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. The Government nationally have spent millions of pounds of public money for party political purposes. There is nothing in this code to deal with that.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does the hon. Lady recognise the difference between the Government putting out information about legislation, about which, therefore, the public need information, and political campaigns designed to influence people's opinions, which is what the GLC sought to do when the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was in office? I draw her attention to page 258 of "If Voting Changed Anything They'd Abolish It", written by the hon. Gentleman, which states:
  "We started working with CND and switched the Government funds we received for war preparations"—
  he means civil defence—
  "into the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament."
  That is a clear sign of the misuse of public money to sway political opinion. That is not information.
  Ms. Abbott: Were not the millions of pounds of public money spent on advertising the Telecom flotation used to influence the country to become a nation of small shareholders for a clear political purpose? That was an unprecedented use of public money for privatisation. Some of the speeches and interventions of Conservative Members are sheer hypocrisy.
  Mr. Devlin: Does the hon. Lady accept that in advertising the privatisation of British Telecom the Government had a duty to the taxpayers to get the best possible return for the sale of that asset?
  Ms. Abbott: The Government might have served taxpayers better not by spending millions of pounds with advertising agencies, but by promoting the shares in the normal way.
  Mr. McWilliam: Does my hon. Friend accept that the advertising of British Telecom was in all senses against all the tenets and codes of the advertising industry and that all the consumers of BT have suffered? Does she agree that the propaganda put out by the Conservative Government in those advertisements had nothing to do with consumers and everything to do with the benefit of those who sought to make a capital gain from that advantage?
  Ms. Abbott: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I have established that the speeches of Conservative Members are riddled with hypocrisy and that the Government set the record for spending public money for party political purposes.
  A Government who have the confidence that their policies can take the cold light of fact should not be frightened of local authority publicity about their policies. If Conservative Members cannot win by fair means, they wish to win by foul. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) complained that people were not willing to listen to him at public meetings and asked the Minister for legislation to stop him being shouted down. The remedy is to make better, more effective and more compelling speeches. If the Government cannot win public debate, they seek to shackle their opponents, and this is an example of that.
  Mr. Batiste: I congratulate the hon. Lady on having the courage to give way—something which was conspicuously absent from her Front-Bench colleague.
  1250
  Does the hon. Lady accept that, in principle, there should be restrictions, either in convention or in statute, on any sort of publicity by local authorities?
  Ms. Abbott: Yes, of course. As a local authority press officer, I worked under the terms of section 6 of the Local Government Act 1986, which is against any communication designed to affect public support for a political party. That is fair and that is the law. A great deal said by Conservative Members has been nonsense, because the law is already clear about prohibiting party political publicity. Every press release, every advertisement, and every note to editors that I put out when I worked for local authorities—all local authority press officers work in the same way—was cleared by lawyers to ensure that it did not fall foul of the law. The 1986 Act is clear and all local authorities scrupulously adhere to it.
  We have a Government who, if they cannot win by fair and open means in debate, wish to win by foul. This code is partisan in origin, it will be partisan in interpretation, and it is only too clearly targeted not at abuses of press and publicity, but at the effective light that some Labour authorities have shed on the real effects of Tory policies. If Conservative Members were proud of those policies and felt that they could be defended, they would have nothing to fear from local authority publicity within the terms of the 1986 Act.
  1.26 am
  Mr. David Wilshire: As I was in local government for 11 years before coming to the House, I deeply regret that this code of conduct has become necessary. It is yet another example of central Government being forced to act by the antics of a few. When that happens, the whole of local government suffers because the militant few in some councils are not prepared to abide by the traditional approaches that have served local government so well.
  Opposition Members were earlier calling for examples, and I have some splendid news for them—I have quite a few. We must examine why the code has become necessary. The issues of great concern were dealt with in the Local Government Act 1986, which tackled blatant party political propaganda support of one particular party, on the rates. I shall highlight two further concerns. First, there is the misuse of public money—an unacceptable use of money for purposes which should not be allowed in local government—and, secondly, there is a waste of public money—spending too much or spending it badly. Together they undermine local democracy and divert money from essential services.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the code identifies nine different misuses of public money over and above the promotion of a political party, four of which especially worry me. The first is the spending of ratepayers' money to publicise an issue which has nothing to do with that local authority. I shall cite the example of Hackney, which has a 14-page booklet entitled, "Hackney Council and the Police—Fact and Fiction". Hackney is not a police authority, and the Metropolitan police has no links with Hackney borough council. An examination of the booklet shows that it has nothing much to do with the policing of Hackney, but it has everything to do with a campaign to politicise the Metropolitan police.
  Ms. Abbott: I must set the record straight. Hackney is a borough in which law and order is a matter of concern for all of its citizens, and the council has a locus in these matters, gives advice and information and has a police committee. To say that policing has nothing to do with Hackney is both a disgrace and arrant nonsense.
  Mr. Wilshire: I refer the hon. Lady to the law of the land. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, not the Hackney borough council, is the police authority.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend is talking about how councils waste ratepayers' money by dealing with national issues. Norwich city council is always wasting ratepayers' money, and takes up council time by debating national issues that have nothing to do with local government. That is just another example to back up what my hon. Friend says.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for that example.
  The second of the examples of misuse of money—
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has chosen a poor example, because the Home Secretary is constantly pushing police to have closer working relations with local authorities in London. In those circumstances, is it not highly appropriate that the London borough of Hackney, like any other borough, should have a police committee, should express its views on law and order and crime, and should advise its citizens accordingly?
  Mr. Wilshire: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said, because this booklet is basically a campaign to politicise the Metropolitan police.
  The second example of the misuse of money about which I am concerned is the use of money for biased recruitment advertisements. Haringey placed advertisements for 11 policy officers who were to report to Labour chairmen of committees. The advertisements said that these policy officers would have to be
  "keenly aware of your responsibilities to your chairs' views at meetings."
  That is blatantly politically biased.
  Mr. Patnick: My hon. Friend may be aware that Mr. Steve King, a former leader of Haringey council, from 1985 to 1987, said:
  "The Council's publicity section was strengthened and given a clear political brief. A Publicity Coordinating Committee was set up consisting, uniquely, of Councillors, Labour Party representatives, trade unions and the voluntary sector."
  That quote is from the Labour Briefing of 26 January 1987.
  Mr. Wilshire: I thank my hon. Friend for that example.
  My third example of the misuse of council funds for publicity is of local authorities that choose to fund publicity for outside bodies that are not connected with the council. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) hinted at this earlier, and I can give a specific example. I have here a leaflet from the Hounslow co-operative funeral service, which sets out the funeral services that it offers and its prices, and on the back it invites one to fill out one's name and address to get its services. That leaflet is paid for, and the small print says so, by the ratepayers of Hounslow borough council. That is not a proper use of ratepayers' money.
  My fourth example concerns moral standards. The code says clearly that publicity must not undermine moral standards. However, Lambeth borough council has
  1252
  produced a booklist of "Stories and Poems by and about Lesbian women", and has done so with ratepayers' money. The introduction says:
  "The aim of this list is to introduce the general reader to some of the best Lesbian stories and poetry."
  I would contend that that is publicity aimed at undermining moral standards.
  Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he was given the pamphlet and that he did not purchase it?
  Mr. Wilshire: I confirm that it was given away, at the ratepayers' expense, to those who go to the library. It is a library listing, encouraging people to borrow certain books.
  I refer now to the waste of public money by spending too much of other people's money on what is quite legitimate publicity and by undertaking unnecessary publicity to disguise either a grant or a subsidy. There is time only to give a couple of examples at this late hour.
  In terms of poor value for money, I accept that publicity is necessary, but I ask hon. Members to consider the situation in Ealing late last year. It was decided to take away a £2,000 contract to have posters put up in the borough. The council chose to spend £16,000 employing somebody who provided a van to do the self-same job. That is legitimate publicity with public money being wasted.
  Another example of a disguised subsidy and waste of money occurred in Lewisham last year. The council decided to spend £16,000 advertising jobs in the News on Sunday. That newspaper subsequently failed. It was a rotten place to advertise. There were seven replies for 17 posts. It was perfectly clear that the £16,000 was nothing more than a subsidy and a wrong use of publicity money.
  The code is regrettably necessary. Publicity is being used for unacceptable purposes, and other people's money is being wasted by local councillors. It is important to understand that the code is not a blanket ban, despite what we have heard from Opposition Members. It allows local government to publicise services and policies. Interestingly, and contrary to what we have heard from Opposition Members, it allows local authorities to publicise controversial matters. But it states that that sort of publicity must be objective, fair and, above all else, balanced.
  Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his points would carry greater weight if he had found time to mention the most corrupt element among present-day advertising, which is the blurring of the distinction between the state and the Conservative party? I refer to two separate examples. The first is British Steel advertising, which goes out of its way to praise the conduct of the Conservative Government, and the second is the point that in every single 1992 advertisement prominent people appeared as huge direct benefactors of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Wilshire: The point that I find absolutely fascinating is that virtually every Opposition intervention has sought to muddy the water by getting away from local government. We have heard no justification of what local government is doing.
  Apart from the fact that we are not dealing with a blanket ban, when considering the code of conduct, it is important also to understand that the great majority of local authorities will be unaffected by it, because they have

  1253
  not done, and are not doing, anything to offend against it. The target of the code is clear. The antics of the lunatic few on the Left—those who use publicity to waste other people's money, those who use publicity to undermine values, those who use money to discredit their opponents—are a disgrace.
  Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilshire: No, I shall not give way. I wish to make one last point.
  The militant few are wrecking local government. The publicity antics of the militant few must stop. They are an absolute scandal.
  1.38 am
  Ms. Joyce Quin: The Government's proposed code of practice, which seeks to govern local authority advertising, is a fine example of double standards. Local authority advertising is to be strictly controlled. We must see this in conjunction with the 1986 Act and the other measures that the Government have taken to try to curb local authorities and their advertising. Local authority advertising is to be controlled at a time when national Government advertising has been allowed without any check or independent control over the propriety of such advertising.
  Paragraph 3 of the code makes the point that expenditure on publicity by some local authorities has been significant. Local authority spending on advertising has not increased fourfold in the past four years, as has happened with Government advertising. In answer to a parliamentary question by me it was revealed that, although the Department of Trade and Industry had spent an average of just over £1 million a year in each of the five years between 1979–80 and 1986–87, that figure has shot up to nearly £8 million in 1987–88, and it continues to rise.
  The Department of Trade and Industry—the "Department for Enterprise" as the glossy advertisements tell us—is spending £9·4 million on the single European market and £5·6 million on the enterprise initiative campaign. Every time we switch on our television sets we are assailed by the Government's advertisements. At the same time, they are seeking to curb local authority spending.
  Mr. Batiste: Does the hon. Lady accept that it is vital for the future of jobs and British industry that people are as aware as possible of the opportunities and challenges of 1992 and that the best way of achieving that is to advertise in the media, where it will have most impact? That is not party political.
  Ms. Quin: Not only the Labour party but a wide group believe that Government advertising has become much more party political.
  The standards of Government advertising are inadequately controlled. The Minister referred to the Widdicombe conventions. They are nothing more than a voluntary code of practice on which the Government Department doing the advertising has the final word. There is nothing like the control over local authorities that the Government are seeking to introduce via this code.
  Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady has been critical of Government advertising. What did she think of the BP advertisements which appeared in newspapers in 1978,
  1254
  when the Labour Government were busy selling their BP shares because they had to raise money to pay for their overspending?
  Ms. Quin: The hon. Gentleman seems to have had to go back some time to get that example. Such advertisements would not fill people with the repugnance that they feel at the advertisements on television for the social fund, whereby the Government have tried to con people into believing that the social fund gives people opportunities. We know that it makes people borrow at a time of great need and hardship.
  It seems that the Government wish to be lord and master over their advertising and also to be lord and master over that of local authorities. The Government are especially keen to do that in those local authorities which, because of democratic elections, have a majority of Labour councillors. The Government's attitude is just part of the trend towards centralisation and authoritarianism. These measures should be strongly resisted, not just by the Opposition parties, but by ail who value freedom and the right of local authorities, democratically elected, to run their affairs within their field of competence. I hope that the opposition to the code and the proposals will be heard loudly inside and outside the House.
  1.44 am
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I must admit that when I read the code I had some reservations about some aspects of it. Having heard the Opposition's complaints about it, however, I now have no doubt that we should support it wholeheartedly.
  Derbyshire county council provides us with some serious examples of bad practice in this matter. We often hear about what some of the loony Left authorities in London are doing, but we do not hear about what is happening in the rest of the country. Derbyshire county council issued a leaflet entitled "Reforming Schools—the True Facts Behind the Education Bill". It so happens that the leaflet, in the new Labour party colours, was distributed to children in every school throughout the country. I received letters from worried parents about this form of unsolicited propaganda peddling.
  Mr. Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLoughlin: No. A number of hon. Members want to speak.
  One parent wrote:
  "Why was the letter delivered to me through my seven year old daughter being given the letter and pamphlet at school without the same even being put in an envelope? Was it intended that the letter and pamphlet should be read by my daughter?"
  Another parent wrote:
  "Frankly, I was disgusted that my son, aged 5, was used to further the socialist ends of the County Council in bringing home this letter"—
  —[Interruption.] I am rather surprised that the Opposition should find this so funny——
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear, even to someone as thick-skinned as me, that he does not propose to give way.
  Mr. McLoughlin: If the Opposition were really interested in good local government practice, they would find this example offensive, as I do, but Opposition Members only laugh and shout about it.
  The parent wrote:
  "Frankly, I was disgusted that my son, aged 5, was used to further the socialist ends of the County Council in bringing home this letter and leaflet, both of which give a very biased view of the possible effects of the Government's proposed legislation. The letter and leaflet are nothing short of propaganda, and I feel that it is totally unnecessary to use children in this way."
  I could quote other letters, but I shall not because of the lack of time.
  Mr. Boyes: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on a leaflet issued by Wandsworth council, of which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was a leader? It was quoted on 10 December 1985 in Standing Committee A:
  "'£5,000 Making your Dream Home Competition. Listed in the boxes below are six home improvement projects that council tenants can undertake if they buy their own homes under the "Right to Buy" scheme. Simply list the improvements in order of popularity by putting "1" against the project you consider to be the most popular, and then numbering down to the least important, at 6.'"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1985; c. 108.]
  Entrants were asked to send their replies to the "House Sales Contest". What would the hon. Gentleman say if a Labour council was offering £5,000 prizes for such projects? He knows full well that it is absolute nonsense.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I have not seen the leaflet and I cannot, and do not intend to, comment on it.
  I wish to draw to the Minister's attention something that the county council proposes to do in the near future. One of the things that worries me is that, while the code may lay down the lines along which county councils can spend, Derbyshire county council intends to give £50,000 next week to the National Council for Civil Liberties and we do not know what sort of campaign the NCCL will conduct or what sort of leaflets it will issue. We know, however, that 14 fact sheets have been proposed on topics ranging from police questioning to aspects of section 28 of the Local Government Act, the poll tax and equal opportunities.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend include in his list of the misuses of ratepayers' money on publicity the investment of £305,000 made by Derbyshire county council from its pension fund in the failed Left-wing newspaper News on Sunday, the slogan of which was
  "No tits but lots of balls"?
  Is that included in my hon. Friend's list of political spending?
  Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend knows as well as I do—and this has been confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—that a full day's debate would not give enough time, let alone one this short, to draw out some of the lunacies that we in Derbyshire county have to suffer. We certainly suffer the highest rates.
  I am concerned that the code does not go far enough. It may be all right in the short term but we may have to return to it. There is something very wrong in the way that ratepayers' money has been used in the way that it has on many occasions, and without there being any proper recourse or opportunity for questioning it. I know that reference can be made to the district auditor, but on those
  1256
  occasions when I have done so I have been advised that the auditor is not allowed to decide on the political nature of any campaign. He can only rule on its financial aspects and on whether or not they comply with the law. It is difficult to make a case that a particular campaign is out and out political propaganda.
  I have reservations about the code, but the way in which the Opposition are complaining about it must mean that the code contains something that is good. Local government needs to achieve a reputation for good conduct and service to the community—not party politics. We only hear about the party political aspects from many local authorities, and I am grateful that the House will be approving the code this evening.
  1.52 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The premise that local authority publicity should be subject to some control is reasonable, and clearly it is right that local authorities should not abuse the opportunities that they have to make party political points. We have argued that in respect of two Bills over three or four years.
  The question tonight is whether this code represents the right way forward. Although we are nearly at the end of this debate, several important points have not been made as clearly as they might. First, all local authority associations, having been consulted, are very clear that they can regulate these matters themselves, and they have asked that that be the case. If those associations—across all parties—believe that they do not need the Government to act, it is an arrogant assertion of responsibility to do so when the Government cannot prove that there is any explicit need.
  Secondly, the House has not yet debated the Widdicombe report, nor have the Government made any response to it. The Widdicombe committee made it clear that self-regulation was the best way forward. It would have been better to have so ordered our affairs that we debated the basic principles on the basis of a report commissioned by the Government, rather than dealt with this code first.
  Thirdly, the Minister has not made clear the status of the code, because it will not be enforceable in law. It is not something that one will be able to pray in aid in the courts and a breach of which will be deemed illegal. There is nothing illegal in the descriptions given in the code. It concerns itself with matters that are not "appropriate or desirable" in the view of Ministers, and is indicative only. Thus, it is clear that the code is neither fish nor fowl.
  Fourthly, last week the Municipal Journal, which is not a party political document, made it very clear in its editorial that the code's wording is a legal minefield. The most obvious example is breach of moral standards. Who is to define them? They are not defined in the code, and there is no indication as to how they will be defined, even if the code is generally enforceable.
  The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who is not in his place, argued that it was wrong for a local authority—and he cited Hackney—to deal with matters that are not directly the council's responsibility. For example, the code will forbid local authorities along the Thames from having any say in whether or not helicopters or helipads will be allowed there, yet they would considerably affect the environment of people living by the Thames. The code would preclude local authorities with

  1257
  an active nuclear power station or one about to be built in their area from being able to comment or inform their constituents and ratepayers about it.
  Mr. Chope: That is not correct. If the hon. Gentleman looks at paragraph 19 of the code he will see why.
  Mr. Hughes: Paragraph 4 says:
  "In considering the subject areas in which publicity is to be issued, the following matters will be important … (iii) in areas where central government, another tier of local government, or another public authority have the primary service or policy responsibility, local authorities should issue publicity only on matters that are directly relevant to their own functions."
  The reality is that nuclear power, heliports, and so on, are not directly relevant to their own functions and would possibly fall outside the code.
  My next point—this has been put clearly already—is that it is hypocritical of the Government to say that there will be one law for them but a different law for us. The Government are spending more and more on their own publicity, which is not impartial. The noble Lord Young launched an enterprise initiative. The launch cost £36,000 and the stage was set in blue. That was in support of Government policy. We live in an age where the Government believe that it is sufficient for them to be able to argue their case by spending as much as possible while local councils cannot do anything that the Government think is inappropriate.
  Dr. Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is not just the extent of the Government's expenditure——
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
  The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 100.

  Division No. 439]

  [1.56 am

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Amos, Alan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkins, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fallon, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Farr, Sir John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Favell, Tony

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Franks, Cecil

  Bowis, John

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butcher, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butterfill, John

  Grist, Ian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Howard, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  1258

  Knapman, Roger

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lang, Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Squire, Robin

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Maclean, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maples, John

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thorne, Neil

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tracey, Richard

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Walden, George

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Waller, Gary

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Neubert, Michael

  Watts, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wells, Bowen

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wheeler, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Whitney, Ray

  Page, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Paice, James

  Wilshire, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wood, Timothy

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Yeo, Tim

  Pawsey, James

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Redwood, John

  Mr. Richard Ryder and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  Riddick, Graham

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Fyfe, Maria

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Barron, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Battle, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Beckett, Margaret

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Blair, Tony

  Henderson, Doug

  Boyes, Roland

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Holland, Stuart

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Home Robertson, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ingram, Adam

  Clay, Bob

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lamond, James

  Cohen, Harry

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McAllion, John

  Cousins, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cryer, Bob

  McCartney, Ian

  Cummings, John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dalyell, Tam

  McLeish, Henry

  Darling, Alistair

  McWilliam, John

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

  Marek, Dr John

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dixon, Don

  Meale, Alan

  Dobson, Frank

  Michael, Alun

  Doran, Frank

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fisher, Mark

  Morley, Elliott

  Flynn, Paul

  Mullin, Chris

  Foster, Derek

  Murphy, Paul

  1259

  Nellist, Dave

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pike, Peter L.

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Strang, Gavin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Vaz, Keith

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wall, Pat

  Redmond, Martin

  Walley, Joan

  Reid, Dr John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robertson, George

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Rogers, Allan

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Salmond, Alex

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

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

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.

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

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, which was laid before this House on 30th June 1988, be approved.

PETITIONS

  Rating Reform
  2.6 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am pleased to present the petition. It is fitting that I should do so on the day that consideration of the poll tax Bill has been concluded. Over 1,000 citizens have signed the petition, which has been collected by a group of individuals who are not members of any political party—Conservative, Liberal or Labour. These people are deeply concerned about the adverse effects and anti-democratic consequences of the poll tax.
  The petition reads as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of Bradford citizens sheweth that the proposed Poll Tax is unjust, will impose greater hardship on the poor, will damage democracy and will ignore ability to pay and calls upon Parliament to identify and implement a truly fair alternative to the present rating system.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House repeal the Poll Tax legislation and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc.
  The petition represents the sensible road towards the repeal of the poll tax.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Nuclear Waste
  2.9 am
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I beg to
  ask leave to present a petition signed by 17,000 constituents from my constituency and that of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). The 17,000 are protesting at the possible dumping of nuclear waste by Nirex in the Wash area. They have the full support of my hon. Friend and me. The idea of the petition was that of my hon. Friend, and he will present a copy of it to Nirex.
  Any attempt by Nirex to dump nuclear waste in the beautiful area of the Wash would have devastating effects on the environment, on tourism and on small businesses. It would be met by bitter opposition and resistance, supported by myself and my hon. Friend.
  The petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the constituents of North West Norfolk and South Lincolnshire, showeth, That we are strongly opposed to the dumping of nuclear waste in Norfolk and the Wash.
  Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for the Environment not to implement any such proposals.
  This is the first shot across Nirex's bows. As the
  petition, which has been signed by 17,000 people, has been presented to the House, Nirex will be in no doubt about the strength of local opposition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Ravenscraig Steelworks
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
  2.10 am
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: We debated the future of Ravenscraig yesterday in the Scottish Grand Committee during the debate on industry in Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State has had an opportunity to read what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I said, and I have given him notice of further questions. If I take less than my allotted time, I hope that he will allow hon. Members to ask any further questions that might arise.
  The impromptu statement, a fortnight ago, by Sir Robert Scholey that the closure of the hot mill at Ravenscraig in 1989 is "probable rather than possible" caused great concern in Scotland. The position has not been substantially changed by his letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland which he read to the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday—in which he said:
  "With the further strengthening of market conditions since December 1987, there is no reason for the Corporation at present to make plans to close the Ravenscraig strip mill."
  Sir Robert Scholey did not spell out the details of production. plant loading and capacities since December 1987; I gave them in my speech in the Scottish Grand Committee. While hot-rolled coil production has been at 100 per cent. of manned capacity, and the Port Talbot hot mill has been working 21 shifts, the hot mills at Llanwern, Lackenby, and Ravenscraig have been working 15 shifts. If Llanwern and Lackenby increased to 21 shifts, on a strict pro rata basis, the production could have been achieved by loading the other mills at 99 per cent. of installed capacity and closing the Ravenscraig hot mill.
  This allows nothing for the more difficult rolling programme at Ravenscraig, with electrical steels and small batches, and the loss of maintenance time on non-production shifts. The savings offered by the closure of the Ravenscraig hot mill would be minimal, as extra shifts would be required at Llanwern and Lackenby to replace those laid off at Ravenscraig. In practice, these circumstances justify the retention of the hot mill.
  On the most generous interpretation, Sir Robert is saying in his letter that as long as those circumstances prevail there is no reason for British Steel to close the Ravenscraig hot mill. Amen. However, a temporary dip in the market, or the need for further investment in modernisation or major maintenance, would change the picture. British Steel has not changed its long-term view that there is one strip mill too many, or it would be announcing longer-term investment at Ravenscraig.
  British Steel strip capacity is certainly still unbalanced. Continuous casting is the bottleneck. There is unused liquid steel capacity upstream, and unused rolling mill capacity downstream. There are minimal savings for British Steel in closing the Ravenscraig hot mill, but by closing it—I hope the Under-Secretary of State will note this—British Steel would ensure that when it had completed the continuous casting at Port Talbot and Llanwern there would not be a finishing mill which could take Ravenscraig's slabs, and the whole of Ravenscraig would be closed whatever the level of demand.
  I repeat what I said in the Scottish Grand Committee: British Steel has a clear interest, with the degree of private monopoly power that it is being given as the sole United
  1262
  Kingdom bulk steel producer, in restricting capacity and forcing up prices to the limit of what more distant European competition will allow, which is flatly contrary to the national interest in efficient competitive production.
  It is up to the Government to act. I warned the Government yesterday of the consequences if they do not. Ministers will reflect on the effect on potential investors in British Steel of an unresolved industrial dispute going to the heart of the company's strategy. If at any stage British Steel wanted to close the Ravenscraig hot mill in pursuit of its restrictive strategy, while urgently requiring the rest of the works for some years until its capacity can be replaced elsewhere, British Steel would be vulnerable to industrial action only within Ravenscraig. Steel workers would act only if they knew they had the support of public opinion in Scotland and beyond, and if they knew they were acting in defence of the competitive steel industry that the country requires. During such a strike, British Steel would lose profits at a rate of £60 million a year, which would increase permanently to 160 million if it closed Ravenscraig prematurely and lost market share, as it did in 1980.
  My guess is that, on reflection, British Steel will go ahead with the installation of continuous casting at Port Talbot and Llanwern and leave Ravenscraig intact, with the thought that it could eventually be closed in one piece. That, however, is not acceptable. British Steel needs further development both in new technology and in market share in Europe if manufacturing industry and the economy generally is to prosper. The current deficit in the balance of payments is ample evidence of that. Ravenscraig has a key role to play in the steel industry of the future that the country needs.
  Whether by selling Ravenscraig and its finishing mills as a separate entity, by restrictions from non-competitive behaviour under United Kingdom or European Community oversight, or in some other way, the Government must act if they are to avoid a major miscalculation—of which they have been warned—about the future of British Steel, and about Ravenscraig in particular.
  Why does the recent report by Warburg Securities, the broker advising the Government on British Steel, give no information about present capacities and outputs, let alone planned future capacities and investment requirements? Is that not relevant to expected profits? It even manages to leave Ravenscraig out as a supplier of steel to Shotton, although it is the principal supplier. Warburg told me that it was dependent on what British Steel and the Government told it. It does not seem able even to read the publications of the International Iron and Steel Institute. So much for informing the stock market of what the Government are offering.
  Why does the claim to £1,870 million tax losses in the British Steel annual report make no reference to the fact that the taxpayer met those losses by payments to British Steel under section 18 of the Iron and Steel Act 1982? Will not the Secretary of State use his powers under the British Steel Bill to prevent those losses being transferred to the successor company? It was one thing while the corporation could be required to pay dividends to the Secretary of State on public dividend capital; it is quite another for British Steel plc, once privatised, to pay dividends to private shareholders, being exempt from payment of

  1263
  corporation tax by virtue of tax losses which the Exchequer has already met by payments under section 18. That is outrageous behaviour by the Government.
  Why have neither the Government, British Steel, nor any of their numerous agents said anything about the writ from the West German Iron and Steel Association before the European Court of Justice, lodged a fortnight ago, complaining about £900 million of unauthorised state aid having been given to British Steel? Are these facts not relevant to the privatisation of the steel industry?
  Mr. Peter Sutherland, the member of the European Commission for competition policy, has said that the Commission will have to monitor closely the implementation of the various stages of the privatisation process before full clearance can be given. I shall make sure that the emerging British Steel strategy, which is restrictive and a grave threat to Ravenscraig, is drawn fully to his attention, but it would be more sensible for the Government to act first.
  2.19 am
  Dr. John Reid: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) for tailoring his speech to allow me to make a brief contribution. He speaks with great passion and knowledge on this matter. I shall confine myself to three points.
  First, does the Minister appreciate that his handling of the future of the hot-strip mill has caused grave damage to whatever trust was left between the Government and those interested in maintaining the hot-strip mill and the Ravenscraig plant? As I have said before, there appears to have been suppression of information. It is quite incorrect for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other Ministers to say that what Sir Robert Scholey said two weeks ago is exactly what they have said all along. That is not the case. Sir Robert is on record as advising us that he told the Government as far back as 3 December of the probable closure of the hot-strip mill. Despite persistent questioning in the House and elsewhere, information was intentionally suppressed and that has done even more damage to trust in the Government's intentions.
  My second point is on the letter about which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South spoke in some detail. That letter was released yesterday by the Secretary of State for Scotland, having recently been received from Sir Robert Scholey. In certain quarters in Scotland there is a belief that that represents a reprieve for Ravenscraig and its hot-strip mill. That feeling is a direct result of the nature of the publicity given to that letter; publicity that was directed and to some extent orchestrated by the Government.
  We say that nothing has changed as a result of the letter. It opens with the words, "I thought it would be helpful". If it is helpful to anybody, the only one to whom it can be helpful is the Secretary of State for Scotland, because it appears that the letter has no purpose other than to preserve the illusion that no decisions will be taken about Ravenscraig until after it passes out of public control. That illusion has been intentionally created so that Ministers can say, "We regret it very much, but there is nothing that we can do because it is now in the private sector."
  1264
  That brings me to my third point. Government strategy is not only an abandonment of responsibility by Ministers, but in the long run can lead to worse trouble, not only for Ravenscraig, but for the whole of British Steel. I say that because over the past few years the work force and those who support Ravenscraig have been extremely careful to exert pressure only through politicians, public vehicles of protest or campaigns. They have done that because Ravenscraig is in the public sector.
  The work force has maintained a high level of productivity and has eschewed industrial action that could damage either British Steel or the Ravenscraig plant. If the Government continue their present strategy, which appears to be to push all decisions aside until after the plant is out of the public domain so that they can then wash their hands of it, they will leave people with no alternative—since they have pushed the matter back purely into the industrial sphere—but to consider some form of industrial action. I say that, not as a threat or on the basis of any direct line to anyone or with any secrets, but as an appreciation of how people are beginning to perceive this matter.
  If industrial action took place, it would be dangerous for Government Ministers and for Ravenscraig and the communities that we represent. It would also be dangerous for the whole of British Steel. Even at this late stage I ask the Government to pay attention to the matter and to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South. It is not impossible to resolve the difficulties. If we are to do that, we must eschew the tactics of the political fig leaf of vague communications and letters of intent. We must get down to the real problem, which is how to preserve a healthy, profitable and productive steel industry in Scotland, revolving around an integrated Ravenscraig plant.
  2.22 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I have listened with great interest to the points raised by the hon. Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) who, on many occasions in the House and in Committee, have expressed their concern about Ravenscraig. The future of the Ravenscraig steelworks is obviously a matter of great importance. Therefore, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, has, at this late hour, and although he is not answering the debate, seen fit to be present. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope that the House appreciates his presence.
  The position on the future of Ravenscraig is, however, wholly clear, and has been clear since December. By now hon. Members will be very familiar with the terms of the statement made by the chairman of British Steel on 3 December 1987 and conveyed to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That statement seems quite unambiguous to me. My right hon. and learned Friend, when answering questions on his statement in the House, stated:
  "As to the future of the strip mill, it is not possible to look beyond 1989 at the moment. Nobody is saying that it will close; we are saying that at the moment British Steel faces a serious problem with excess capacity. As a result, it is under-utilising all its strip mills, which is damaging efficiency and cannot go on indefinitely unless the market improves. Against that background, it is good news that the corporation

  1265
  has decided that the right commercial course is to keep them all going until at least 1989. It will then have to decide whether the position has improved and what it intends to do."—[Official Report, 3 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 1114.]
  There is no question of the nature of the position having been concealed. I am tempted to agree with the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, who said that nothing has changed, because nothing has changed since my right hon. and learned Friend made his statement to the House. The chairman of BSC has given no evidence to the Government suggesting otherwise. His review of 23 June 1988 in the corporation's latest annual report and accounts makes specific reference to the 3 December statement.
  Furthermore, Sir Robert Scholey has recently written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, as he informed the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday, reaffirming the December 1987 statement, and adding that, with the further strengthening of market conditions since then, there is no reason for the corporation, at present, to make plans to close the Ravenscraig strip mill. In his recent interviews, and subsequently in his letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, Sir Robert freely acknowledged BSC's dependence on the Ravenscraig steel-making plant, stating that British Steel has valuable assets in the Ravenscraig works for which it has a continuing need.
  The position then is absolutely clear. British Steel continues to require Ravenscraig's steel-making capacity. No decision has been made to close any mill. The corporation will, however, need to keep the position under review in the light of market circumstances from time to time. I accept that this may not fully meet the concerns of those in Scotland who remain anxious about the future of Ravenscraig's strip mill, hut I fear that in the commercial world in which any company operates the future will always contain uncertainties. British Steel has gone as far as it can go to provide reassurances in the face of that uncertainty, but it is simply a commercial fact of life that it can go no further.
  The British Steel Corporation remains fully committed to the successful operation of its Scottish plants for as long as there is a market need for their production. This is shown in the investment directed towards the plants. In 1987–88 alone, for example, British Steel invested about £20 million in the Ravenscraig complex. Of this, fully £2·6 million was spent on improving facilities at the hot-strip mill. This scarcely seems to constitute evidence of a plot to run down or abandon the Ravenscraig works, but rather the reverse. Indeed, even the Arthur Young report found that there was no need for further substantial investment in Ravenscraig in the next few years.
  I should like to consider the particular points that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South raised about which, as we expected, he has given us as much notice as possible. The hon. Gentleman made reference to the Warburg Securities research circular on investment at Ravenscraig. That report, entitled "Winning the Battle for Efficiency", appeared earlier this month. I stress that that document was produced independently of British Steel and the Government—the hon. Gentleman also made reference to that—and that its contents, including opinions and projections, are entirely the responsibility of Warburg Securities. Therefore, I do not want to debate the detailed content of that report with the hon. Gentleman.
  1266
  However, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern that the circular makes no direct reference to future investment at Ravenscraig. The Warburg document deals with future investment only in general terms, mentioning in passing only the most substantial likely future investment projects. Final decisions on these projects will be for the management of British Steel. As I have already mentioned, the Arthur Young report made it clear that there was no need for substantial investment in Ravenscraig in the next few years, so I do not find it surprising that the Warburg document made no reference to any such investment. There is nothing in any way sinister in that omission.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to tax losses. British Steel's latest accounts show that the corporation has at present £1,870 million of accumulated tax losses. He may recall that the subject of tax losses was debated in Committee during the passage of the British Steel Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, explained in that debate that the provisions of clause 11(3) provided the Secretary of State with powers to direct, before privatisation, that the tax losses of British Steel shall be reduced by such an amount as he specifies. My hon. Friend said:
  "That power of direction is necessary to allow the Secretary of State to effect some reduction of tax losses inherited by the successor company to take account of the capital restructuring provided for in the Bill. The purpose of the direction is to ensure that the company is not placed in an unduly favourable tax position. To the extent that the Secretary of State directs that the inherited tax losses be reduced, the successor company will pay more tax than the corporation would have done had vesting and the associated arrangements not taken place."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 April 1988; c. 718.]
  Decisions have not yet been taken on the extent of any reduction in British Steel's tax losses, and I can do no mu re than note what the hon. Gentleman said.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the German Iron and Steel Confederation's allegations that the BSC received more aid between 1980 and 1985 than was necessary for its restructuring programme, and more aid than was authorised by the Commission. We are convinced that there is no substance in those allegations. The European Commission has already firmly rebutted the first allegation, and we are confident that it will equally rebut the second. The facts are that the Commission approved the aid given to the BSC as part of the corporation's major restructuring programme. The BSC has received no Government subsidies since 1985, and all aid paid to the BSC by the Government before that date was approved by the Commission.
  Dr. Bray: Do the two not interact, in that the tax losses allowed to the successor company would be construed as state aid if they were in any way over-generous?
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will recall that we discussed this at length in Committee and came to the general conclusion that, while there may have been a difference of opinion on the style and method of what we sought, there was agreement. that no state aids were involved. It seems, from the good support given by the Commission, that it does not believe that the Government or the BSC have transgressed. We, the BSC and, it appears, the Commission believe that the German case is

  1267
  unfounded, so we shall rebut that claim. While it is a concern that it should exist, we have no doubt that this will eventually come out right.
  I fully appreciate the strength of and the reasons for the concern felt by those most involved with Ravenscraig. But I do not feel that the concern can be met by artificial restrictions on British Steel as it returns to the private sector, or by proceeding to privatisation with a different configuration from that proposed. British Steel has given as full a statement of its expectations about the future of Ravenscraig and its strip mill as the uncertainties of the market place will allow. Subject to market conditions, it expects to require Ravenscraig's steelmaking and continuous casting into the mid-1990s. The hot-strip mill will stay open at least until next year, and British Steel has recently reiterated that it sees no reason to make any plans for its closure at present. There can be no unconditional guarantees in the commercial world. British Steel has given its clear and honest expectation. No more can reasonably be expected.
  Dr. Bray: Before the Under-Secretary of State sits down, I wonder whether he could deal with the main issue, to which he has not responded. British Steel, as a private monopoly bulk steel producer in the United Kingdom, has
  1268
  a clear interest in restricting capacity and forcing up prices to the limit of what more distant European competition will allow. To correct that bias in its market power requires some action from the Government, which could take many forms. We propose the competitive structure, with Ravenscraig and its finishing mills being a separate entity, but a reference could be made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, or some action could be taken by the European Community, because of competition. If the Government simply leave the position with British Steel able to exercise a monopoly power, contrary to the interests of the workers and the needs of steel customers in this country, they must accept the consequences that will follow. Is there nothing that the Under-Secretary of State can say about that?
  Mr. Atkins: I had sat down, but because of the courtesy with which the hon. Gentleman has approached this matter, I shall try to answer his question. We have always made it clear that we do not believe that there is a monopoly. We have suggested that a substantial amount of steel is being imported into this country, so there is not a monopoly. Therefore, we do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman puts his case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Three o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  European Commission (Nominations)
  European Commission (Nominations)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Empty Government Properties
  Empty Government Properties
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Staff Training
  Staff Training
  EC (Payment)
  EC (Payment)
  Customs Clearance Depots
  Customs Clearance Depots
  VAT (Grave Headstones)
  VAT (Grave Headstones)
  VAT (Self-Builders)
  VAT (Self-Builders)
  Payroll-giving Scheme
  Payroll-giving Scheme
TRANSPORT
  National Maintenance Intervention Level
  National Maintenance Intervention Level
  Heathrow Airport
  Heathrow Airport
  Acle New Road, Norfolk (Dualling)
  Acle New Road, Norfolk (Dualling)
  Unleaded Petrol
  Unleaded Petrol
  Roads
  Roads
  A27
  A27
  Motorways (Traffic Flows)
  Motorways (Traffic Flows)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Freshwater Biological Association
  Freshwater Biological Association
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Education (Inner London)
  Education (Inner London)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid
  Aid
  Technical Co-operation Officers
  Technical Co-operation Officers
  Scottish Universities
  Scottish Universities
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Financial Services Act
  Financial Services Act
  Used Vehicles (Roadworthiness)
  Used Vehicles (Roadworthiness)
  Balance of Trade (EFTA)
  Balance of Trade (EFTA)
  Export Unit Values
  Export Unit Values
  Import Unit Values
  Import Unit Values
  Trade Deficit
  Trade Deficit
  Hearing Aid Council (Disciplinary Committee)
  Hearing Aid Council (Disciplinary Committee)
  Mobile Telephones
  Mobile Telephones
  Rover Group
  Rover Group
  Citizens' Band Radio
  Citizens' Band Radio
  Voluntary Restraint
  Voluntary Restraint
  Airbuses
  Airbuses
  Vanguard System
  Vanguard System
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Serious Fraud Office
  Serious Fraud Office
  Immigration Appeals
  Immigration Appeals
EMPLOYMENT
  Taxi Drivers
  Taxi Drivers
  Centre for the Unemployed, Torquay
  Centre for the Unemployed, Torquay
  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Repetitive Strain Injury
  MSC Initial Training Scheme
  MSC Initial Training Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Career Development Loans
  Career Development Loans
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Copyright
  Copyright
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Subsidised Milk
  Subsidised Milk
  Agriculture Council
  Agriculture Council
WALES
  M4
  M4
  Computer Work Stations
  Computer Work Stations
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Farming
  Farming
  Welsh Plant Breeding Station
  Welsh Plant Breeding Station
  Hearing Therapists
  Hearing Therapists
  Gravel Extraction (Llay)
  Gravel Extraction (Llay)
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  In-patients
  In-patients
  Acute Hospital Beds
  Acute Hospital Beds
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Hospital Staff (Gwent)
  Hospital Staff (Gwent)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Criminal Law Reform
  Criminal Law Reform
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Passports
  Passports
  Offences Against Children
  Offences Against Children
  Police Checks (Employment)
  Police Checks (Employment)
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Racial Discrimination
  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. J. Bas
  Mr. J. Bas
  Merseyside (Crime Statistics)
  Merseyside (Crime Statistics)
  Victim Support Schemes
  Victim Support Schemes
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Keith Bennett
  Keith Bennett
  Entry Clearance
  Entry Clearance
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Polygamous Wives
  Polygamous Wives
  Registration and Naturalisation
  Registration and Naturalisation
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Arranged Marriages
  Arranged Marriages
  Sheep Dipping
  Sheep Dipping
  Section 11 Funding
  Section 11 Funding
  Gaelic and Welsh
  Gaelic and Welsh
SCOTLAND
  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Skiing
  Skiing
  Mountain Areas (Erosion)
  Mountain Areas (Erosion)
  Aberdeen (Rates)
  Aberdeen (Rates)
  Court of Session
  Court of Session
  Staff Training
  Staff Training
  Hearing Therapists
  Hearing Therapists
  Prisoners (Observation)
  Prisoners (Observation)
  Scottish Film Council
  Scottish Film Council
  Hospital Building
  Hospital Building
  Farmers (Statistics)
  Farmers (Statistics)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Hunterston A Power Station
  Hunterston A Power Station
  Acute Hospital Beds
  Acute Hospital Beds
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Hospital In-patients
  Hospital In-patients
  Scottish Development Department
  Scottish Development Department
ENERGY
  Toronto Conference
  Toronto Conference
  Gas
  Gas
  Power Stations (Recommissioning)
  Power Stations (Recommissioning)
  North Sea Installations
  North Sea Installations
  Piper Alpha
  Piper Alpha
  Mersey Barrage
  Mersey Barrage
  Berkeley Power Station
  Berkeley Power Station
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Powdered Baby Milk
  Powdered Baby Milk
  Staff Training
  Staff Training
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Hospital Patients (Discharge)
  Hospital Patients (Discharge)
  Allowances
  Allowances
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Elderly People
  Elderly People
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Refugees
  Refugees
  Private Beds
  Private Beds
  Postgraduate Hospitals
  Postgraduate Hospitals
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Private
  Private
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Myringotomy and Tympanostomy
  Myringotomy and Tympanostomy
  Hearing Aid Centres
  Hearing Aid Centres
  Hearing Therapists
  Hearing Therapists
  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Benefits (Scotland)
  Benefits (Scotland)
  Priority Issues
  Priority Issues
  Nurses' Pay
  Nurses' Pay
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Departmental Offices
  Departmental Offices
  Leukaemia Clusters
  Leukaemia Clusters
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Community Care
  Community Care
  London Ambulance Service
  London Ambulance Service
  Administration of Benefits
  Administration of Benefits
  District Nursing Services
  District Nursing Services
  Day Care Places
  Day Care Places
  Mental Handicap Nurses
  Mental Handicap Nurses
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Income
  Income
ENVIRONMENT
  Urban Development Corporations
  Urban Development Corporations
  Council Properties (Incentive Allowance Schemes)
  Council Properties (Incentive Allowance Schemes)
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Water Metering
  Water Metering
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Trafford Park UDC
  Trafford Park UDC
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Rural Voluntary Action
  Rural Voluntary Action
  Redundant Agricultural Buildings
  Redundant Agricultural Buildings
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Planning Control
  Planning Control
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Sport (Drug Testing)
  Sport (Drug Testing)
  London City Airport
  London City Airport
  Public Bodies (Surplus Land)
  Public Bodies (Surplus Land)
  Housebuilders Federation
  Housebuilders Federation
  Local Authority Sports and Leisure Facilities
  Local Authority Sports and Leisure Facilities
  Football Violence
  Football Violence
  Local Authority Capital Expenditure
  Local Authority Capital Expenditure
  Football League Matches
  Football League Matches
  Football (Crowd Control)
  Football (Crowd Control)
  Water Supply (Aluminium)
  Water Supply (Aluminium)
  New Construction
  New Construction
  Stonehenge
  Stonehenge
  Capital Expenditure Controls
  Capital Expenditure Controls
  Local Plans
  Local Plans
  Water Industry Privatisation
  Water Industry Privatisation
  Planning Policy (Investment)
  Planning Policy (Investment)
  Waste Imports
  Waste Imports
  Brick Deliveries
  Brick Deliveries
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Planning Permission
  Planning Permission
  Draft Planning Circular
  Draft Planning Circular
  Departmental Telephone Numbers
  Departmental Telephone Numbers
  Nitrate
  Nitrate
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Rural Housing
  Rural Housing
  Arpley Meadows Dumping Site
  Arpley Meadows Dumping Site
  Association of County Councils
  Association of County Councils
  Cemetery Sales (Westminster)
  Cemetery Sales (Westminster)
  Hooliganism
  Hooliganism
  Cleveland
  Cleveland
  Development Land Bank
  Development Land Bank
  Empty Properties
  Empty Properties
  National Cricket Coaching System
  National Cricket Coaching System
  Water Supply Pipes
  Water Supply Pipes
  Derelict Land Grant
  Derelict Land Grant
  Housing (Disabled People)
  Housing (Disabled People)
  Crouch Valley Housing Association
  Crouch Valley Housing Association
  River Pollution
  River Pollution
  Landfill Costs
  Landfill Costs
  Paris Commission Meeting
  Paris Commission Meeting
  Urban Development Grants (Leicester)
  Urban Development Grants (Leicester)
  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Greenhouse Effect
  Greenhouse Effect
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Nirex (Document)
  Nirex (Document)
  Green Belts
  Green Belts
  Structure and Local Plans (New Housing)
  Structure and Local Plans (New Housing)
  Consultative Documents
  Consultative Documents
  Parkinson Houses
  Parkinson Houses
  Empty Government Property
  Empty Government Property
  City Parks
  City Parks
  Housing Co-operatives
  Housing Co-operatives
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Housing Corporation
  Housing Corporation
DEFENCE
  Mr. Wallace and Captain Holroyd
  Mr. Wallace and Captain Holroyd
  Clansman Radio Outfits
  Clansman Radio Outfits
  NATO (Conventional Defence)
  NATO (Conventional Defence)
  Press and Broadcasting Committee
  Press and Broadcasting Committee
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Nuclear-capable Aircraft
  Nuclear-capable Aircraft
  Small Firms Advice Division
  Small Firms Advice Division
  RAF Sculthorpe
  RAF Sculthorpe
  RAF Scampton
  RAF Scampton
  RAF Binbrook
  RAF Binbrook
  RAF Waddington
  RAF Waddington
  Military Aircraft (Accidents)
  Military Aircraft (Accidents)
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Visas (Delays)
  Visas (Delays)
  Romania-United Kingdom (Marriage Applications)
  Romania-United Kingdom (Marriage Applications)
  RAF Aircraft (Accidents)
  RAF Aircraft (Accidents)
  Incidents
  Incidents
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Children's Rights
  Children's Rights
  Cellmark Diagnostics
  Cellmark Diagnostics
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Immigration Interviews
  Immigration Interviews
  Immigration (Primary Purpose Rule)
  Immigration (Primary Purpose Rule)
  Visas
  Visas
  Entry Clearance
  Entry Clearance
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
  China (Claims Agreement)
  China (Claims Agreement)

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

Tercentenary of the Revolutions of 1688–89 and of the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now proceed to Westminster Hall for the purpose of presenting the humble Address which the House ordered on Thursday, 7th July to be presented to Her Majesty; and that thereafter the House do adjourn during pleasure and do meet again in this Chamber at half-past two of the clock.
Moved, That the House do now proceed to Westminster Hall for the purpose of presenting the humble Address which the House ordered on Thursday, 7th July to be presented to Her Majesty; and that thereafter the House do adjourn during pleasure and do meet again in this Chamber at half-past two of the clock.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Whereupon the House proceeded to Westminster Hall, the Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) being accompanied by Presiding Officers of the Upper Houses of Commonwealth Parliaments.
And the Lord Chancellor there presented to Her Majesty the humble Address from the House of Lords in accordance with the Resolution of Thursday, 7th July.
The Address from the House of Lords was as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign,
"We, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, welcome this occasion to commemorate and celebrate with Your Majesty and with Members of the House of Commons the anniversary of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the occasion on which the Prince and Princess of Orange were declared Joint Sovereigns of these Islands. By their acceptance of the Declaration of Rights, presented to them on the 13th of February 1689 in the Banqueting House in Whitehall, subsequently enacted by the Bill of Rights; and by their assent to the Claim of Right of Scotland, their late Majesties King William and Queen Mary concluded a solemn compact with their people; thereby were vindicated and asserted the ancient rights and liberties of the dutiful and loyal subjects of Your Majesty's predecessors.
"In consequence of this deliverance from arbitrary power and affirmation of the people's rights, this nation has, since 1688, enjoyed security under a constitutional monarchy. The experience of three hundred years has shown that it is the Crown in Parliament which guarantees the liberty of the subject and upholds the rule of law. Our
1300
Parliament, consisting of Crown, Lords and Commons, has proved enduring and has provided an example to those nations overseas which have chosen to regulate their affairs in freedom by means of parliamentary government. Since that time, Your Majesty's Royal Predecessors have adhered to the spirit underlying the Coronation Oath taken by his late Majesty King William to govern according to the statutes in Parliament agreed upon, and the laws and customs of the same, and have thereby made it possible for parliamentary and democratic government to evolve within Parliament without interruption and without recourse to violent revolution. For this we give thanks to Almighty God and we pray that we and those who come after us may continue to enjoy for many years the blessing of freedom under the law safeguarded by the protection of the Crown."
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor then spoke as follows:
"May it please your Majesty,
"We are gathered in this ancient Hall today to celebrate a major turning point in our constitutional history; when a new relationship was created between Your Majesty's Royal predecessors and their subjects and which has developed and flourished into what we are proud to call our 'constitutional monarchy'.
"We should recall for a moment that it was in this Hall 23 years ago that we commemorated the first stage in the evolution of our parliamentary institutions: the Parliament of Simon de Montfort in 1265. In the centuries that followed, that forum of prelates and magnates together with representatives of the shires, cities and boroughs became two distinct Houses of Parliament. But Parliament was an irregular institution, sometimes fêted by the monarch, sometimes scorned; and the tension between the two finally erupted into civil war.
"Today it is our great honour to commemorate with Your Majesty the events 40 years after that conflict which brought about the peaceful union of Crown and Parliament. Parliament renewed its allegiance to the Crown confident that the Crown would protect Parliament's declared freedoms. In due course the Crown was to be above, but not of, government; and under the Crown's protection parliamentary democracy could evolve by reforms of Parliament itself and not by violent overthrow of the state.
"This voluntary linking of the Crown and Parliament found expression in the two statutes which underpin these cherished freedoms; for the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right wrote into our law many of the rights and freedoms which we enjoy today and which have had such a lasting influence beyond these shores.
"So it is singularly appropriate that we share this celebration of the events of 1688 and 1689 with our distinguished guests from overseas. From that time a lasting alliance was secured between this country and the Netherlands and it is our great pleasure today to welcome His Royal Highness Crown Prince William and the Presidents of the two chambers of the States General of the Netherlands

1301
as living symbols of the close link between our two countries.
"From the Bill of Rights itself derived the concept of individual rights which came to be embodied in constitutions around the world, notably in North America. As witnesses to this common heritage we welcome our distinguished guests from the College of William and Mary, Virginia, recalling that the State of Virginia drew upon our Bill of Rights for its own Declaration of 1776. This in turn provided a model for the Bill of Rights of the United States of America.
"The example of our parliamentary system has been followed in many countries, most notably in those which recognise Your Majesty as Head of the Commonwealth. It is therefore most fitting that on the opening of the Ninth Conference of Commonwealth Speakers we should have with us the Presiding Officers and Speakers of Your Majesty's Commonwealth Parliaments, to whom we offer a hearty welcome. Together we can reaffirm our loyalty to Your Majesty and renew our commitment to the principles of freedom under the law that guided our forebears, and continue to guide us."
Then Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Commons (also assembled in the Hall), presented to Her Majesty an Address from that House.

Her Majesty's Reply
Her Majesty's gracious Speech in reply to the Addresses, delivered to the Members of both Houses, was as follows:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"I thank you for the loyal and dutiful Addresses which on your behalf the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker have presented to me on this Tercentenary of the Glorious Revolution.
"In celebrating the Glorious Revolution with you, I too give thanks to Almighty God and pray that we may here rededicate ourselves to the principle of freedom under the law which animated the authors of that constitutional settlement 300 years ago.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"It is fitting that the whole Parliament should assemble in this place to celebrate the events of 1688 to 1689. It was here, as the Lord Chancellor reminded us, that we met to commemorate the 700th anniversary of Simon de Montfort's Parliament of 1265. The four centuries which separated that Parliament and the Glorious Revolution saw some turbulent and violent episodes, but it was the momentous events of the 17th century that brought the fundamental constitutional issues to a head. The successive swings between the arbitrary rule of The King and arbitrary rule of Parliament became intolerable and it was by their acceptance of the Declaration of Rights and assent to the Claim of Right in
1302
Scotland, that King William and Queen Mary ended almost a century of constitutional turmoil and uncertainty in the two Kingdoms.
"Their peaceful joint accession symbolises the friendship which has so long flourished between the British and Dutch people. The warm and generous reception we received on our recent visit to the Netherlands was ample evidence that the three hundred years since William and Mary have only deepened that friendship, which we in Britain greatly treasure. It is therefore with especial pleasure that I welcome His Royal Highness the Prince of Orange, the Presidents of the two Houses of the Dutch Parliament and our other Dutch guests.
"It is an irony of history that James 11, by uniting the major political interests in opposition to him, unwittingly produced a balanced Government not of King nor of Parliament but of the Crown in Parliament. Thus King William reported to the Convention which was to become Parliament, `there is no sure Foundation of a good Agreement between a King and his people, but by a mutual Trust. When that is once broken, a Government is half dissolved.'
"That mutual trust formed the basis of the constitutional monarchy, and may well have spared this country a more violent revolution. The Revolution Settlement put into practice the cardinal principles of the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and the separation of powers, ushering in an epoch of freedom under the law in which, happily, we still live. Experience has taught that peoples can enjoy the full fruits of liberty, security and justice only when they are represented in a sovereign legislature whose laws are interpreted by an independent judiciary.
"The Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right of 1689, still part of statute law, are the sure foundation on which the whole edifice of Parliamentary democracy rests, and had great influence abroad, especially in the United States of America and in the Commonwealth. I am particularly pleased, therefore, to join in the welcome to the Chancellor and a delegation from William and Mary College, Virginia, with their wives, who attend by a Resolution of Congress, approved by the President.
"I also welcome most warmly the Speakers and Presiding Officers of the Commonwealth and their wives, and the officers of their Parliaments, and offer my best wishes for the Ninth Conference of Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers. May the principles of freedom and tolerance inspire your conference.
"The Glorious Revolution won its title because it was initially achieved without loss of life, and with wide popular support. It was the beginning of a political process which has continued to the present day. More people were admitted to the active political life of the Kingdom, a trend which culminated in the introduction of universal franchise. It also marked the beginnings of a new era of religious tolerance. No one could claim even today that that state has been perfected. In multi-

1303
cultural Britain, there is still a long way to go. But after 1688 there were signposts to point the way.
"At the ceremony on 13th February 1689 in the Banqueting House, at which William and Mary accepted the Crown and the Declaration of Rights, the constitutional monarchy was set on the course which it has followed for 300 years. I look forward to visiting the Banqueting House with The Prince of Orange to see the exhibition which illustrates those events. Earlier this year, whilst in Canberra. I was delighted to open the new Parliament Buildings, which enshrine, in a handsome modern edifice. the same principles of the Crown in Parliament. However, this Hall, as the first and enduring symbol of our constitutional development, is of all places the most appropriate in which to celebrate the Glorious Revolution and to remind ourselves of the responsibility which rests on all of us to uphold the Parliamentary democracy which it put in place."
The House was adjourned during pleasure.
The House resumed at half-past two clock: The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.

Local Authority Housing
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the annual completion figures for local authority housing for the years from 1974 to 1979 and from 1983 to 1987.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, an average of 109,000 dwellings a year were completed for local authorities in Great Britain in 1974 to 1979 and 26,000 a year in 1983 to 1987.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those figures, but do they not indicate that government policy is very largely responsible for the present housing crisis in the country? Is it not a fact, taking the global figures since the Government took office, that if we had been building houses for the public sector at the same rate as in 1979 we should have had more than half a million houses extra in the public sector today? Does it not seem madness that the Government continue to withhold from local authorities the money that they have raised from the sale of capital assets which, had it been made available in full, could have made a tremendous impact and dent in these appalling figures?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the figures that were requested in the noble Lord's Question were averages. As he knows, and as I am sure your Lordships know, after the high of 1975, house building went down in 1976 and again in 1977, 1978 and 1979.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, compared with those figures that my noble friend has given the House, can he say how many private sector houses were built in
1304
the comparable periods and has he formed any forecast of how much rented accommodation will come on to the market in years to come as a result of the new Housing Bill?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give a figure today for the increase in the rented market as a result of the Housing Bill because that will be for the market to decide. However, I know that my noble friend will wish to support me in keeping alive the private sector rented market. The starts and completions in the private sector in 1987 were the highest since 1973—over 190,000 starts and 170,000 completions.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that although he indicated that there had been a decline in the number of public sector houses built between 1974 and 1979, at the end of that period even the lowest figure for houses built under Labour was higher than that for any year under this Government? Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that local authority house building still has a prime part to play in providing rented accommodation? Will he tell the House the measures that the Government are taking to encourage local authorities to build houses for rent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is wrong. House completions in 1980 were more than those in 1979.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Earl has not answered the question.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland is allowed to spend, and spends, the whole of the proceeds that it receives from the sale of council houses in the year in which it is received? Why could not the same tolerance be allowed to regions in England outside London and the South-East?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the reason that there is a restriction on the amount that local authorities can spend has been covered many times in your Lordships' House. As it is part of public expenditure it needs to be taken into account by the Chancellor.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, did not the two periods selected by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, also demonstrate the very marked shift from the building of new houses to the refurbishment of some of the disastrous housing estates that had been built in earlier years by governments of all parties'? Does not this programme of refurbishment and the estates improvement on which the present Government were embarking at that point represent a major improvement in the quality of rented housing by local authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Since April 1979, in England over 1·1 million renovation and improvement grants have been paid to private owners and tenants. In addition,

1305
125,000 housing association dwellings have been converted. The average annual rate for the number of improvement grants made to the private sector and housing associations is up 44 per cent. from 98,000 to 141,000 compared with the Labour administration between 1974 and 1979.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in reply to a previous question the noble Earl mentioned the private rented sector. Does he recall that the government survey on privately rented houses in multiple occupation in 1987 revealed that there are 2.5 million people living in rented accommodation in the private sector in houses in multiple occupation? The report described the conditions under which they lived as being an indictment of national and local government policy over many years. In view of the fact that the present Housing Bill does nothing to redress that situation, can he tell us what plans the Government have to deal with the serious situation that the report threw up?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but I know that much of the ground the noble Lord has mentioned will be covered in our housing debates.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many unoccupied and unused dwellings there are in local government hands?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, I believe I can. There are 110,000 empty dwellings.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, if the Government gave permission to the local authorities to spend the reserves that they set aside for housing, would that not tend to reduce the price of housing, which is pushing up inflation? Would it not also ease the pressure on people trying to find housing so that they can take up the employment that is available?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is the great debate that although we want more housing and there is a demand for more housing, as the noble Lord will know, there is also a very strong demand to keep the green belt intact; and perhaps that is just as relevant to house prices.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am once again surprised at the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, whom I and many other people consider was the architect of the appalling housing situation that we find ourselves in today by the measures that he helped to introduce against local authorities? Having in mind that it is established that we would have had half a million extra houses in the public sector to let, is it not a fact that the shortage and unavailability of those houses must have had a tremendous effect on house prices and the upward explosion of homeless people in the areas of greatest need? Will the Minister comment on what he thinks might have happened to house prices had those half a million houses been available to let?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be wrong for me to hypothecate on what housing prices might have done had there been more or less houses around.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will my noble friend perhaps tell us why the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is attacking the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, since he is no longer a member of the Labour Party?
Noble Lords: Wrong man!
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord knows to whom I am referring. I am of course referring to the former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I really cannot answer my noble friend. The Opposition always seems to criticise us.

Nurses' Pay Award: Funding
2.50 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they will fund the recent pay award to nurses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, for the United Kingdom as a whole an extra £566 million has been provided from the reserve to meet the estimated cost of the award in excess of the provision in the relevant cash limits.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that because management guidelines for clinical regrading are unclear, and that in certain cases it is now apparent that some health authorities have not been allocated sufficient funds, many nurses are being under-graded? Does that not defeat the object of the exercise?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Countess regards the carrying out of the exercise as unclear when guidance to health authorities was issued on the subject by my department. I am well aware of suggestions that the funding may—and I stress the word "may"—be inadequate. I advise her that no region has given detailed consideration to even preliminary figures from all their districts so it is totally unprofitable to speculate. I know that the noble Countess has a particular interest in the West Midlands. This morning I was advised that no district in the West Midlands has yet submitted detailed regrading proposals.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that grave anxieties have been expressed by the Confederation of Health Service Employees and other representatives of nurses? Can he now give the House an assurance that their anxieties can he

1307
subdued completely because there will be no impediment and certainly no hiccup from any source in honouring the award which the Government have declared shall be given to Britain's nurses?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is absolutely no question that the extra £566 million to which I referred in my initial Answer will be curtailed in any way.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister must realize—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does that answer mean that the noble Lord cannot tell the House whether the estimated figure given by the Government will meet the needs? Will the Minister accept that, as a result of some of their recent actions, the Government have done a great deal to improve morale in the nursing profession and the relationship between nurses and the noble Lord's department? Will he also accept that to renege on certain promises, or to insist on nurses' pay being paid at the expense of patient care, will be a guaranteed prescription for undoing the good which has recently been done?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is no intention to undermine the good that has been done and that is why I was absolutely firm in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. We believe that the assumptions which underlie the review body's estimate of the costs of the award are reasonable. Clearly the review body thought so, otherwise it would not have recommended the award in the first place. It provides 15-3 per cent. extra in the total pay bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there is an air of real urgency in the matter? For example, does he know of the situation at St. Peter's Hospital in Covent Garden? Does he accept that nurses are leaving their profession? Will he look into the matter to see what can be done in the immediate future to try to reassure some of the nurses?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, that is exactly the reason why the Government accepted the review body award. Of course, there are two problems: first, in certain specialities nurses are leaving the profession; secondly, for demographic reasons, they are not entering the profession.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister saying that there will be no more money over and above that which has already been paid? Is he not aware that, according to the estimates from regional health authorities, over £100 million is under-provided in terms of fulfilling or covering the nurses' pay award? Does he accept the fact that the Secretary of State gave an absolute assurance in the other place and it was repeated in this place—that the Government would fully fund the nurses' pay award? Does he recognise the fact that if the additional money is not provided not only will there be cutbacks in patient
1308
care from health authority to health authority but, among nurses and indeed Members of your Lordships' House, there will be a great sense of anger because a parliamentary commitment will be breached?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is absolutely no question of a parliamentary or any other commitment being breached. The full-year costs of the award will be £803 million in the United Kingdom. That money is already provided for and that money will be paid.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the confident assurances that he has given to the House this afternoon cannot be obtained from regional health authorities? That is the aspect which worries the national associations when they receive reports from their regions. If when the issues were discussed with the regional health authorities all the regions gave the same answers as those given by the Minister this afternoon there would not be a great amount of anxiety. Will the Minister please be good enough to look into that aspect of the Question?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I explained earlier, I have already done so. I came to the conclusion that it is too early to predict the outcome of the clinical grading review. As I said earlier, no region has given detailed consideration even to preliminary figures from all its districts. Therefore it must be totally unprofitable to speculate on the outcome.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister look at the wording used by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in answering Questions in another place when, as I understand it, she expressed herself clearly on the basis of the estimates but did not say that if there was a difference between the review body's estimates and the reality of covering the pay award that additional money would be found? Will the Minister look at that matter again?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, of course, I shall look at any authoritative source, including that of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, in this or any other area. What she has said, she has said; what I have said to your Lordships this afternoon, I have said.
Lord Ennals: It would be nice if they matched up.

Government Departments: Location
2.46 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to move some of their administrative headquarters, and in particular the headquarters of the Department of Education and Science, out of the South East; if so, how many and what sites are under consideration and if not, for what reason.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, departments have been asked to review the location of all their activities (which includes headquarters functions) in accordance with the policy outlined in my right honourable friend the Paymaster General's Written Answer of 31st March in another place to the honourable Member for Hazel Grove. When decisions have been taken regarding significant moves, these will be announced by the relevant Minister.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister accept that within the Department of Education and Science there are real concerns about the conditions in its offices and that it has been looking forward to a move for a very long time? Does he also accept that both the Leader of the House in another capacity and the noble Lord, Lord Young, promised the House that they would look into the question of moving government departments out of the South East, especially in order to assist the area to overcome its terrific problems in regard to congestion and to relieve some of the demands on office space so that the private sector can function more efficiently in the South East? Does the Minister accept that unless some of those problems in the South East are cured and government offices are not left clogging-up the place, the private sector will probably jump across the Channel and move to the Continent?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have tried to say that the Government are looking into the problem of relocating government offices elsewhere. The Department of Education and Science has not yet taken a firm decision on any further moves of DES posts away from their present location, but the matter is under review. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services recently published a report which identified up to 2,000 DHSS headquarters' posts which were potentially suitable for transfer away from London. Other departments are also looking into what can be done.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a decision was taken to transfer the Property Services Agency from London to Middlesbrough and that both the Government and the local authority spent vast sums of money to enable that to be carried out? In the event the scheme was cancelled. Middlesbrough has long been considered as a suitable area to house a government agency. Is there any prospect of that happening in the not too distant future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give details of the PSA's plans on this occasion. However, as I said earlier, departments will be reviewing their work locations with a view, in suitable cases, to finding locations offering advantages in terms of recruitment and retention of staff, value for money and other considerations relevant to service delivery and management. I am sure that when they do that and plan to relocate work, they are required to give regional policy and territorial departments an
1310
opportunity to suggest suitable locations. Therefore, it might well be that Middlesbrough would be one of those.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, will the Government consider this point? Under the Education Reform Bill, to which we have given so much attention, we shall need a Ministry of Education with tremendously increased responsibility and efficiency. If the Ministry is rehoused, will that be done as efficiently as possible to produce the best possible conceivable machine to deal with the responsibilities which it will have?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that must be one of the aims. If there is any move planned to take place, it must be done efficiently. There will always be a need for a headquarters staff of some sort in central London to service Ministers who in turn have to service Parliament.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that only a few years ago, despite the protests of resident London civil servants, we moved the Forestry Commission headquarters from 25 Savile Row, WI, to Edinburgh? The comparative rents in Savile Row are now over £60 per square foot. In Edinburgh they are between £8 and £9 per square foot. Would that not suggest that the example of the Forestry Commission might be copied by other government departments?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I may give the noble Lord a further example of a government department which relocated in Scotland, to East Kilbride. That was not a whole government department but considerable parts of the Overseas Development Agency. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 30th June that taking account of all quantifiable costs and benefits, that is estimated to have produced a significant saving in national resource terms of some £14-9 million. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the staff who transferred expressed the opinion that the quality of life was higher in East Kilbride and they preferred their new location.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when the present Government came into office they inherited a programme for relocating government departments? I know that because I was chairman of the Cabinet Committee which worked out that policy. For example, the Government chemist department was to be moved to the constituency of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. This Government cancelled the whole programme when they came into office. Is he aware that we moved two sections of the Department of Education and Science to Darlington and they are very happy there? There is no earthly reason why the whole of that department, apart from a small ministerial group, should not be moved to the provinces. They might then learn something about education.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that I have covered everything so far in my Answer. This

1311
situation is being looked into. I do not see why they should learn any more about education there than in London.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in 1979 plans were afoot to move 3,500 civil servants to the North West, and that immediately on assuming office this Government cancelled the plan? Is he not also aware that since 1979 when they moved certain numbers of civil servants out to the provinces, the Government have always paid tribute to the fact that the move has been efficient, satisfied the civil servants so moved, that conditions have improved and the Government have saved millions of pounds? Does he not accept from me that many people are showing concern that in view of the record of success achieved by decentralisation, this Government are apparently determined not to do anything or support the promises that were made to look at specific cases of moving government departments out of London?
Noble Lords: Speech, speech!
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I did not think I was making a speech. I asked a question. I have a final question. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will look into the problem and produce a report as to the possible cost savings that can be made by moving departments from London?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should point out that four-fifths of the Civil Service is located outside Greater London, and since 1979 some 5,560 Civil Service posts have been transferred from London under the Government's dispersal programme. In addition, departments have on their own initiative relocated well over 6,000 posts out of London and the South East. As I said earlier, we shall continue to look into the matter.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to consult his noble friend Lord Young, who gave me figures that do not correspond with the figures which the Minister has given me.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the figures I have given to the noble Lord are exactly the same figures which I gave to him in a Written Answer on 15th March this year.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in order to avoid administrative friction, has any consideration been given to moving the Treasury a little further away from 10 Downing Street?

Magistrates Appointment Committees
Lord Morton of Shuna,Lord Morton of Shuna, on behalf of Lord Taylor of Blackburn, asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether discussions have taken place between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regarding the publication of the composition of local advisory committees for the appointment of magistrates.
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that short reply. Will he take steps to see that wide publicity is given to the decision that he and his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have taken?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the answer is yes again.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord say who will be responsible for publishing the lists? Will it be his department or the local advisory committee? Can he say when that is likely to take place?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the advisory committees are local organisations, and we have asked them to take steps to make themselves known. About half of the advisory committees for which I have responsibility—95 altogether—will have made their identity public by the end of this year. We have said that all should do so by 1992 for reasons unconnected with another important matter in 1992. On the Chancellor of the Duchy's committees, I understand that it is likely that they will start making themselves more public from the beginning of next year.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on the question of time, can the noble and learned Lord explain why such a long time is needed to publish? Why wait another three years?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we consulted widely on this matter. We have encouraged local advisory committees to go public immediately. Many of them have done that. However, there are some people who took membership on local advisory committees under a regime when their identity was not public. We felt it right to go to 1992 in order to enable those people, if they wish, to retire from the committees, all of which will be constituted by 1992. I felt that it was reasonable to bring this in gradually. It is a voluntary matter. People have so far done it voluntarily. It will become compulsory by 1992. Those who have taken office on the committees on the understanding that their identity would not be revealed would have the option of retiring from their committee before it happens to their committee. That is, if there are people in that position.
All the indications I have are that this move has been generally welcomed, and I believe that the advisory committees themselves generally welcome it. I do not believe that many people will wish to take advantage of that option. However, in making the change, we thought that we should give people that opportunity; but we expressed the hope that they may be willing to have their names made public as soon as possible.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, why has the composition of these committees always been secret? Is it anything to do with the fact that they are believed to have been appointed partly because of their

1313
political affiliations or is there some other reason that they should be secret?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not a complete repository of the history of these committees, and I do not know exactly why they have not been made known until now. However, it seemed to me to be a good idea.
One of the reasons given when the matter was looked into by an inquiry some years ago was that it might cause people on the advisory committee to be lobbied for particular magistrates. Clearly that would be rather undesirable. That may have been the reason. Certainly it has nothing to do with political affiliations, so far as I know. The Lord Chancellor—and I am sure I speak for my predecessors too—has always been anxious to secure a proper balance as regards political influences. There is no question of secrecy in order to preserve a political interest. I believe it is possible to deal with the lobbying matter in other ways and we have made suggestions about that; for example, that those who lobby in an undesirable way would not be regarded as suitable persons to be magistrates.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Solicitors (Scotland) Bill and the Corneal Tissue (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 will be taken.
Bredero (Bon Accord Centre, Aberdeen) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.
Highland Region (Lochinver Harbour) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Housing (Scotland) Bill
3.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report. —(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.
Clause 55 [Application to exercise rights conferred by this Part and offer to sell]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 33, line 48, leave out from ("above") to end of line 3 on page 34.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small amendment but it carries considerable significance. Subsection 6(d) states:
"that the applicant would, within a reasonable period carry out such works as are reasonably necessary to put the house into the state of repair required by the landlord's repairing obligations".
The existence of this assumption within the statutory formula for completing the market value is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because the market value should already have taken into account the state of repair of the house.
It is unrealistic because it is difficult to see how the district valuer is to be satisfied that works exist that,
"are reasonably necessary to put the house into the state of repair required by the landlord's repairing obligations".
That could give rise to considerable dispute between an applicant and the local authority landlord. In addition, it is not clear that applicants shall, within a reasonable period. carry out any works to any house under the terms of the Bill.
The Minister sought to clarify that earlier by stating that valuations will be carried out on a new capital value basis rather than the customary and straightforward basis of valuation by comparison with the market transactions for similar houses in the area and that negative values arc expected to result. That renders this clause particularly damaging to the interests of the transferring local authorities.
Written as it is, this subsection would result in tenants who remain with local authorities in local authority housing paying for the cost of the transfer. The remaining tenants would continue to service the outstanding debt on transferred property and they could also be liable to pay part of the renovation costs on the property already assumed in this transfer value.
I should have said earlier that it has been agreed between the Minister and this side of the House that with Amendment No. 56 we should take Amendments Nos. 57 and 58. Therefore, perhaps 1 may speak briefly to Amendment No. 58. As well as imposing statutory restrictions on the market value of houses transferred under Part III, the Bill proposes the enforced sale of individual houses, initiated by approved persons or by Scottish Homes, to be effected at a price determined by an employee of the Government; that is, the district valuer would make the valuation for a branch of the government. We believe that that is patently unreasonable and contrary to natural justice.
This potentially could allow the district valuer to set unrealistic values and that would deprive public sector landlords of resources which could have been applied to the improvement and repair of the retained public sector stock. There could be disputes about the level of compensation payable to the owner of land or property being acquired by Scottish Homes

1315
compulsorily under the powers in the Bill. Why should public sector landlords be denied the same right of appeal when the provisions of the change of landlord scheme are applied?
One reason has been given. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said in reply to a comparable amendment that it would be a wrecking amendment because of the delays which would be introduced with an appeals mechanism. We feel it to be an unusual innovation that potential delay is considered to be a reason to perhaps permit an injustice to a party whose assets are being transferred. I can think of no other example where it is the case that delay is a good enough reason to deny an appeal. I hope that the Minister has reflected on what he said earlier, that he will give some thought to this amendment and perhaps make some concessions. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I speak in support of this group of amendments and deal specifically with Amendment No. 57. Due to the rules of the House it appears that it is not proper to speak after the Minister has spoken. Therefore, the Minister will speak last to his amendment, which seems a curious way to proceed.
There is considerable difficulty about the provision regarding valuation. It appears to be foreseen that in certain cases local authority houses will he valued at a negative value, or nil. That means that the local authority is to pay someone to take the houses away—in this case, Scottish Homes. The difficulty is that it leaves the local authority with the debt on the houses. In a case which no doubt the Minister has seen in today's Scotsman the point is raised that this might, in one instance in Edinburgh, result in about £4 million of debt left with no assets relating to it. That would mean either an extremely large increase on the rents of local authority homes in Edinburgh which are not being transferred to Scottish Homes or to sell to the private market instead of Scottish Homes. The private market, having a different valuation process, would be prepared to pay what could be called the proper market value.
The position here is that the market value as proposed, as we understand it and on the information with which I have been supplied, is on something known as the rent capitalisation technique. No doubt the Minister is fully aware of that. It is a method which has not been used in valuing local authority houses until now. It is of very dubious value, if I may use that word, when one has a situation where other people are prepared to pay quite considerable sums for blocks of houses which, under this valuation technique which the district valuers apparently intend to use, produces a negative value.
I suggest that there is something wrong when big private enterprise companies like Wimpey and others are prepared to pay millions for something as regards which the district valuer says that the local authority should pay millions for someone to take it off its hands. Therefore, there is a considerable worry that the technique which is being brought forward by the Government is grossly unfair to what at the moment are the local ratepayers who will be saddled with the
1316
Bill and the payers of business rates and the poll tax. What we are suggesting is a far better method with some appeal provision so that in a case of dispute the value can be considered by the Lands Tribunal. That is a method used in the Bill under Clause 2(5) for compensation payable to owners of land and other property being taken over by Scottish Homes if they are not local authorities. It seems to me absurd that it is not proper to use the same method when Scottish Homes are taking over from a local authority. Presumably the Minister, whom I know to be usually a very reasonable person, will agree and will accept our amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I have never heard of the procedure to which my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna has referred. Was it under this kind of procedure that certain cemeteries were sold for 15 pence and which almost immediately had a value of several million pounds?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, on the face of it I should like to support the proposition put forward on the question of valuation by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Morton of Shuna. I am sorry to say that, despite the anger which was expressed in the columns of the Glasgow Herald by the leader of the city council and the fact that a lobby of Peers was to be organised to resist the inequities of the Government's proposal, the lobby did not reach me and neither was I briefed by the city council. It appears that it uses rather exclusive channels in expressing its anger and disappointment.
I refer to the statement made by Councillor Lally in which he said:
"Central to the amendment is a new valuation"—
which is part of this discussion—
"which would create negative values for council houses."
For example, he quotes the case of a house valued at £2,000 but requiring £10,000 worth of repairs. He continued by saying that:
"improvements would have a negative value of £8,000. Councils would then require to pay this sum to the new landlords when the house transfers.".
On the face of it that represents to me a very considerable and undesirable burden on a local authority in disposing of a property as suggested in the Bill. I very much welcome the Minister's comments on that case.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I also speak to Amendment No. 57. I begin by dealing with Amendment No. 56 which corresponds to amendments which have been discussed at earlier stages in the passage of the Bill through this House and another place. Subsection 55(6)(d) is I believe necessary to make it clear that, while the price on transfer should reflect the current state of the house to be acquired, it should also assume that the new landlord will, within a reasonable period, carry out works reasonably necessary to put the house into the state of repair required by the landlord's repairing obligations. Where a house has been properly maintained by the

1317
local authority, very little or no work will be necessary, and there will be a correspondingly minimal (or nil) effect on the valuation. But if the property is in a run-down state, I believe it right that the valuation assumptions should take the works necessary properly into account.
The legal effect of Clause 55(6)(d) is to require the district valuer to assume for valuation purposes that the applicant acquiring the property will reasonably promptly carry out works reasonably needed to fulfil his general repairing obligations under the Housing (Scotland) Acts, which apply to landlords of all kinds, plus any specific repairing obligations in the tenants' existing tenancy agreements with the landlord.
District valuers will take these obligations into account without the need for legislation, but only up to a point. Left without subsection (6)(d) it is possible that prices will be increased and would reduce the applicant's ability to remedy any legacy of disrepair left by the previous landlord. The new landlord would need to spend more to take over the property and would have less resources available for the necessary rehabilitation. As noble Lords will realise, therefore, Clause 55(6)(d) is largely a technical provision. However, I believe it is a necessary and useful part of this valuation clause.
I have, however, studied the briefing which CoSLA has provided to noble Lords, in particular the points made by Glasgow district council. As regards the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward in the House today against the idea of valuations being carried out on a capital value basis. In the light of the points made, and of recent further discussions between my department and the Inland Revenue valuation office, I have to say that in Scotland the capitalisation of rents of let houses is not an appropriate means of assessing market value. In practice, the fundamental basis of compensation for compulsory purchase of one kind or another under statute and case law since 1845 has been "value to owner". This concept is preserved in Clause 55(6), in the wording,
"… the price which on the relevant date the house would realise if sold on the open market by a willing seller".
I would like, therefore, to correct previous references to valuations on a capital value basis and to put on record now that we will be inviting district valuers to follow the "value to owner" approach on tenants' choice valuations. I believe that this course of action will be welcomed by councils. I hope that noble Lords opposite will study what I have said in this regard and realise what announcement I am making today on this particular issue.
The purpose of Amendment No. 57 is to make clear that the property transferring under the tenants' choice provisions in Part III can have not only a positive or zero value, but also a negative value. While most houses in the public sector in Scotland have been maintained to a reasonable standard, there are some tenanted properties where this is not so. These properties now need significant renovation to bring them up to the desired standard. The cost of bringing such property into a reasonable state of
1318
repair may exceed the value of the property after the necessary rehabilitation work has been completed. In other words, if the new landlord were to pay any price for the property, or even if it was transferred to him at nil cost, he would face making a loss on the transaction. In such circumstances, no new landlord is likely to be willing to participate in the purchase of public sector housing under the powers in Part III of the Bill, or he would only be willing to do so in return for rent payments well above the going rate for such housing, and therefore well above the level which the tenant will be prepared to pay.
We see the tenants' choice provisions in the Bill being particularly attractive to those tenants in the minority of local authority housing which is in a had state of repair and who are therefore least satisfied with the service provided by the local authority. We believe that there should be no artificial impediment to such tenants changing landlords. If we did not specifically permit negative valuations, and if we did not oblige local authorities to make payments equivalent to the amount of the negative valuation, the result would indeed be an impediment to transfers.
This proposal has been described by some as asset stripping. I cannot agree. If a house is in such a poor state of repair that it would cost more to rehabilitate than the house would be worth when the work is done, the house in its present state is a liability to an authority, not an asset. In such circumstances rent payments are probably insufficient to cover the cost of the maintenance work necessary to prevent the house deteriorating further. The local authority would inevitably very soon have had to spend substantial sums to bring the property up to scratch. By transferring the house to a new landlord the local authority is relieving itself of the liability to meet such costs. The concept of negative valuation is therefore sensible and fair to all parties. I commend this amendment to the House.
There has been a certain amount of discussion about the cost of this matter to local authorities. I have been asked how authorities will be expected to treat payments to prospective landlords where a property has been valued in negative terms. I would expect authorities to make payments from their HRA capital account. The loan charges resulting will be taken into account in the determination of housing support grant, and thus where an authority is eligible to receive HSG it will recoup its costs.
Finally, perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 58, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I have again considered carefully the thrust of the amendment but I cannot recommend its acceptance. It would give the Lands Tribunal for Scotland an appeal function if a public sector landlord disputed the valuation reached by the district valuer. I know that Glasgow District Council believes that the district valuer is not sufficiently independent to carry out the task set by the Bill. That is not a view I share. The district valuer acts in the public interest in the widest sense and I am completely satisfied as to the impartiality and independence of district valuers in matters of this kind. Moreover, there will be an undoubted benefit to the district valuers undertaking all valuations under the tenants' choice provision as

1319
this will lead to a high degree of consistency in valuations.
All these factors will combine to make an appeal mechanism wholly unnecessary. In addition, if we were to accept the amendment it would build into the procedure quite unacceptable delays, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Morton of Shuna, and as such would seriously dissuade persons from seeking to exercise their rights. I cannot therefore accept this amendment. I have given it consideration. I believe I am right in saying that at the previous stage of the Bill I said I was looking at the matter in the light of the 1980 Act in a discussion in which I recall the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, took part. During the passage of that Bill the question of appeals on valuations in right to buy cases was raised. While the Lands Tribunal is being given an appeal role in a number of matters relating to tenants' choice provisions, its locus will closely parallel the role it discharges in right to buy cases.
I see no change in the situation from that date when my noble friend Lord Mansfield pointed out that the tenant could choose whether to accept the local authority's choice of valuer or the district valuer. Once the tenant had done that and the valuer had made his valuation it would be beyond appeal; so said my noble friend Lord Mansfield at that time. I see no good reason for giving the Lands Tribunal a wider role in the tenants' choice legislation, particularly as no volume of evidence has built up to suggest that the operation of the right to buy legislation is hindered by the absence of an appeal provision.
However, I am quite prepared to take the matter away. I shall consider whether at Third Reading I might bring forward amendments to bring the valuation procedures under tenants' choice more closely into line with those in the right to buy legislation in as much as they make provision for valuations to be undertaken by an agreed private valuer or the district valuer. This could allow some flexibility in valuation procedures. With this assurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it would be churlish not to be grateful for the Minister's statement that he has given the matter considerable thought. From what he said, it seems possible that some of our representations have not fallen on stony ground. For that we are extremely grateful. The noble Lord will also realise that as this is extremely complicated legislation we shall want to study his words carefully, see exactly what they mean in practice and naturally have some assessment from outside experts on the full potential of his words.
In these amendents. and particularly in Amendment No. 58, we are dealing with an important matter. I am glad that the noble Lord said that he will have another look at the question of appeal. He suggested that there had been few appeals under earlier legislation. In this respect we are not necessarily dealing with troublesome people. After all, the local authorities are advised by their own professional valuers who are not likely totally to
1320
disregard the assessmentof the district valuer. I have had dealings with district valuers. I used to telephone them and ask them to have another look at a problem. I think in particular of a local gasworks of which we were disposing. It was rather important that the district valuer took a look at the potential use of the ground.
I can give one example in Glasgow which became a quite notorious case. A block of houses was ultimately demolished, perhaps rather sadly. The value given by the district valuer was not very high, and a housing firm offered a slightly better figure. The district valuer is by no means infallible. However, with the promise the
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 34, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Where the circumstances are such that, on the relevant date, a house, if offered for sale in accordance with subsection (6) above, would not realise any price then—

(a) for the purposes of that subsection, the price shall be taken to be—

(i) such amount as would require to be paid to Scottish Homes or a person who, on the relevant date, was approved under section 54 above in order that it or he would willingly so acquire the house, expressed as a negative: or

(ii) where Scottish Homes or that person would willingly so acquire it for no consideration, nil;

(b) the market value of the house may he determined under that subsection to he a negative value or nil;

(c) where the market value is so determined, the reference in subsection (5) above to a price equal to the market value shall be construed accordingly and references in this section to selling a house and the purchaser of it shall he construed respectively as references to disposing of it and the acquirer of it: and

(d) where, by virtue of paragraph (c) above. the price of the house is in the negative. the obligation to pay shall be upon the landlord.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Consent for subsequent disposals]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 36. line 22, after ("Act") insert ("including any person who acquires any property under this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is suggested that along with this amendment we discuss Amendments Nos. 60. 61 and 62. These amendments seek to enhance the safeguards available to tenants who exercise their right to choose an alternative landlord under Part III of the Bill. The Minister responsible for the Housing Bill in another place spoke of the need to ensure that houses which are disposed of under tenants' choice remain available for letting and that tenants' rights are safeguarded. The best way to secure these objectives in this Bill is to give Scottish Homes greater control over the disposals by approved landlords of the houses it acquires under tenants' choice.
As the Bill stands, the consent of Scottish Homes is necessary before any property is disposed of but there are no explicit criteria for the granting or withholding of this consent. Consent can be given for

1321
classes of disposals, thus making it unlikely that each case will be examined on its merits. Disposals in particular areas can be given blanket consent. The administration of consent in such a fashion provides few safeguards to tenants. There is no statutory requirement that Scottish Homes should seek and consider the views of the tenant. It is these problems which the amendments seek to remedy.
The first amendment, Amendment No. 59, is an attempt to bring this Bill into line with the Housing Bill. One of the difficulties with which we have to deal as regards this Bill is that the Housing Bill is going through the House on different days, it has reached a different stage of its proceedings, and has different provisions. However, the point of the amendment is to bring this Bill into line. It omits mention of class consents and thus obliges every case to be considered on its merits. Without this provision, other measures to provide safeguards for tenants would be difficult to apply.
The next amendment provides that consent for disposals will he given only to approved landlords. This is most important because as the Bill stands it only appears to deal with the initial change of landlord and not with subsequent landlords. Tenants may be put in the position of opting for a landlord approved by Scottish Homes, only to find that the approved landlord disposes of the house to a non-approved landlord and thus the safeguards fly off.
In the fourth amendment, Amendment No. 62, the aim is to provide that tenants should he informed and consulted about disposal plans and that their views are taken into account by Scottish Homes in the granting or withholding of consent. The wording of the subsection is derived from Clause 64(3) of the Housing Bill which refers to disposals by housing action trusts. 1 trust that the Minister knows more about those provisions than I do, but it may be that we are both equally at sea on that issue. However, it is equally appropriate in the Scottish context because without this the tenants' wishes could be entirely ignored and that, we understand, should not be the purpose of the Bill. The Government's clear, stated objective of,
"encouraging greater individual control over the conditions in which people live"—
which is a quotation from Housing: the Government's Proposals for Scotland—would appear to be relevant here. For those various reasons I beg to move Amendment No. 59.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and with the leave of the House, I shall address my remarks to Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 61 and 62. I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward in support of this group of amendments, all of which were tabled during the Committee stage of the Bill's proceedings. I am aware that the amendments have the backing of the Institute of Housing in Scotland.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, indicated, his amendments are linked by a common theme. The basic argument is that tenants' rights
1322
would be better safeguarded if Scottish Homes were given greater control over the disposal by approved landlords of houses they acquire under the provisions in Part III of the Bill.
I cannot recommend that these amendments should be accepted. I believe we must strike a balance in which we take into account the interests of tenants, the willingness of new landlords to be involved in taking over public sector houses under the tenants' choice provisions, and the need for involvement by Scottish Homes.
The first of the amendments suggests that Scottish Homes' approval should be necessary for all subsequent disposals of property transferred under Part III. That seems to me to be particularly undesirable. We believe, as 1 said previously, that there must be some mechanism to ensure that it is not possible to circumvent the approval process however unlikely any landlord whom Scottish Homes is prepared to approve as a receiving landlord would be to pass on houses taken over to another owner soon afterwards. We have considered again the points made in Committee on this issue while also taking on board the noble Lord's comments today. But I still believe that we should not impose a requirement that Scottish Homes should be associated with the future ownership of the property for all time. We must remember that any tenant who transfers to a new landlord under the provisions in Part III has chosen to do so. He has seen advantages in moving from the public sector and he has done so under his own free will to gain advantage from what the private sector has to offer. Therefore he is in much the same position as any other private sector assured tenant.
However, there is the control of the first subsequent disposal, which is an additional safeguard. In considering applications for approval, Scottish Homes will have regard to much the same conditions as apply in approvals under Clause 54. But, as I say, I believe that we must draw the line after this first subsequent disposal. I do not think that it is necessary, desirable or sensible for Scottish Homes to be involved thereafter with all property which happens at one time to have been transferred under Part III.
Nor do I believe that Scottish Homes should be obliged only to approve first disposals if the purchaser is another "approved landlord". Although under normal circumstances I would expect Scottish Homes only to consent to a disposal if the house were to continue to be available for rent at rent levels within the reach of those with income levels characteristic of that half of the population currently housed by the public sector, I do not think that it would be desirable to rule out the possibility of a house being sold into owner-occupation.
My noble friend Lord Sanderson gave assurances before, and I repeat now, that Scottish Homes will look very carefully indeed at the local demand for and supply of rented accommodation before deciding to agree to any disposal for owner occupation. The fact that consents have to be obtained to the initial transfer from the public sector, and also to the first subsequent transfer, means that there is no question whatever of landlords being able to make a quick profit by taking on public sector houses and selling

1323
them quickly with vacant possession on the open market. The protection is given not only by the necessary Scottish Homes' approvals, but also by the normal tenancy agreements and the strengthened anti-harrassment procedures. On the other hand, if a tenancy falls vacant for good reasons—for example, if the tenant decides to move, or if the tenant dies and there are no successors—it may make eminent good sense for a landlord to be able to rationalise his holding of rented property by selling the vacant property on the open market. But let me emphasise again that Scottish Homes approval will be required for such first disposals. That will allow and require Scottish Homes to be very closely involved in the market for rented housing in the area.
The third of this group of amendments seeks to rule out the possibility of class approval to subsequent disposals. I can assure noble Lords that there is nothing sinister in the provisions in subsection (2) of Clause 60. The provisions allow, but do not require, Scottish Homes to give class approvals. Noble Lords will note that such approvals can be subject to conditions. We have already considered the example of sales of houses to sitting tenants. Just as local authorities have what might be termed a class approval to dispose of housing under the right to buy, so I believe it could be sensible for Scottish Homes to give similar class approvals to sales to sitting tenants in transferred properties. There could also be good arguments for giving class approvals to subsequent disposals through sales to, for example, registered housing associations, so long as the stock held by such associations did not exceed numbers which in Scottish Homes' view were manageable. I do not therefore believe that the House should accept Amendment No. 61, as this could lead to extra and unnecessary administrative effort and cost for Scottish Homes without any return for the tenant.
Finally, I should like to say a word on the last of the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, which concerned consultation by Scottish Homes with tenants. The noble Lord may have had in the back of his mind the worry that this is something which is being emphasised for the English Bill and therefore that we, in our Scottish provisions, should be similarly aligned. Let me emphasise that the situations are not parallel. In Scotland, under tenants' choice, no tenant will require to change his landlord against his will; but in England, where a housing action trust is set up, tenants will inherit the housing action trust as their new landlord whether they want to or not. The English provision refers to housing action trusts only and not to tenants' choice transfers. In such circumstances, the extra safeguard of a statutory requirement to consult the tenant for the first time seems only reasonable. However, I hope—
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I think he said that no tenant would be forced to change his landlord against his will. Surely that is exactly what is happening in the Shetlands. There, the tenants wish to go to one landlord and are being told that they cannot do so. Therefore that seems to me exactly what is
1324
happening. However, perhaps I have misunderstood the Minister?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, with respect, I think that perhaps the noble Lord misunderstood me in regard to Shetland, although I did not mention Shetland just now. As I believe my noble friend Lord Sanderson made clear the other day, no tenant in Shetland will be forced against his will in the way that the noble Lord intimated and fears.
I was comparing the English and Scottish provisions. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to accept that the position for tenants' choice transferees in Scotland is different, and that with the assurance that my noble friend Lord Sanderson gave in Committee, which I now repeat—that under Clause 60, in practice, Scottish Homes will consult the tenants involved—there is therefore no need for a statutory provision of this type in the Scottish Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am always suspicious of an assurance that there is no need for a provision saying that someone will do something, because in practice they will. If there is nothing in the Bill, in practice they may not. If that is to be the practice, what is the Government's objection to putting it into the Bill and making it a duty? That is the difficulty the Government never seem to face up to. Time and again they come forward with the idea that we do not need a provision in the Bill, because it will be the practice. I have never yet heard them give a satisfactory answer to that conundrum. If something is to be the practice, I still do not understand why the Government do not say that it will be the practice and put it into the Bill.
My second point is that we discussed earlier on Report the meaning of Clause 42. There remains a distinct difference of view among various people as to whether there is individual tenant's choice or a situation where the majority of tenants can force the minority to change landlords. That aspect may only be resolved later in the courts. I do not wish to return to it except to point out that there is a difficulty.
It is absurd that one has an assurance from the Government that tenants are getting some assurance of tenancy when we now know that Scottish Homes can transfer to an approved landlord and the next day the approved landlord can transfer to someone else, who may be the worst type of Rachman-like landlord. I regret to say that I found the Minister's reply unsatisfactory, and I should like to test the opinion of the House.
3.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 59) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 135.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Banks, L.

Airedale, L.

Blease, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Aylestone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

1325

Briginshaw, L.

Lawrence, L.

Broad bridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chitnis, L.

Milverton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nathan, L.

Diamond, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fitt, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Grimond, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henniker, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Vernon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Walston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Kirkhill, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Allerton, L.

Effingham, E.

Alport, L.

Elibank, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Arran, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Atholl, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Bauer, L.

Fortescue, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Gainford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Beloff, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bessborough, F.

Blyth, L.

Hankey, L.

Borthwick, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hayter, L.

Brightman, L.

Hesketh, L.

Brookehorough, V.

Hives, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Burton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Caccia, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Layton, L.

Carnock, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Cathcart, E.

Long, V.

Chelwood, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McFadzean, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Marley, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mersey, V.

Dormer, L.

Middleton, L.

Dudley, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dundee, E.

Morris, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

1326

Munster, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Nelson, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Newall, L.

Secbohm, L.

Northesk, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Somers, L.

Orkney, E.

Stockton, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Peel, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ponder, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Sudeley, L.

Porritt, L.

Swansea, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinfen, L.

Reay, L.

Swinton, E.

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

Richardson of Duntishournc, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton. L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Torphichen, L.

Rochdale, V.

Trafford, L.

Rodney, L.

Ullswater, V.

Romney, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Roskill, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rugby, L.

Wynford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Young of Grafffiam, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.50 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 62 not moved.]
Clause 62 ["Cost,floor" limit on discount on price of house purchased by secure tenant]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 37. line 23, leave out ("5") and insert ("8").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to have some harmonisation between the Scottish and the English in terms of the time after which a property can be sold when repairs have been executed. We are grateful that in Clause 62 the Minister or the Government have brought the operative date forward to 1983. Instead of having a single cut off date, the Government are now proposing a rolling period of five years during which the discount is restricted on a house sold by a local authority.
While we are grateful for this, we in Scotland still feel that we are being slightly cheated because in England the period is eight years. To some extent we have been through this before but during the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said that:
"the provisions in England and Scotland are at present different: and we see no reason why they should necessarily conform after the change is made…. We do not see any need for the period in which the cost floor operates to be the same in Scotland as in England".—[Official Report, 28/4/88; cols. 299 and 300.]
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said basically the same thing in Committee in the House of Commons on 1st March 1988 at col. 1123 of the Official Report:
"The hon. Gentleman asked why the situation was different from that in England".
Again he said that the answer was that they would not need to do exactly the same as in England. We accept that, except when it is a disadvantage to Scotland and then we want to do things the same way as in England.
These comments confirm that there is no logical and straightforward reason for this discrepancy of

1327
five and eight years on the rolling programme of the sale of houses. Furthermore, this rule introduces a concept that is used in England of historic costs expenditure rather than outstanding debt incurred in recent years. That makes it all the more difficult to justify the difference between five years in the Scottish Bill and eight years in the English Bill. It is even more important that the eight year rule should apply in Scotland, given that house prices in Scotland do not generally increase in value at the same rate as they do in most parts of England. There are also areas in Scotland where house prices are decreasing. This five-year rule will cause capital losses for authorities and affect modernisations for some of their tenants.
It amazes me that the Government have not so far accepted the amendment which is very simple. We have already had some good news from the Minister and perhaps we may have more. The amendment seeks to have the five-year rule extended to eight years, as in England and Wales. At the very least this will allow more time for house sale prices to grow and reduce the capital losses which would otherwise be incurred by the authorities after houses are modernised. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, this is a matter on which I have received representations from CoSLA and also the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. Their concern in this matter has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. Basically it is the difference between the eight years in the English Bill as against five years in the Scottish Bill. This is a case where I have argued for uniformity on a number of matters affecting Scotland and England, particularly as regards rating. I now wish to have a degree of uniformity with the new legislation proposed for England. Both CoSLA and the National Federation of Housing Associations are not opposed to the principle of a rolling cost floor but they are concerned about the timescale. For local authorities, for example, the five-year rule will be an inadequate period for price increases to offset the remaining debt. It may also inhibit local authorities from carrying out modernisation work or even new build projects if the possibility exists for tenants to buy these houses five years later with the full discount entitlement.
In the case of the housing associations, whose cause is dear to the heart of the Minister, their concern is slightly different. Their major concern is viability. It is not in the interests of housing associations which are trying to attract private finance if their viability is founded on an asset base which is eligible for sale to sitting tenants who could receive up to 70 per cent. discount.
It occurs to me that this is not a violent political matter at all. It is a matter of accommodation. I accept that Scottish housing is different from English housing in some respects, but in regard to this case I think that there is a very strong claim for uniformity. That would be well received by the representative organisations I have quoted.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to underline the very important point which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has just made.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I apologise for not rising, I thought I was going to hear a longer speech. This matter has been debated at length in another place and an identical amendment was discussed here in Committee.
It appears that the main purpose behind the noble Lord's amendment is to bring the English and Scottish proposals on this matter into line. As noble Lords will know however, there are already differences in the legislation north and south of the Border on this issue.
We believe that in the case of public sector landlords such as local authorities a five-year rolling cost floor arrangement is sensible and workable. It will mean that, unless the full market value itself is lower than the cost, no authority will be required to sell immediately a new build or newly improved property for less than the cost of providing or modernising it. Nor should an authority be tempted to allocate to newly built housing only tenants with relatively short periods as public sector tenants, therefore with a relatively low discount entitlement. Moreover, if we make reasonable assumptions on house price inflation—and I shall come back to that in a moment—and if we allow for the likelihood of a range of discount entitlements among the tenants who exercise the right to buy these new houses and the probability that all tenants will not exercise the right to buy immediately the five-year period comes to an end, any supposed losses which local authorities might sustain by selling houses will in our view be small. Most houses which are purchased under the right to buy will, I am sure, continue to be sold at prices above the cost of provision.
I should assure noble Lords that the remaining tenants of these local authorities selling houses for less than the debt outstanding on them are unlikely to have to meet any substantial additional costs through their rents. Where an authority at present receives housing support grant (that is direct housing subsidy from the Government) the formula for this subsidy will act to compensate the authority for any loss sustained. If an authority is not at present "in" housing support grant, but the sales at below outstanding debt cause loan charges per remaining council house to rise, and hence rents to rise above the figure which the Secretary of State takes as the threshold for housing support grant, then this grant will once again become payable. For remaining tenants therefore any rent increase as a result of sales will be limited. I remain convinced that these proposals, based on a five year cut-off period represent a satisfactory compromise.
Any move to an eight year cut-off period would, in the short term at least, be of little benefit to tenants in Scotland. Indeed given that we are moving away from a reducing outstanding debt component replacing it with a fixed historic cost amount, there could he cases where an eight year cut-off period would be a disadvantage to tenants seeking to purchase.
At the previous stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, talked quite a lot about Angus district and the problems of house prices in Montrose going down and the problems that that would cause.

1329
I made it my business to look into the overall situation in Angus district. I gave the noble Lord the Scottish figures for which I believe he is grateful. But he said that that did not affect Angus district and he wanted to know about the situation there.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that in 1987 the average selling price of a house purchased under the right-to-buy provisions in Angus district was £10,720, representing a discount on average of 48.7 per cent. But the important thing is that the amount of outstanding debt per house held on the authority's housing revenue account was £2,888. Sales are therefore well above the outstanding debt level generally, and in this case some £8,000 above it. I hope that helps to convince the noble Lord that while there may be cases such as on the East coast of Scotland where the depression in the oil industry presents problems, I do not think that in the overall context, even in the case of the district council of Angus, this provision should present an overwhelming problem. However, I recognise the point that the noble Lord made at the previous stage of the Bill.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, as regards housing associations (in which I am extremely interested), I would say that we discussed this matter in Committee. I see no grounds for anxiety. As I said at that time, any loss is directly borne by the Government. As a general rule, housing associations' debt is only 10 to 20 per cent. of the capital cost and discounted selling prices can hardly fail to cover that. In this case, as regards housing associations, this is not a relevant matter. I must therefore resist the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
4 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful for the trouble the Minister has taken to explain the Government's thinking once again in the light of some of the points that were made in Committee, when he said that he would look into the cost floor. The amendment was not moved with any purely chauvinistic thoughts in mind. It was moved as a result of a very practical consideration. Local authorities were concerned that they would be selling houses where the outstanding debt was considerably more than the price that they were able to secure for the houses.
The Minister raised a number of new points. I do not know whether we shall be coming back to them; but after sober consideration, we may decide that we want further explanation of the new points. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
("Schemes for payments to assist local authority tenants to obtain other accommodation.
62A.—(l) In accordance with a scheme made by a local authority and approved by the Secretary of State under this section, the authority may make grants to or for the benefit of
1330
qualifying tenants of the authority with a view to assisting each person to whom or for whose benefit a grant is made to obtain accommodation otherwise than as a tenant of the authority either—

(a) by acquiring an interest in a house; or

(b) by carrying out works to a house to provide additional accommodation; or

(c) by both of those means.

(2) A scheme under this section shall contain such provisions as the local authority considers appropriate together with any which the Secretary of State may require as a condition of his approval and, without prejudice to the generality, a scheme may include provisions specifying, or providing for the determination of—

(a) the persons who are qualifying tenants for the purposes of the scheme;

(b) the interests which qualifying tenants may be assisted to acquire;

(c) the works for the carrying out of which grants may be made;

(d) the circumstances in which a grant may be made for the benefit of a qualifying tenant;

(e) the amount of the grant which may be made in any particular case and the terms on which it may be made;

(f) the limits on the total number and amount of grants which may be made; and

(g) the period within which the scheme is to apply.

(3) The Secretary of State may approve a scheme made by a local authority under this section with or without conditions and, where a scheme has been approved, the authority shall take such steps as it considers appropriate to bring the scheme to the attention of persons likely to be able to benefit from it and shall take such other steps (if any) as the Secretary of State may direct in any particular case to secure publicity for the scheme.
(4) The Secretary of State may revoke an approval of a scheme under this section by a notice given to the local authority concerned; and where such a notice is given, the revocation shall not affect the operation of the scheme in relation to any grants made or agreed before the date of the notice.
(5) Where a scheme made by a local authority under this section has been approved, a person dealing with the authority shall not be concerned to see or enquire whether the terms of the scheme have been or are being complied with; and any failure to comply with the terms of a scheme shall not invalidate any grant purporting to be made in accordance with the scheme unless the person to whom the grant is made has actual notice of the failure.
(6) In this section, "local authority" and "house" have respectively the meanings assigned to those expressions by section 338(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 64 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 102. New Clause 62A would give local authorities, with the consent of the Secretary of State, specific powers to make payments to their tenants to help them to obtain other accommodation. I hope and believe that this clause will be welcomed by the House. It is an enabling provision, designed to allow the local authorities to draw up schemes—which will require the Secretary of State's approval under which they will be able to offer payment to tenants to move out of their council houses. Such payments would, for example, be used as deposits on the purchase of houses in the private sector. The resulting council house vacancy will then be available for letting to, for example, homeless families or to people on the waiting list.
As the new clause says, the local authority may include in such a scheme such provisions as it believes appropriate. The Secretary of State may also, in considering whether or not to approve such schemes, take into account and make as a condition of approval, the following factors: which tenants should be eligible for such payments; what property tenants moving out should be eligible to acquire or adapt; the amount of grant which might be paid to

1331
any tenant and under what conditions; the limits on the total number and amounts of grants which may be made; and the time within which the scheme should apply.
The new clause will also require an authority where a scheme has been approved to bring the scheme to the attention of those who might benefit from it.
Subsections (4) and (5) are included to protect the tenants involved. Subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to revoke any approval given, but without prejudice to any payments made by the authority prior to such a revocation. Subsection (5) is a standard provision to ensure that if a local authority fails to comply with any of a scheme's requirements, an innocent recipient of assistance does not have to repay grant.
I believe the attractions of this new enabling provision are obvious. The tenant is helped with a payment from the local authority to get started on the owner-occupation ladder. The local authority obtains a vacant house at the price of a payment which will be less than the cost of building a new house. The accommodation available for the homeless, and to those on the council's waiting list, will be increased. Indeed, relief of homelessness, which we have debated throughout the course of the Bill in this House, is the main justification as we see it for bringing forward this new provision. The Secretary of State will have particular regard to the levels of homelessness in an area when he considers whether or not to approve a scheme of this type; and he will of course wish to be satisfied that value for money will be obtained for the payments made by the local authority.
Noble Lords may know that a number of authorities in England have run pilot schemes of this type. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Scotland have looked particularly at schemes which have been operated in the London boroughs of Brent and Bromley, whose findings have now been published. They showed that relatively modest payments to tenants could secure a useful number of vacancies which could then be used, directly or indirectly, to house homeless families in proper, permanent homes rather than in unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is interesting that all but one of the 72 houses in the scheme which were vacated in Brent and two-thirds of the 92 houses in Bromley were relet to homeless households. Most grant recipients were under the age of 40 as opposed to the right-to-buy applicants who were, in the main, over 50.
Our consideration of these experimental schemes has led us to believe that local authorities should be given specific powers to make such payments. A similar provision was introduced in the Housing Bill in another place. Tenants who receive cash payments to move will, for example, be able to choose new accommodation in areas more in accordance with their own preferences and requirements. The new clause specifically provides that payments may be for an extension to an existing house as well as towards purchase. This could allow a grant to he given, for
1332
example, where an elderly person wished to live with a son or daughter and it was necessary to extend a home or build a "granny flat".
Let me emphasise that the new clause would not oblige local authorities to offer cash incentive payments. Nor would it give tenants a right to a payment. Nor will any tenant be forced to move. Local authorities will be able if they wish to come forward to the Secretary of State seeking approval to schemes for making such payments. The nature and extent of cash incentive schemes will be for local authorities themselves to devise. However, I have outlined the sort of matters the Secretary of State would expect to see covered in such schemes.
It will need to be made clear which tenants are eligible (perhaps tenants with more than a certain period of public sector tenancy), and what size of payments can be made. With value for money very much in mind, it will also be necessary to ensure that cash assistance to move goes to those tenants who do not have the resources to buy property without such assistance. However, I emphasise that we do not propose to set hard and fast rules. It will be up to each local authority which may be interested to justify the details of any scheme it puts forward. The new powers will I am sure be welcomed by all those who share our concern to reduce the problems caused by homelessness. I repeat that, with this purpose particularly in mind, authorities where the homelessness problem is most acute will have the strongest case for having cash incentive schemes approved.
This new clause is not the complete answer to the problem of homelessness which we have debated at great length. It was one of the major factors in the discussions in this Chamber on this Bill. The effect of cash incentive schemes may not, in itself, be huge; but I believe they will make a useful contribution. So will the new measures in Part II of the Bill which concern the private rented sector and which will encourage private sector landlords to make more accommodation available for letting. I am convinced that the Bill as a whole will have a substantial positive impact in alleviating homelessness. With that in mind, I have pleasure in commending the new clause to the House.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the explanation of the clause which the Minister has given is of great interest. However, by the nature of things he was not able to give us as much detail as we should like. We welcome anything which brings flexibility in dealing with housing to let. The earlier suggestion of the building of granny flats was very acceptable.
One of the problems raised by the new clause concerns tenants who have been in a house for a considerable time and the matter of the 70 per cent. discount. It is possible that such a tenant might not have the available cash for even 30 per cent. of the price. Would a cash amount which might be paid in such circumstances take account of the long-term tenancy? Would that entitle the tenant to the discount? The assumption is that there will be houses available for such people to move to. I believe that the Minister will agree that the schemes in Brent and

1333
Bromley are still in the early stages and that the numbers involved are small. However, it is helpful to have evidence that people may be able to choose the houses they want.
The biggest single worry of many of us who live in industrialised areas with a high percentage of local authority housing is the possibility of ending up with ghetto housing. It is possible that people will be only too pleased to move out of the less desirable parts of an area and leave houses behind for the use of those who were previously homeless. While the crude belief is that someone who has been homeless will accept any accommodation, I am sure that the Minister will know that that is not true. People may feel trapped in the housing machine when they have been offered a large number of houses in an area and have not accepted any of them.
There are many good points in the new clause and it would be churlish not to accept that. Many of the comments which have been made in this House and in another place must be taken into consideration. Having said that, I give a guarded welcome to the new clause.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, there are cogent arguments to he made in favour of the new clause. If it comes into effect and succeeds in reducing homelessness and the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, that will be a step forward. Nevertheless, I believe that the clause has implications for housing management. I hope that lessons will he learnt from the experiences of the past—in particular that it is a great mistake to concentrate families and tenants with numerous personal problems in one district or area. In the past. I stayed on a housing estate in north Edinburgh where one could see exactly what had gone wrong and how potentially good housing had been reduced to an almost unlettable condition.
The other matter that concerns me is that there is no guidance given as regards the amount of grant or loan which may be made. That is to be arranged at some future date between the local authority and the Secretary of State. Tenants of charitable housing associations in England could ascertain the amount of their portable discount in advance. Therefore, there was some certainty. I hope very much that under this clause there will be equal treatment for people in equal circumstances.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Carmichael, I find much of the new clause attractive. The Minister made reference to the pilot schemes in two London boroughs. In doing so, he indicated a difference between age groups. He said that the people who exercised their right to buy with a discount tended to be older. The limited evidence from the two London schemes indicates that it is generally people under the age of 40 who take advantage of such schemes.
Am I correct in thinking that the new proposals will be of particular advantage to people who wish to
1334
own a house but do not wish to buy the house in which they are living and who will therefore not receive the benefit of a discount? Alternatively, will people who live in a house and wish to be the owner-occupier of it qualify for a discount only at the lower level? Assuming that the clause is in operation, presumably such people will expect to receive a payment for acquiring another house which will be greater than the discount which they would have acquired if they had bought their current residence. Will payment for an acquisition of another house or for the adaptation of an existing house be more advantageous financially than acquiring the house in which those people are currently living?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word about people who are living in the council housing of rural local authorities. I believe that the provisions of the clause will be extremely helpful and attractive if the council housing in which they live is not where they wish to stay indefinitely or housing which they wish to buy. It is possible that many people will wish to buy a house in another area. The new clause may even enable people to buy houses on farms which are no longer required and which farmers wish to sell but which may need a lot of money spent on them. It may be possible to receive a grant in those circumstances. Such a scheme would be attractive to a rural local authority because it would enable the authority to free houses for the use of homeless people or those on waiting lists.
Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether the dwelling for which a person obtains a grant must be situated in the same local authority area. I think that that question will arise when people hear about these provisions. I see no mention of that matter in the new clause.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I believe that, on the whole, the scheme is very good. The danger must be the possibility of ghetto housing where people do not wish to buy a house in an area which is undesirable but will accept a grant to move out.
It must be a good thing if people in their forties who could not afford a deposit for a house can receive a grant which will start them off in buying a house outside the area. However, I still think that the Minister ought to touch on the question of the creation of a ghetto, which appears to me to be likely in some cases.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to studying the points that they have made. The general concept has been welcomed. We are perhaps breaking new ground: all we have to go on at this particular stage are the experiments in Brent and Bromley; and it is very difficult to draw conclusions on such a narrow base.
Turning to the possibility of the worst council houses being vacated, most of the houses vacated in Brent and Bromley were either flats or maisonettes. Only one-in-six of those receiving grants said that their council homes were in poor repair. Approximately 60 per cent. said that their council

1335
homes were in fairly good repair, and about a further 25 per cent. said that they were in very good repair. In Brent 67 per cent. of grant purchasers had full central heating in their council homes while in Bromley approximately 60 per cent. had central heating.
I well understand the points made about ghettos. That is obviously something that the local authority will have to consider. It should be remembered that it is on the local authority's initiative that any policy decision is taken. The authority will have at its command knowledge of its own area and the likely effects of such decisions. In putting up a scheme to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, local authorities will no doubt bear that in mind. Certainly it is something that the Secretary of State would have to be very clear about when giving approval.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, will the Minister give way? Would that mean that a local authority could put forward a scheme relating to a certain part of the housing stock, or does it have to apply to the whole of the housing stock at one time?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it is my understanding that it is up to the local authority to bring forward a scheme of its choosing. It gives it the power to decide exactly what to bring forward to the Secretary of State. It does not apply to the whole of the housing stock.
As I have said before, we do not intend to set hard and fast rules. It will be for the local authority to justify the details of any scheme, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, understands. However, experience in the experimental schemes in Brent and Bromley suggests that, in Scottish conditions at least, authorities might wish to consider payments of several thousand pounds, perhaps between £5,000 and £10,000, in individual cases. Amounts might, for example, vary according to the time a tenant has spent in public sector accommodation, much on the lines of the discounts available under the right-to-buy scheme.
The Government definitely wish to try to alleviate some of the problems in relation to homelessness which have been raised by noble Lords. If this amendment presents a way forward and is one that can be cost-effective—and we think that local authorities when they study the scheme will understand that it can be cost-effective—then I believe that there is a real chance that we shall be able to tackle some of the problems of homelessness in Scotland.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask my noble friend if he can answer my question about the area in which the house has to be located.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I apologise. The answer is no not necessarily.
On Question, amendment agreed to.1336
Clause 63 [Abolition and capitalisation of certain subsidies and contributions]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 38, line 25, leave out ("instalments") and insert ("payments").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment simply achieves consistency with the other references to "payments" rather than "instalments" in subsection (3) of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 38, line 44, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Commissioners").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 66 is a purely drafting amendment. It will produce a reference to the Public Works Loan "Commissioners" rather than "Board", which is the more usual expression in legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 39, line 21, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 16 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (duty of local authority to credit slum clearance subsidy to slum clearance revenue account) shall cease to have effect on 1st April 1989.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 67, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 97 and 100.
Under paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 16 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, local authorities are required to credit to their slum clearance revenue account payments of slum clearance subsidy. However, under the provisions of this clause the only payments to be made to local authorities in respect of expenditure on slum clearance on or after 1st April 1989 will be capital payments made under subsection (3). Slum clearance subsidy itself will disappear. Such capital payments will be credited to the appropriate capital account and not to a revenue account. Amendment No. 67 therefore replaces the existing subsection (8) with a more definite provision to remove the duty on local authorities to credit subsidy payments to the slum clearance revenue account with effect from the beginning of April 1989. Amendment No. 100, as a consequence, adds paragraph 1(b) to Schedule 16 to the repeal schedule. The repeal will take effect from the beginning of April 1989. Similarly, Amendment No. 97 amends Section 207 of the 1987 Act, which at present refers to Section 200 of that Act, so as to import the relevant parts of Section 200, which is being repealed, explicitly into Section 207.
In summary, the points are therefore technical and consequential on the rest of the clause. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Rent officers: additional functions relating to housing benefit etc.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 40, line 5, after ("instrument") insert ("which, except in the case of the first order to be made, shall be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 69.
Before going on to explain the need for the Amendments, I should emphasise that Clause 66 is simply an enabling power allowing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to make orders related to the work of rent officers in carrying out their new functions in connection with housing benefit subsidy.
Your Lordships will be aware that, as currently drafted, Clause 66 provides that the orders to specify the functions of rent officers in relation to housing benefit subsidy are to be subject to negative resolution of either House of Parliament. On reflection, and following strong representations from honourable and right honourable Members in another place, the Government have decided that the first order, which will detail exactly how rent officers will carry out their new task, should be subject to affirmative resolution. Any subsequent order will, however, be subject to negative resolution. That is the purpose of the amendments and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 40, line 10, at end insert ("; and the first order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments No. 70 to 72:
Page 40, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) At the end of section 21(6) of the Social Security Act 1986 (regulations prescribing maximum family credit and maximum housing benefit) there shall be added the words "and regulations prescribing the appropriate maximum housing benefit may provide for benefit to be limited by reference to determinations made by rent officers in exercise of functions conferred under section 66 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 40, line 11, leave out ("the Social Security Act 1986") and insert ("that Act").
Page 40, line 24, leave out ("the Social Security Act 1986") and insert ("that Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 together. Amendment No. 70 brings the Scottish Bill into line with the English one. This is necessary since the housing benefit system, with which the rent officers will become involved through Clause 66, covers the whole of Great Britain.
The effect of the main amendment is simply to allow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to take into account the determinations made by rent officers under Clause 66 if he makes regulations limiting the maximum amount of housing benefit that may be paid in certain circumstances.
It clearly makes sense to allow my right honourable friend to use the information arising as a result of Clause 66 in this case: not to do so would
1338
require wasteful duplication or lead to unacceptable inconsistency.
Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 are simply consequential drafting points. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 68 [Amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and other enactments and repeals]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 40, line 44, after second ("Act") insert ("(being, respectively, amendments connected with the consolidation of enactments effected by that Act and minor amendments)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 73 and 75 together. During consideration in Committee of Schedules 7 to 9, my noble friend Lord Balfour and other noble Lords suggested that the presentation of consequential, miscellaneous and minor amendments in these three schedules was confusing. As I explained at that time, there is need for the Bill to show clearly which amendments flow directly from and are therefore consequential on earlier provisions and which, although connected, do not arise as a direct consequence of provisions in the Bill. I hope that these amendments, which include an explanation of the purpose of the schedules in the body of the Bill, will clarify the matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 41, line 1, leave out ("set out") and insert ("specified").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment brings the wording of Clause 68 into line with similar references elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.,
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 41, line 2, at end insert ("(being amendments consequential upon the provisions of this Act and other minor amendments").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 41, line 10, after ("force") insert ("as follows—

(a) section 65 and section 68 (so far as relating to Schedule 7) and this section and that Schedule, shall come into force on the day this Act is passed;

(b) sections 33 to 37, 62, 63 and 67 and section 68 (so far as relating to Schedule 8 and to the entries in Schedule 10 in respect of—

(i) sections 62(11) to (13), 151, 200, 254, 255, 296 and 297 of; and

(ii) provisions of Schedules 13 and 14 to,

the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987),
and Schedule 8 and, in Schedule 10, those entries shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;

1339

(c) section 68 (so far as relating to the entry in Schedule 10 relating to paragraph (1)(b) of Schedule 16 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987) and that entry shall come into force on 1st April 1989;

(d) the remaining provisions shall come into force.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides specifically for certain sections of the Act to come into force at certain times. This has the advantage of giving those who have an interest more notice of the commencement dates than would be possible if commencement were determined by a statutory instrument.
It commences, immediately the Act is passed, those sections which correct errors made in earlier enactments and which have retrospective effect for that reason. It commences at the earliest reasonable date thereafter, which we consider to be two months after the passing of the Act, those sections which we see no good reason to delay. These are: the sections which provide further protection for tenants against illegal eviction and harassment; the section which makes change to the cost floor limit on discount on right to buy houses; the section which abolishes certain specific exchequer subsidies to be replaced by support through the rate support grant system; and the section which extends the powers of development corporations to dispose of housing land; as well as associated minor and consequential amendments to other enactments.
Finally the amendment provides for the commencement of the repeal of that section of the 1987 Act governing the payment of slum clearance subsidy on 1st April 1989 after which time support will be provided through the rate support grant system. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a sensible timetable for the introduction of these provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 41, line 17, leave out from ("or') to ("extend") in line 20 and insert ("sections 3 and 68 and Schedules 2, 9 and 10 as relates to enactments extending to England and Wales, section 4 and Schedule 3").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships I shall speak to Amendments No. 77 and 98 together. These amendments remove from this Bill certain references to and repeals of the Housing Associations Act 1985, rendered unnecessary as a result of amendment to the Housing Bill made in another place. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is sensible to bring together in that Bill those amendments to the 1985 Act which arise out of the establishment of both Scottish Homes and Housing for Wales. I therefore commend the amendments to your Lordships and beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, this amendment, as the last words indicate, deals with Schedule 3. Perhaps the Minister can explain what is happening to Schedule 3. In Clause 59(4) of the Housing Bill there is the remarkable assertion:
"Without prejudice to the operation of Schedule 3 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 in relation to anything done before the day appointed for the coming into force of this section, for the purpose of giving effect to the amendments in Part 1 of Schedule 6 to this Act, the said Schedule 3 shall be deemed never to have come into force".
1340
Exactly what are the Government playing at? It is extraordinary to have a schedule coming into force on the date to be appointed by the Secretary of State and then—perhaps we shall be discussing this point tomorrow—to have a provision that the schedule is never to have been in force or is to be deemed never to have been in force at all. That demands some explanation and perhaps the noble Earl will give one.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to take up the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morton. Perhaps I may also point out that the amendments in Schedule 3 to the Housing Associations Act are very different from the amendments which are in Schedule 6 to the Housing Bill that is also before us, so that again there is confusion. I wonder which will affect what. If Schedule 3 is to apply only to Scotland, some amendments to that effect need to be tabled in relation to this Bill or equally to the English Housing Bill. Something needs to be cleared up.
I have always felt that in studying legislation it is important to consider also the amendments to existing legislation in the schedules. Wherever the two contradict, it is very complicated for anybody who wishes to understand the legislation to know what is what. I should like to give your Lordships one example. At the top of page 51 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill there are emendations to Section 15A of the Housing Associations Act which was introduced because of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1986. The English Bill introduces a completely new Section 15A, although I admit it is under the same title. I find that sort of thing extremely confusing and so, no doubt, do other people who are supposed to understand the legislation.
For that reason, I feel that some explanation needs to be put forward and that both the English and the Scottish Bills should make absolutely clear which amendments affect what. This is particularly important for an Act such as the Housing Associations Act 1985, which is bound to concern a great many charitable organisations and others. It is something that I find totally mystifying at the present moment.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Morton, and my noble friend Lord Balfour for their interventions on this matter at this stage. To the noble Lord, Lord Morton, I can say that this provision is intended to avoid the need for a complex series of amendments to amendments. In practice, it is not intended that Schedule 3 to this Bill should come into effect before the Housing Bill provisions. As I said, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall read what he has said and come back to him on any implications of his remarks that we should take into account.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Balfour, the Housing Bill will apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. It is intended to reproduce the effect of Schedule 3 to this Bill which it will render redundant. My noble friend Lord Balfour gave the House the specific example of Section 15A. The Housing Bill reserves the effect in Scotland of Section 15A, even though the drafting may have been tidied up, in the same way that consolidation Bills do.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I do not understand this. We shall shortly deal with Schedule 3. The Government are putting forward amendments to Schedule 3. We are told that the schedule will never be brought into force. Why then are we bothering? If it is intended that the schedule will never be brought into force, why is there not an amendment to take it out? If the schedule is to be enforced, what is the point in having the provision even for a week or so when at some later date a court will look at it and say that it shall be deemed not to have come into force? If someone acts on the provision in Schedule 3, if it is ever enforced, and Schedule 6 to the Housing Bill is eventually brought into force and, with retrospective effect, abolishes Schedule 3, what is a court to do? Is it to say that the person acted on something that it now deems never to have existed? This is a ridiculous position.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to another point that the Minister made. There are provisions affecting Scotland in the Housing Bill before the House. When a Scottish Bill is going through its stages in the House, should not everything affecting Scotland be in that Bill rather than partly in the Bill now under consideration and partly in another Bill? After all, there is another stage yet to be taken in this House, and it should not be impossible for the Government to include provisions in the Scottish Bill and take them out of the English Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, if Schedule 3 shall be deemed never to have come into force in the English Bill. there must surely be an amendment to the Scottish Bill that Schedule 6 of the English Bill shall never come into effect in Scotland. As it is, the situation is very complicated. I entirely support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. When I looked through the English Bill I was surprised by the number of references made to Scotland in regard to Scottish Acts and the Housing (Scotland) Bill. In the area of housing there are quite a number of differences between England and Scotland. Let us not make the differences even more confusing than they already are.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I shall reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. The explanation for the apparent anomaly to which he has drawn attention is that the other place wished to have time to discuss matters first. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, asked why, if Schedule 3 is not intended to come into effect, the provision is necessary. The answer is that it is just in case everything does not proceed as planned.
As I said earlier, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions on the matter at this stage and for drawing attention to possible anomalies. I shall look at the matter again and see whether we can effect any improvement before Third Reading.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will consider the phrase in the Housing Bill to the effect that the schedule shall be deemed never to come into force. If the schedule
1342
comes into force and Parliament subsequently approves legislation which provides that the schedule is deemed never to have come into force, can the Minister explain how a court will interpret it and how a person will act on a schedule which at some later date will be torpedoed apparently by executive action and deemed never to have existed? It is difficult to see what a person acting on Schedule 3 when it is in force will do when it is taken out of force.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Scottish Homes]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 43, line 52, at end insert ("or loss or diminution of emoluments").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 1 permits Scottish Homes to compensate employees who suffer loss of office or employment by way of payment of pension, allowance or gratuity. The amendment is designed to extend the paragraph to pay compensation to those employees who suffer loss or diminution of emoluments. It brings the wording of the paragraph into line with the equivalent paragraph of the new schedule to the Housing Bill setting up housing for Wales. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 44, leave out lines 26 and 27.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 81 in Committee and a reply was read to us by the Minister which unfortunately seemed not very satisfactory. I therefore return to the problem. In moving Amendment No. 79, 1 shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81.
All the amendments deal with the question of employees who transfer from the Scottish Special Housing Association, and more particularly the Housing Corporation. Paragraph 1 1 of the schedule provides that Scottish Homes shall make an offer of employment to each person employed immediately before such date as the Secretary of State may determine,
"and any question as to the persons to whom an offer of employment is to he made under this paragraph shall he determined by the Secretary of State".
In Committee I raised the question of why those lines were included. I was told it was intended that every person employed would be given an offer of employment. We queried why the Secretary of State should determine the question. If an individual considers that he or she is a person who should have been made an offer, what does the individual do? Does he or she write to the Secretary of State or have the right of appeal? How is the question to be decided by the Secretary of State?
The provision seems unnecessary. However, if it is to exist, people should have the right to appeal to the courts to decide whether they fall within or outwith the right. The position concerns particularly a small number of people who are in what is called the

1343
registration supervision division of the Housing Corporation. They are classified as outposted staff. They work in Scotland, but are outposted from the head office of the Housing Corporation in England. Are they intended to be classified as working in Scotland? It is not clear.
Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 relate to a rather peculiar position. These people having received an offer of employment have three months in which to accept it. If they do not accept, they have three months dating from the date of the offer to apply to a tribunal. The normal industrial provisions specify that it should be three months after the cessation of the employment or six months from such a notice. It appears reasonable that there should be three months after the cessation of the offer in which to lodge the appeal.
No satisfactory answer was given in Committee. Therefore, the amendments come forward again. If a person has until midnight on 31st March to accept an offer, it seems ridiculous that he or she is required to have delivered an appeal to the industrial tribunal before 5 o'clock on 31st March, which is effectively what he would have to do under the provision. Therefore my amendment seeks to increase the period to six months from the offer so as to make the position logical and in line with employment law in general. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, these amendments were debated in some detail (as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, knows) during Committee stage. I have listened carefully to the points made by him then and today; but I am still of the view that these amendments are both unnecessary and undesirable.
One general and important point which I should make on all three amendments is that the Scottish Office have received no approach whatsoever from representatives of the staff of the Housing Corporation or the SSHA suggesting that there are any practical grounds for anxiety arising out of the Bill as drafted. However, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said about outposted staff, I shall immediately look at the situation in relation to those personnel now that he has raised it; but it is the first time that it has been brought to my attention or to the attention of my department. It would in my view be wrong to amend the Bill to meet theoretical problems when, if there were genuine fears of practical problems. It would have been perfectly possible for the staff or their unions to have raised those problems with us. I would have hoped that this might have taken place at any point during the months leading up to this moment and this stage of the Bill. However, turning to the technicalities raised by these amendments, I deal first with the Secretary of State's role—
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, does that mean that if I raise something in Committee in this House it is of less significance than if a member of the union raises it in another place? Do I understand that because I raised it and the unions have not raised it that it was of no significance? I can assure the noble Lord that I raised it because the union raised it with
1344
me. It seems unnecessarily complicated that there should have to be two occasions. I understood that this place was of significance to Ministers of the Crown; but perhaps I am wrong.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I believe that snide remarks of that kind do not do much to further the cause of the Bill in this Chamber. So far as I am concerned, 1 believe that those who have a proper problem to raise usually face it up fairly early when they know the circumstances. However, now that it has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I treat the matter extremely seriously. It will receive my extremely careful consideration, and extremely careful answers will be given to those affected.
Turning to the technicalities raised by these amendments, I shall deal first with the Secretary of State's role in determining questions arising as to the person to whom an offer of employment should be made. It is obviously much more convenient, less costly, and quicker for all concerned if such determinations are made by an administrative agency, such as the Secretary of State, rather than by the courts, and I see no good reason to believe that it is any less appropriate. It is worth noting that a similar provision is included in the Housing Bill, referring questions arising out of offers of employment by Housing for Wales, to the Secretary of State for Wales.
To return to practicalities, my colleagues and I have given unequivocal undertakings about offers of employment, and I am not aware of any employee of the Housing Corporation or the SSHA whose circumstances would give rise to any difficulty in determining whether or not an offer of employment for Scottish Homes would be appropriate.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81, which propose the extension of the time limit for acceptance of an offer of employment for Scottish Homes from three to six months—
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but my amendment is not intended to do any such thing. It is intended to leave the three months for acceptance of the offer but to give a further period of three months for the lodging of an appeal to the industrial tribunal.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, my Lords, we are dealing with the timescale for an appeal as well as the lodging of the offer. I know that there are other statutory provisions which contain a six months' time limit. The choice of time limit must depend on the circumstances in which it will have to be applied. But in returning to my general point, no one has suggested as a matter of practicality in relation to the absorption of the Housing Corporation in Scotland and the SSHA into Scottish Homes that three months is in any way inadequate. Finally, we must bear in mind that the three-month period is not absolute because it can be extended if an industrial tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practical for complaint to be presented before the end of the period of three months. I hope that that answer will satisfy the noble Lord Lord Morton of Shuna.

1345
Turning to registration and supervision staff, my department is well aware of the position of the staff concerned and I understand that there is no practical doubt about their future. Those employed on this work in Scotland will be offered employment by Scottish Homes. In view of these explanations I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am glad that these points are now to be considered seriously. I shall shortly ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Before doing so, I should point out that the words "reasonably practical" that occur in the provisions about the extension of time are borrowed from the employment legislation. There is a vast amount of case law on what is and what is not "reasonably practical" and it is interpreted very strictly indeed. One has to be laid up in hospital with both arms in a sling before it is "reasonably practical" not to have complied with a time bar. I may return to this at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Amendments consequential on establishing of Scottish Homes and abolition of SSHA]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 48, line 35, at end insert—
("Local Government Act 1988.
16. In section I (1)—

(a) after paragraph (j) there shall he inserted the word "and";

(b) paragraph (1) and the word "and" immediately preceding it shall cease to have effect.

17. In Schedule 2, the words "The Scottish Special Housing Association" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I also speak to Amendment No. 101. These amendments will ensure that Scottish Homes does not inherit the application to the SSHA of the wider competition requirements to be introduced in the course of 1989 by the Local Government Act 1988.
The competition requirements are intended primarily for local authorities but apply to some bodies which are very similar to local authorities, as the SSHA is at present. They do not apply to the Scottish Development Agency or the HIDB and they are inappropriate to a wide-ranging body like Scottish Homes. This amendment will simply put Scottish Homes on the same footing as the SDA in this matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Scottish Homes: Amendments of Housing Associations Act 1985]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No 83:
Page 50, line 5, at end insert—
1346
("(3) In subsection (4) of that section, after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) a grant or a loan under section 2(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988;"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a technical omission in the Bill.
Section 6 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 allows a registered housing association to request its removal from the register of housing associations presently maintained by the Housing Corporation on condition that the housing association has not received certain payments of grants or loans.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 amends the 1985 Act to apply Section 6 to the register which will be maintained by Scottish Homes. It does not, however, extend the provisions of that section to refer to grants or loans which may be paid to a housing association by Scottish Homes. This amendment rectifies that omission by adding to the list of restrictions the receipt of a grant or loan from Scottish Homes under Clause 2(2) of the Bill.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is an entirely sensible amendment which will ensure that Scottish Homes maintains proper control over housing associations in receipt of public funds. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend shortly to look at what is being said in the English equivalent Housing Bill. This subsection has been amended quite dramatically in a different way; just another example of the differences between England and Scotland.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, 1 am always ready to listen to what my noble friend said. I shall look at this and write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 50, line 48, leave out ("15(3)") and insert ("15—
(a) in subsection (2) at the end there shall be added the following paragraph—
"(f) in the case of housing associations registered in the register maintained by Scottish Homes, payments made or benefits granted by such an association with the approval of Scottish Homes (which approval may be given only in relation to a class or classes of case)."
(b) in subsection (3)").
The noble Lord said: I am very pleased in moving Amendment No. 84 to speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 and 99. When I announced at Committee stage the Government's views on various matters concerning tenancies let by housing associations, I indicated that there was one point of considerable concern to housing associations on which I was not in a position to report the Government's conclusions. We have now reached a decision on that point, the granting of tenancies and other benefits to those involved in the running of housing associations or their close relatives. This amendment gives effect to that decision.
Amendment No. 84 will enable Scottish Homes to define classes of case in which the granting of benefits

1347
will be allowed. It is a flexible power which will enable Scottish Homes to use the close knowledge of the affairs of housing associations which it will inherit from the Housing Corporation in Scotland to balance the need for some relaxation of existing controls against the continuing need for safeguards against abuse.
This is a very important balance. The safeguards against abuse introduced in 1980, and consolidated in Section 15 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, were brought in for very good reasons. There had been instances of abuse in England about which the Public Accounts Committee had rightly expressed grave concern and this Government acted to clamp down firmly on any possibility of further abuse. The safeguards have proved very effective and it is important that we maintain that effectiveness.
On the other hand, the blanket safeguards as originally introduced in 1980 have been shown to inhibit some perfectly above-board actions by housing associations. They are also seen to be increasingly in conflict with the move towards tenants' participation in the management of their own homes.
This Government introduced some changes as regards Scotland in 1986. I well remember the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, taking part. Granting of tenancies was allowed for committee members, or close relatives of such, of designated community-based associations. However, that relaxation did not entirely remove the restriction on perfectly proper actions by associations, particularly those which are not community based. No doubt several noble Lords have received representations, as have I, from individual housing associations drawing attention to deserving cases and to the unfortunate effects which the existing restrictions can produce. In particular, dedicated voluntary committee members of associations have found themselves forced to stop making their contribution to the wellbeing of the community in order to ensure that they did not debar a member of their family from a housing choice which was freely available to others.
In the light of this experience, it is apparent that there is a case for some further relaxation. It is also apparent that there is a need for the mechanism for allowing that relaxation to be a flexible one, so that we can avoid going either too far or not far enough. This amendment, by giving Scottish Homes the power to designate classes of case where benefits and payments may be permitted, will allow it to introduce exceptions to the general prohibition which are tailored to particular circumstances as they emerge. By confining this power to classes of case, rather than applying it to individual cases, we are ensuring the evenhanded treatment of those closely involved in the running and decision-making of individual housing associations. That will be of potential benefit to voluntary committee members, employees of associations and close relatives of either group.
I know that this subject has concerned noble Lords and members of all parties in another place and I am very pleased to be able to meet the concern which has been expressed. The chairman of the Scottish
1348
Federation of Housing Associations has written expressing its satisfaction with the amendment. It may be helpful if I quote from his letter. He says:
"The amendment which the Government has proposed for the Report Stage in the House of Lords will, we believe, serve to terminate the difficulties which housing associations and co-operatives have experienced over this issue".
Amendments Nos. 96 and 99 are essentially technical amendments. Part of the effect of Section 15A of the Housing Associations Act 1985 is to allow community-based housing associations to make payment to a committee member, or a member of his or her family, where the association is purchasing the house owned by that person for improvement. Section 15 of the 1985 Act would otherwise prohibit such payments.
As it stands, Section 15A provides that a payment can only be made where the improvement project is to receive housing association grant. There are two reasons for dispensing with this detailed qualifying condition. First, it is probably of little or no practical effect since there have been, and are unlikely to be, housing association rehabilitation projects which involve no housing association grant at all. Secondly, housing association grant will not be a term which has a statutory meaning in Scotland once this Bill comes into effect. It will continue on an administrative basis, within the terms of subsection 2(a) of Clause 2, but that is not an adequate basis for a reference of this kind. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should be churlish not to be grateful to the Minister for having at long last persuaded the Government to accept the amendment. He has a great deal of experience of housing associations and therefore I know that he supported the proposals put forward in the Housing Bill, of which he spoke earlier, and which we raised in the earlier stages of this Bill.
He will realise that a number of points arise. He was fortunate in finding a way of tabling such an amendment; I could not find a method of doing so. As soon as the amendment was tabled we were approached by the housing associations and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. They had a number of questions and I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of them.
The first question is not theirs but occurs to my noble friend Lord Morton and myself. Is the condition now incorporated in Schedule 6 to the Housing Bill? That is a technical point but it is important. I should like to ask whether reasons will be given as regards the classes of cases. Will a schedule or a codification be available to housing associations for their guidance which will not be kept too secret so that associations' affairs will be as open as possible?
Finally, I should like to point out that the implementation of the proposal must wait until the establishment of Scottish Homes. That will not take place until nine months from now—in April 1989—and therefore some associations believe that it would be helpful if the proposal could be put into effect as soon as the Act is on the statute book. I know that when one is thinking of long-term legislation although I have the feeling that little housing legislation is long term and I know that that

1349
view is shared by most Members of both Houses—it may appear that April 1989 is no time away.
However, if you are waiting for a house and believe that you have all the qualifications and that you should have a house; if the housing association has reached its last two or three modernisations or new-build projects; if then you realise that you will be missed out only because of the date; and that if you had been slightly earlier you would certainly have been seriously considered, that period becomes a very long wait. Perhaps the Minister will look into that matter and let us know his views at the next stage of the Bill.
Other than that, I am pleased to accept the amendment and I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that it has given some help to some housing associations.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I speak as president of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. I am glad to say that the chairman—who is a different person and who does all the work—has written to say how acceptable the amendment is. It will definitely remove from housing associations a matter which was a source of earlier grievance on the part of people who were working hard for that movement.
Let me add that I should have welcomed the explanation had the Minister thrown away the brief and put it into his own words. I am certain that in two or three sentences he would have convinced the House of the value of the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken I should like to congratulate the Minister on achieving this result. It may be recalled that the question was aired at Second Reading. Most noble Lords who are close to the Scottish housing scene realised what an important contribution housing associations have made. Their contribution to community involvement has been invaluable. It was wrong and unjust that they should suffer from any disqualification.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I tried to find an appropriate amendment in Committee but found it difficult. With his abiding interest in the welfare of housing associations and his experience in the field, the Minister has managed to do so. We must all be pleased that that has been accomplished. Moreover, it is a tribute to the value of this House in discussing the provisions of this housing Bill that an amendment of this kind can be accepted here. 1 support and congratulate the Minister.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to thank those noble Lords who have helped me to achieve this result. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that I would be delighted to throw away my brief but I am not a lawyer. We have to he very careful to get everything just right.
Lord Hughes: You will gain more courage when you have been longer in the job.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: This will do much for housing associations in Scotland. Of that I am absolutely convinced.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about the housing Bill, the answer to his first question is: not at present. Secondly, in relation to matters raised by the Scottish federation in a letter which I have seen concerning the classes and the definition of classes, I envisage that that will be arranged in discussion between Scottish Homes and the federation. Of course, we hope that they will come to suitable conclusions which are in the interests of both bodies.
The date of implementation is not something which we can readily bring forward. I realise that it is nine months away; but the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, started this discussion in 1986. Therefore, I hope he does not mind waiting because we are going to get it right. I am sure that it will do a great deal of good for the housing association movement in Scotland.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Grounds for possession of houses let on assured tenancies]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden:Lord Sanderson of Bowden: moved Amendments Nos. 85 to 91:
Page 57, line 49, after ("or") insert (", where the immediate landlord is a registered housing association within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985,").
Page 58, line 7, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("creation").
Page 58, line 14. leave out ("commencement") and insert ("creation").
Page 58, line 17, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("creation").
Page 58, line 22, at end insert ("and the tenant refuses to do so"). Page 58, line 24, after ("house") insert ("and the tenant refuses to do so").
Page 58, line 27, after ("or) insert ("part or).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may move Amendments Nos. 85 to 91 en bloc. They make relatively minor but nonetheless important adjustments to the drafting of Ground 6 to Schedule 5.
First, Amendment No. 85 limits the circumstances in which a superior landlord may repossess a property using Ground 6. Your Lordships may recall that during the Committee debate on the Bill I gave as an example of a superior landlord wishing to gain repossession the local authority which sub-lets an empty property to a housing association but later decides to redevelop. This is a legitimate and acceptable reason for a superior landlord to seek repossession but the current drafting of the ground goes wider. The Government have therefore decided to limit repossession by superior landlords to that case only where the immediate landlord is a registered housing association.
Secondly, Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 replace the word "commencement" in paragraph (a) of Ground 6 by the word "creation". This is partly to achieve consistency with drafting elsewhere in the Bill but it is also to close a possible loophole. The policy intention behind this part of Ground 6 is to ensure

1351
that a landlord wishing to repossess under Ground 6 should not have bought his interest in the property after the start of the tenancy since this would unreasonably prejudice tenants' security. As currently drafted it is possible that a landlord could have bought his interest in the house after creation of the tenancy agreement but before its formal commencement. In those circumstances the landlord could circumvent the restriction intended in Ground 6. By substituting "creation" for "commencement" that possibility is removed.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 91 restore unintended omissions from the ground. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 58, leave out lines 48 to 50.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter has been discussed before but I hope the Minister may think again about Ground 9 and the re-possession of a property or house. The problem is that with all the other available grounds for taking over a property, a further one is added that is all-embracing. Under the heading,
"Grounds on which Sheriff may order Possession"
the Bill states:
"Suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant or will be available for him when the order for possession takes effect".
That is an extremely wide power given to the landlord, despite the fact that one has to go before a sheriff. If one thinks of the test of reasonableness which has to be applied by the sheriff and given the other grounds available, it cannot be considered reasonable to move tenants for no stated reason. That being the case, this ground should be deleted to avoid wasting the valuable time of the sheriff's courts and creating undue anxiety for tenants. That is the brief of the Scottish Council for Single Homeless who have considerable experience of that.
It must be the case that tenants are allowed to consider the rented house their home and feel that they have some sort of permanence. To have spelled out in the tenancy agreement the likely reasons for repossession and then suddenly to be asked to move because the landlord wishes a transfer is quite wrong.
I believe that all of us involved in the earlier housing Bill who heard about the case in the High Court relating to the definition of homelessness and the suitability of a home must be rather wary of anyone making a subjective decision on suitable alternative accommodation. I cannot remember the pronunciation in that case; perhaps the Minister can. It became quite famous in our debates. The judge decided that strictly according to the reading of the Act, accommodation could be anything so long as it was wind and water tight. There was a repossession in the Feltham area of London on that basis.
We feel it is unnecessary to add that particular ground for repossession and we are rather concerned about the interpretation of suitable alternative accommodation. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me and the single homeless on this point. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I have to admit that I was surprised to see this amendment on the Order Paper. In another place Members on all sides argued strongly that this ground for possession—that suitable alternative accommodation is available—should be discretionary rather than mandatory. The Government responded to those arguments and, as your Lordships are aware, the ground is now subject to the sheriffs discretion.
In those earlier debates, no one argued that the ground should not be available at all. I have of course listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and to those who have brought forward the idea of this amendment. However, I have not been convinced that the ground should be dropped. There are many conceivable circumstances in which a landlord could not invoke any of the other grounds but could have a reasonable case for repossession. I am thinking for example of a landlord with a relative who, perhaps because of a serious accident, needs to move closer to the landlord so that he or she can better be looked after. In those circumstances I would consider it eminently reasonable for the sheriff to grant possession so long as the tenant had suitable alternative accommodation to go to. On the other hand, I am quite satisfied that making the ground subject to the sheriff's discretion properly protects tenants against unjustified evictions.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, talked about suitable alternative accommodation and the definition thereof. The definition of suitable accommodation in Part III of Schedule 5 is very tightly drawn so that the ground is not as wide-ranging as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggests. 1 hope that I have convinced him that having been over this matter in another place at an earlier stage, when we put this measure in on a discretionary rather than mandatory basis, he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, did the Minister say ground 3 of Schedule 5?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I said Part III.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I certainly understand the examples he gave. There was the possibility of a landlord having a reasonable right to suggest alternative accommodation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Amendments of Schedule 1 to Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 58)]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 62, leave out from beginning of line 2 to end of line 4 on page 63 and insert—

NEW SCHEDULES 1A AND IB TO RENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1984
1. After Schedule I to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 there shall he inserted the following Schedules—

SCHEDULE 1A
STATUTORY OR STATUTORY ASSURED TENANTS BY SUCCESSION IN A CASE TO WHICH SECTION 3A(l) APPLIES
1. The provisions of paragraph 2 of this Schedule shall have effect for the purpose of determining who is the statutory tenant of a dwelling-house by succession after the death of the person (in this Schedule referred to as "the original tenant") who, immediately before his death, was a protected tenant of the dwelling-house or the statutory tenant of it by virtue of his previous protected tenancy.
2.—(1) The original tenant's spouse where the dwelling-house was that spouse's only or principal home at the time of the tenant's death shall be the statutory tenant so long as the said spouse retains possession of the dwelling-house without being entitled to do so under a contractual tenancy.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person who was living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the spouse of the original tenant.
(3) If, immediately after the death of the original tenant, there is, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, more than one person who fulfils the conditions in sub-paragraph (1) above, such one of them as then has occupancy rights under section 18 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 (rights of cohabiting couples) or, if neither or none of them has such rights, such one of them as may be decided by the sheriff, shall he treated as the surviving spouse for the purposes of this paragraph.
3 Where paragraph 2 above does not apply but a person who was a member of the original tenant's family was residing with him in the dwelling-house—

(a) continuously for the period commencing six months before the date of coming into force of section 43 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and ending on the tenant's death (where the person was so residing on the said date); or

(b) at the time of and for the period of two years immediately before the tenant's death,

then, after the tenant's death, that person or if there is more than one such person such one of them as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by the sheriff, shall be entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession.
4. A person who becomes the statutory tenant of a dwelling-house by virtue of paragraph 2 above is in this Schedule referred to as "the first successor".
5. If immediately before his death, the first successor was still a statutory tenant, the provisions of paragraph 6 below shall have effect for the purpose of determining who is entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession after the death of the first successor.
6. Where a person who—

(a) was a member of the original tenant's family immediately before that tenant's death; and

(b) was a member of the first successor's family immediately before the first successor's death,

was residing with the first successor in the dwelling-house at the time of, and for the period of two years immediately before, the first successor's death, that person, or if there is more than one such person, such one of them as may be decided by agreement or, in default of agreement, by the sheriff, shall be entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession.
7.—(1) Where after a successor becomes the tenant of the dwelling-house by the grant to him of another tenancy, "the original tenant" and "the first successor" in this Schedule shall, in relation to that other tenancy, mean the persons who were
1354
respectively the original tenant and the first successor at the time of the succession, and accordingly—

(a) if the successor was the first successor, and immediately before his death he was still the tenant (whether protected or statutory), paragraph 6 above shall apply on his death;

(b) if the successor was not the first successor, no person shall become a statutory tenant on his death by virtue of this Schedule.

(2) Sub-paragraph (I) above applies even if—

(a) a successor enters into more than one other tenancy of the dwelling-house; and

(b) both the first successor, and the successor on his death, enter into other tenancies of the dwelling-house.

(3) In this paragraph "succession" means the occasion on which a person becomes the statutory or statutory assured tenant of a dwelling-house by virtue of this Schedule and "successor" shall be construed accordingly.
8. Paragraphs 5 and 6 above do not apply where the statutory tenancy of the original tenant arose by virtue of section 20 of the Rent Act 1965.
SCHEDULE 1B
STATUTORY ASSURED TENANTS BY SUCCESSION IN A CASE TO WHICH SECTION 3A(2) APPLIES
1. The provisions of this Schedule shall have effect for the purpose of determining who is the statutory assured tenant of a dwelling-house by succession after the death of the person (in this Schedule referred to as "the first successor") who, immediately before his death, was the statutory tenant of the dwelling-house by virtue of paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of Schedule I above.
2. If, immediately before his death, the first successor was still a statutory tenant, the provisions of paragraph 3 below shall have effect for the purpose of determining who is entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession after the death of the first successor.
3. Where a person who—

(a) was a member of the original tenant's family immediately before that tenant's death; and

(b) was a member of the first successor's family immediately before the first successor's death.

was residing with the first successor in the dwelling-house—

(i) continuously for the period commencing six months before the date of coming into force of section 43 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and ending on the tenant's death (where the person was so residing on the said date); or

(ii) at the time of and for the period of two years immediately before the tenant's death,

that person, or if there is more than one such person, such one of them as may be decided by agreement or, in default of agreement, by the sheriff, shall be entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession.
4.—(1) Where after a succession the successor becomes the tenant of the dwelling-house by the grant to him of another tenancy, "the original tenant" and "the first successor" in this Schedule shall, in relation to that other tenancy, means the persons who were respectively the original tenant and the first successor at the time of the succession, and accordingly

(a) if the successor was the first successor, and immediately before his death he was still the tenant (whether protected or statutory), paragraph 3 above shall apply on his death;

(b) if the successor was not the first successor, no person shall become a statutory tenant on his death by virtue of this Schedule.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies even if—

(a) a successor enters into more than one other tenancy of the dwelling-house; and

(b) both the first successor, and the successor on his death, enter into other tenancies of the dwelling-house.

(3) In this paragraph "succession" means the occasion on which a person becomes the statutory assured tenant of a dwelling-house by virtue of this Schedule and "successor" shall be construed accordingly.
5. Paragraphs 2 and 3 above do not apply where the statutory tenancy of the original tenant arose by virtue of section 20 of the Rent Act 1965.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated this amendment with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Miscellaneous Amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26)]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 65, line 17, at end insert—
(". In section 61 (secure tenant's right to purchase) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), where the house was provided by a housing association which, at any time while the house was so provided, was not a registered housing association, the association shall, if it became a registered housing association at any later time, be deemed to have been a registered housing association at all times since it first provided the house."
In section 62 (price of house being purchased by secure tenant) in subsection (4)—

(a) after "(3)" there shall be inserted" (a) "; and (b) at the end there shall be added "; and

(b) where the house was provided by a housing association which, at any time while the house was so provided was not a registered housing association, the association shall, if it became a registered housing association at any later time, be deemed to have been a registered housing association at all times since it first provided the house." ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment introduces two changes to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 in order to clear up doubts which appear to exist regarding the qualification of time spent in certain housing association tenancies for the calculation of the right-to-buy and discount.
By these changes we shall eliminate any doubt that if a purchaser under right-to-buy occupied a house which at one time was let by an unregistered housing association, and that association subsequently became registered, then the period of tenancy before the association's registration shall count towards the tenant's entitlement to purchase and, hence, discount.
As I have indicated, this provision is for the avoidance of doubt. There is no change of policy. On that basis I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 102:
Page 67, line 42, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 1 (statutory tenants by succession) in paragraph 2 for the word "his" there shall by substituted the words "that spouse's".").
Page 68, line 5, at end insert—
(". In section 15A(1)(a)(i) (permitted payments by community based housing association in Scotland) the words from "being" to "Act" shall cease to have effect.").
Page 69, line 16, at end insert—
(". In section 207 (local authority's duty to keep slum clearance revenue account) for paragraph (b) of subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) such of the expenditure of the authority in respect of houses and other property, being expenditure not included in paragraph (a), together with any income related to that expenditure as may be approved by the Secretary of State and falls within any of the following categories—

(i) any payment under section 308 (payments to certain owner-occupiers and others in respect of houses not meeting tolerable standard which are purchased or demolished) other than any such payment in respect of an interest in a
1356
house which has been purchased by the local authority for the purpose of bringing that house or another house up to the tolerable standard;

(ii) any payment under section 304 (payments in respect of well-maintained houses) other than any such payment in respect of an interest in a house which has been purchased by the local authority for the purpose of bringing that house or another house up to the tolerable standard;

(iii) any payment under section 234(5) or (6) (payment of removal and other allowances to person displaced);

(iv) such other expenditure as the Secretary of State may direct.").

Schedule 10,
Page 70, leave out from beginning of line 58 to end of line 7 on page 71.
Page 71, line 7, at end insert—

("1985 c. 69.

The Housing Associations Act 1985.

In section 15A(1)(a)(i)the words from "being" to "Act"").

Page 71, line 47, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 16, paragraph 1(b).").

Page 71, line 47, at end insert—

("1988 c. 9.

Local Government Act 1988.

In section 1(1), paragraph (1) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.

In Schedule 2, the words "The Scottish Special Housing Association".").

In the Title,
Line 7, after ("tenants") insert ("to provide for the making of local authority grants to assist local authority tenants to obtain accommodation otherwise than as such tenants;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 95 to 102 and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
5.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause II, insert the following new clause:
("Revocation of certificates.
.—(1) Where a firearms certificate or a shotgun certificate has been revoked under section 30 of the principal Act, the holder shall arrange for all the firearms, shotguns and ammunition to be handed over to a constable.
(2) Where a firearms certificate in respect of a prohibited weapon or prohibited ammunition had been authorised by the Secretary of State under section 31 of the principal Act has been revoked the holder shall arrange for all firearms and ammunition to be handed over to a constable.").
The noble Earl said: In the principal Act there is special provision for a firearms certificate to be revoked, but I found nothing in either the 1968 Act

1357
or any other legislation which states what shall happen to the guns or prohibited weapons when that occurs. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that weapons in those circumstances are handed over to the police in the shortest possible time.
There is a procedure under Section 40 for appeal. In other legislation there is the provision that the courts may decide, but I do not think that that is altogether satisfactory because the time from the case being brought until it is actually heard in court can be several months. Surely the police are the only authority that should take responsibility for the weapons. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend's new clause deals with the fate of firearms and ammunition belonging to a person whose certificate has been revoked. This is an important issue.
A firearm or shotgun certificate may be revoked in the interests of public safety, or if the holder of a firearm certificate fails to deliver it up for the purpose of variation of a condition. On revoking a certificate the police are required to notify the holder in writing and he then has 21 days from the date of the notice in which to surrender his certificate—and, by implication, to dispose of his guns—or to lodge an appeal against the revocation. If an appeal is brought, the certificate holder is not required to surrender his certificate unless the appeal is abandoned or dismissed and, if it is, he has 21 days from that date to surrender the certificate.
The police do have the power of search with a warrant, under Section 46 of the 1968 Act, and may seize and detain any firearm or ammunition in respect of which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been, is being, or is about to be committed. This would cover many occasions on which a certificate is revoked. Moreover, where a person is convicted of an offence under the 1968 Act, or of any other serious offence, the courts may order the cancellation of his certificate and the forfeiture of his guns and ammunition. In such cases a constable may immediately seize and retain the guns and ammunition, although 21 days are allowed for the surrender of the certificate.
However, there are occasions when the police may have cause to revoke a certificate because a holder can no longer safely be allowed to possess a firearm and yet no offence is involved, and so the firearms concerned cannot be seized. This may be where, for example, the holder has become mentally unstable, or is habitually drunk. It seems to us, therefore that there is a strong case for saying that, where the chief officer has grounds for revoking a firearm or shotgun certificate because the continued possession of firearms or shotguns would pose a threat to public safety, any weapons and ammunition held should be surrendered to the police immediately, pending the result of any appeal.
It would not, however, be right to go so far as to allow the police to seize these weapons in cases where public safety is not at risk; for instance, where a certificate is revoked on technical grounds. An example might be when the chief officer varies the
1358
conditions of the certificate. He notifies the holder to send in the certificate and the holder fails to do so. For failing to do so, the chief officer may revoke the certificate. It would not be right, though, to seize the weapon in those circumstances. We must be careful, therefore, to limit any discretion which chief officers have for seizure only to those cases where the person is unfitted to be entrusted with the weapon.
My noble friend is on to a good point and I should like to consider this further without any commitment on what the result might be.
Lord Burton: That is an encouraging answer for the first amendment this evening. I wish we could have had more on Monday. However, I have one point to raise. We need not consider it too seriously but I should like to draw attention to it.
Certain chief constables are already operating as if the Bill had been enacted, particularly in regard to the revocation of certificates and the removal of weapons from certificates. I ask my noble friend to inquire into the position because clearly it is not right that chief constables should jump the gun.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Can the noble Lord, Lord Burton advise which chief constables are alleged to be doing that? The noble Lord will be aware that if a chief constable behaves unlawfully—and the noble Lord suggests that is being done—the person affected can appeal to the courts.
Lord Burton: I do not think there was too much harassment in the case given to me. There was a case in Angus where a certain noble Baroness in this House was questioned regarding her shotguns. I have just been told of another case which I understand comes from Bedfordshire. Mr. Mayhew, who has given permission for his name to be used (I do not know him) has been somewhat harassed by the chief constable of Bedfordshire. There are other cases, and all I am doing is asking that this should be investigated.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I am delighted with the immediate response of my noble friend. It is most encouraging and I hope that he will keep up this happy attitude towards the Government and their helpful legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is quite right. Chief constables can only operate under the law as it is at present. If my noble friend has positive matters about which he is concerned, I shall be grateful if he will let me know the details. I realise that others may be anxious and I put this point to the noble Lord. We anticipated that there might be some confusion as regards the handling of applications after the events of Hungerford. At the request of the Home Secretary a letter was sent to all chief officers of police on 8th September of last year.
I believe that it quite properly asked each chief officer to,
"review his criteria under the law as it stands in respect of applications to acquire, or to continue to possess,"
self-loading rifles. The point was stressed that each

1359
application should be looked at on its merits having regard to the present law in the light of the reasons given for continued possession. There was no suggestion that all applications for self-loading rifles should be rejected. To my knowledge, no police force has adopted such a policy. However, if my noble friend is further concerned about it and gets in touch with me, I shall pursue the matter.
The Earl of Balfour: I am very grateful that my noble friend will look again at this amendment, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 66:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Powers of search.
The chief officer of police shall be granted a search warrant to enter any premises, where he has reason to believe that any firearms, shotguns or ammunition are being held by any person who does not have the necessary certificate under this Act.").
The noble Earl said: I am sure that the Committee will agree with me that we are interested in the police being able to obtain weapons illegally held. Where a chief officer of police has definite suspicion that firearms are held illegally by someone, he should have the power to seek a search warrant to enter the premises for the purpose of retrieving the weapons. A gun of any kind is a fairly large object and I believe that it can be found fairly easily in a house without unnecessarily upsetting the house. I feel that the chief of police must have this kind of power. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I support this amendment very strongly but there can be no doubt that there are some snags in the way. If that is so, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us what they are. Without doubt there are people who have firearms without a firearms certificate.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I shall be very surprised indeed if there are any difficulties with the present law as regards the police obtaining a search warrant if they have reason to believe that someone has firearms or anything else without the appropriate certificate. It seems to be an unnecessary clause.
Earl Ferrers: This amendment will not be suitable because it says:
"The chief officer of police shall be granted a search warrant".
That would be a judicial act and one cannot tell the courts what they can do. There is already power to grant such a warrant under Section 46(1) of the 1968 Act which states that a justice of the peace or magistrate may, if satisfied that there is a reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence has been, is being, or is about to be committed, grant a search warrant authorising the police to enter and search any premises.
This power covers most firearms offences and would include a situation where a firearm, a shotgun or ammunition was held by someone without the necessary certificate. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be content with that reply.
Lord Renton: What I wish to say is only just off the point covered by this amendment and dealt with by my noble friend. I can imagine circumstances in which the police might feel that in order to catch somebody who has been using firearms they should have the right to follow that person into any premises where there is reason to believe that firearms are kept and that they are already concerned in the commission of an offence elsewhere. There may be other weapons. Perhaps between now and the Report stage my noble friend will consider whether the present powers are adequate to allow the police to enter for what is virtually crime prevention in those circumstances.
Earl Ferrers: I shall certainly look at the point that my noble friend made. He is very much more versed in the law than I ever shall be. However, if the police wish to enter premises to search for items and they are private premises, they will need a search warrant. Without that the police would be constrained from entering for reasons that we all know and accept. I shall take advice on the point that my noble friend has made, and if I am wrong I shall get in touch with him.
The Earl of Balfour: Once again I am most grateful to the Members of the Committee who have spoken to this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Firearms dealers]:
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("(annual renewal of dealers registration certificate)") and insert ("(registration of firearms dealers)").
The noble Viscount said: This is a very short drafting amendment. I shall be grateful to have the view of my noble friend on it because when one looks at the Bill it can be seen very clearly that the terms that I wish to amend are in brackets; namely:
"(annual renewal of dealers registration certificate)".
Those words come immediately after the words "the principal Act". If one then directs attention to the principal Act, one sees "Registration of firearms dealers". It is a short point that I wish to make, and it is this. I am not clear whether it is the intention of the Government as regards this provision in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill to change the heading of that section of the Act or whether that is merely a general description of the content of Section 33(5). It is a little misleading if it is put in that way. If it were put in the way that the main Act is headed—in other words, "Registration of firearms dealers"—it would be very much clearer and one would not have to wonder whether one has the right position. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Are we discussing Amendments Nos. 67 to 71 inclusive? I thought that we were, and no doubt someone will clear up that matter.
Viscount Dilhorne: I believe that we are and I shall he very happy to deal with them together. I beg the Committee's pardon. Amendment No. 67 stands on

1361
its own though it is related to the others. Amendment No. 68 proposes the introduction of the words "bona fide". The whole of subsection (2)(1A) on page 6 of the Bill, particularly the third line of paragraph (1A), seems to be so broadly worded that it is very hard to see what are its exact parameters. Amendment No. 68 is to amend that, so that before the words "firearms dealer" there should be inserted a "bona fide" firearms dealer.
It is impossible to look at that without considering the other phrases used in that sentence. "Bona fide" has a clear meaning and it is used in other Acts. It means a person who acts in good faith without an intention to deceive. There is a plethora of legal decisions on it in many English-speaking countries in the world. Therefore I move that that should be included before the words "a firearms dealer". I am sure that that does not conflict with any views which the Government may have.
I have just said that that leads on to my next amendment, Amendment No. 69, which 1 share with the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and also to Amendment No. 70, which relate to the words "to a substantial extent". I am unable to find in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill or in the Firearms Act any guidance or indication as to the exact parameter of those words. I am sure no one would dispute with me the view that a statute should express clearly and without doubt the will of the legislature. These words are so broadly based that there is no limitation of their use and there is no indication either of how lawyers or the general public should construe them to find out whether they come within the provision or outwith it. If they cannot discover how they stand, how can one then go to the next stage to derive any legal meaning from them?
I have looked up as best I can what the words "substantial extent" can mean. I have checked whether there is any legal authority or whether there is any definition for them in that sense. Obviously one can look at the Oxford English Dictionary. There is legal authority that "substantial" can mean not unsubstantial. That has been held to be just enough to avoid the de minimis rule. As lawyers will know—and I hesitate to use Latin tags in this Chamber because it usually upsets a few people—de minimis non curat lex means that the law does not bother with trifles. The use of the word "substantial" seems to be unfortunate because I am sure that it is not the Government's intention that this should be reduced to a mere trifle. Therefore I have proposed in Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71 that the words "to a substantial extent" should be left out.
If the words "to a substantial extent" in Amendment No. 70 have to stay there should be words qualifying them to describe their parameters. I do not feel any special attachment to the words I have put down. They are put down to demonstrate that fact,
"within financial criteria to be published by the Secretary of State"
and so on. Amendment No. 71 is first cousin to what I have said. The word "essential" is another immensely broad term. The extent of its meaning is
1362
very hard to find in relation to this Bill. Does it really have to be,
"an essential part of another trade, business or profession"?
If it does, what is excluded from it? If a large company like ICI or one of the great industrial giants wanted to set up a gun merchant's shop, would that be an essential part of its trade, business or profession? It would be a very small proportion. Is it intended to exclude companies of that size from participating? I cannot believe that that is the intention behind the measure.
I have said enough on these points. I have proposed wording which to me would make better sense. Instead of "an essential part" I have suggested "as a necessary adjunct", because that would not quantify exactly that it had to be essential. It may be very hard to know whether one comes within it 01 outwith it. In this Chamber we have probably different views about what is essential. If a vote were taken now we would probably disagree with each other. I have said enough. I am sure that the points I have made will have been clearly received. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I called Amendment No. 67. Although the noble Viscount spoke to Amendments Nos. 68 to 71, it is Amendment No. 67 that is called at the moment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I am not a lawyer but I know that in many statutes there is the word "reasonable". Why not have the word "substantial"? I think it is far better than the words "as a necessary adjunct". Without being rude, what is the purpose of arguing over words like "substantial"? We can go on arguing for a very long time and I do not think that in the end we will get much further.
Lord Ironside: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 I should point out that I raised these points at Second Reading. Like my noble friend Lord Dilhorne I am not a lawyer and I should like to speak in a more practical way about this issue which revolves around the phrase "to a substantial extent". Amendment No. 68, which introduces the words "bona fide", would be difficult for the police to interpret because they are not lawyers either. They could not interpret the provision unless the Home Secretary was able to give some specific guidance on what is meant by the words.
As I understand it, before being considered for registration as a dealer, applicants are not required to demonstrate that they have qualifications. Many of them obviously have qualifications but it is apparently not a prior requirement. Perhaps it should be; and I believe that the trade is ready to define standards if it is asked to do so. If standards are introduced we can then talk about recognised dealers. That would be more appropriate and would make much more sense. There would be no need then to talk about a bona fide firearms dealer. As the definition of firearms dealers is covered in Section 57 of the principal Act, it would appear that the phrase

1363
"bona fide" is therefore superfluous. I cannot say any more.
In Amendment No. 69 my noble friend Lord Dilhorne has highlighted the words which create a new role for the police. In addition to assessing the applicant against the criteria of public safety and peace they will be required under this clause to assess the extent to which the applicant will engage in business. I know of only one way to do that—by looking at the turnover figures.
The new clause seems to compel the police therefore to look at the books, which I am sure is not intended. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Ferrers can assure the Committee about what the police will assess and explain why the Home Secretary needs this financial information. We shall not get sight of the guidelines to the police before the Bill passes so we have no way of assessing what the Home Secretary really wants.
I support my noble friend's amendment but I am concerned about applicants who are involved with the development of undefined accessories. They cannot develop these accessories convincingly and compete internationally without in most cases being certificate holders or registered dealers. Perhaps they are involved with thermal imaging, image intensifiers, composites, direct energy devices, laser ignition or electro-optics—one can go on for ever with these new phrases—and could risk rejection by the police because the police do not understand whether the subject is (shall we say?) a substantial part of the applicant's business. Let us remember that the Ministry of Defence as customer encourages firms to compete internationally in small arms. We do not want to see the Home Secretary stifling competition.
The qualification in the clause helps to some extent those who have a special sideline; but I do not think that that is sufficient. I support the deletion of words "to a substantial extent". But I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be able to look again at the wording of the clause, because I think the wording is most untidy. I should like to suggest the following:
"The chief officer of police may refuse to register an applicant unless he is satisfied that the applicant will engage in business as a dealer in firearms and component parts thereof, or accessories whatsoever".
Surely that would allow the police to assess the applicant and the type of business; whether he is a firearms dealer as defined, or a dealer in other goods who wants to be registered. It would also allow them to assess the applicant according to the guidelines which I understand will be set by the Home Secretary.
Lord Brain: I do not wish to get involved with the first two amendments—namely, Amendments Nos. 67 and 68—because I do not think that I am competent to comment upon them. I should not be very happy with Amendment No. 70—and my views will come out as I explain my reasons for tabling Amendment No. 69. I should perhaps comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, because I have a feeling that the "essential part" which is being deleted in Amendment No. 71 would cover just what he has been talking about. A firearms licence would be an essential part in the research and
1364
development work of some of the devices he mentioned. The need for a firearms licence would be an essential part of the business in which they are involved.
I now turn to the words "a substantial extent". I think, as has already been stated, that the words are vague in the extreme. How does one decide that an ironmonger's store or a general store in the Highlands of Scotland that stocks a limited stock of 12-bore cartridges is an "adjunct" but not an "essential part" of being a general store? How does a very valuable supplier to the neighbourhood who buys 500 cartridges at a time get covered if he has to be a firearms dealer to "a substantial extent"?
The same applies to a certain extent to rifle club secretaries. They carry the club's stock of, let us say, 22 ammunition, 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. of which is used on their own ranges. However, if it is a country club, the local farmers buy the odd box for their rabbit shooting from the rifle club secretary because he is a convenient stockist. Therefore he needs to hold ammunition not as a club secretary under his certificate as such; he needs a firearms dealer's licence.
There is also a much trickier problem which needs to be looked at. Not only does a person commit an offence, if he does not have the certificate, for manufacturing, selling or transferring. He also needs one to repair a shotgun. For example, suppose there is someone who is skilled as a fine precision engineer and who is required occasionally, let us say, in Scotland, North Yorkshire or somewhere else, to do that; or perhaps he is someone who is a precision engineer by hobby and does repairs almost as a sideline. He will still expect to be paid for that, and he is then considered to be in a trade or business. Therefore to say that these very small but valuable service people in the firearms industry must he engaged to "a substantial extent" is unreasonable. I support the noble Lord's views on the matter.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may stress my puzzlement as regards Amendment No. 71. I cannot see the difference between "essential" and "necessary". Therefore I took the opportunity of looking up the words in the dictionary which is on the Table of this Chamber. The word "necessary" is said to be "equivalent to indispensable". When one looks up the word "essential", one finds that that is also "equivalent to indispensable". So what is the difference that the noble Viscount is attempting to achieve by changing the word "essential" into the word "necessary"? I cannot see any difference at all.
I turn now to Amendment No. 70. The issue, I think, is an impossible one. How is the chief officer of police to be satisfied that a person will in the future conform to financial criteria? That is what is being asked. The chief officer of police has to say that he is satisfied that in the future this person will be dealing. How is the person in the future to know what financial criteria he will measure up to? I should have thought that the Bill as drafted on this section—with whatever deficiencies it may have—is better than the amendment.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I shall deal first of all with Amendment No. 67. This is an amendment of style rather than content. But I do not think it is necessary because the descriptive words in subsection (1) are intended to refer specifically to Section 33(5) of the 1968 Act which is concerned with the annual renewal of a dealer's certificate of registration. The Bill refers to a particular subsection; my noble friend's amendment would in fact refer to the whole section.
Amendment No. 68 would require the police to be satisfied that an applicant will engage in business as a bona fide firearms dealer. That is precisely the difficulty which faces the police at the moment and the reason why we have introduced subsection (2). Indeed, I was glad to see that my noble friend Lord Ironside found himself with the same difficulty.
Amendment No. 70 would require the police to apply a set of defined financial criteria. My noble friend Lord Ironside asked what such financial criteria would be. According to the amendment they would be to applications for dealers' registration, instead of making a judgment as to whether the applicant will engage in business to a certain extent. I think it would prove very difficult in practice to compile financial criteria which would cover all applications from a small retail business to a large manufacturing company. It would also be difficult to apply fixed criteria of this nature in respect of new applications where the only information available would be estimates. We think this approach would involve a lot more time and work on the part of both the police and the applicants, not to mention a lot of bureaucratic red tape. In the circumstances, we believe that the police should be allowed to make a judgment on the extent of business with the benefit of guidance which we will provide.
As regards Amendment No. 71, I have no doubt that where there is a genuine need for a business to be registered, the police will recognise that fact and grant registration. This amendment would only weaken the police's grounds for refusing an application.
The meaning of the words "essential part" is fairly obvious; however, the meaning of the words "necessary adjunct" is not. Although the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said that he was not quite sure what the difference between the two was, I am not too sure that he is not a good deal more certain than most people because I believe he put down an amendment on another Bill of a very similar nature to replace "necessary" with "essential".
If one looks at the wording in the Bill, it says:
"The chief officer of police may refuse to register an applicant unless he is satisfied that the applicant will engage in business as a firearms dealer to a substantial extent or as an essential part of another trade".
If one says that the dealing should be a necessary adjunct, that is different. The question the police will be asking is, "Do you deal in firearms to a substantial extent?" They will not be asking, "Is firearm dealing a substantial part of your business?" If that criterion were to be used, we should cut out a firm such as Harrods which has a reputable and substantial business dealing with firearms, but no one would
1366
suggest that it was a substantial part of their main business or a necessary adjunct to it.
Police officers will be guided as to what to do. The guidance will be drawn up by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. That will be done in consultation with firearms' dealers and those who are concerned with such matters.
Viscount Dilhorne: I thank my noble friend for what he has said. However, it leaves a number of questions that I still find difficult to resolve. Will the criterion be whether the work is full-time? Is that what is meant by "substantial extent" or does "substantial extent" relate to the financial side of the business? Those aspects are at the heart of my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, found difficulty understanding what lay behind Amendments Nos. 70 and 71. I am sorry if they caused more difficulty than the clause they were seeking to improve. They were framed as an alternative definition of "substantial extent". I am left rather unhappy that "substantial extent" remains and that my noble friend has not accepted my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 68 to 71 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may speak on Clause 12 stand part for a moment. I shall be brief because I did not put my name down on this point. One of the problems is that there is no separation of the firearms dealer who wishes to deal with—for want of a better word—the ironmongery side of the business and the person who wants to sell shotguns and cartridges. In many cases it is easy for a person to obtain a full firearms dealers licence to sell cartridges, rifle bullets and so on. As far as I can gather the only other way a person would be allowed to sell shotgun cartridges is through a local authority licence at a fee of £17.50 under Section 15 of the Explosive Act 1875 Chapter 17. That is a long time ago, and I am not familiar with the legislation of the last century. I have often felt that those who sell ammunition and guns should have separate licences.
Earl Ferrers: I do not see that there is much difficulty here. There is no reason to give those who sell ammunition and guns different licences. All we are seeking to do is to establish a system of dealer registration which applies to those people who genuinely deal or who have a hobby and have the advantage of a firearms dealers certificate to pursue it. With the greatest of respect to my noble friend I do not see that there should be any difficulty either over this matter or in providing for those who wish to sell ammunition.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Auctioneers, carriers and warehousemen]:
[Amendments Nos. 72 and 72A not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Offence of selling firearms etc by mail-order.
—(1) It is an offence to sell or let on hire any firearm or ammunition by mail order.
(2) A sale or letting on hire is by mail order where the offer is communicated by the postal service, or by telephone, telegraph, facsimile transmission or similar means, or by advertisment in any newspaper, journal, magazine, periodical or circular, and the acceptance is communicated by such means, or by delivery of the goods.
(3) A sale or letting on hire is not prohibited by this section if at any time after the offer and before delivery, the purchaser (or his agent duly authoriised in writing) attends at the premises of the vendor and there produces his certificate for inspection by the vendor.
(4) An offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.").
The noble Baroness said: The object of the new clause is self-evident; namely to make it an offence to sell firearms or ammunition by mail order. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the Opposition have been supportive of the Bill's aims to provide a tighter control of guns and to decrease the number of guns in circulation. We have shown that we are committed to and in agreement with the need to do that and are pleased that the Government have brought forward the Bill. It is for that reason we are surprised that the Government have fallen short of plugging the loophole of enabling people to acquire guns by allowing their purchase through mail order.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon made that point on Second Reading when he said that there was no mention in the Bill of mail order sales, which was one of the most dangerous ways, especially with regard to young people, of buying weapons. He was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who said that he was concerned about the decision not to ban mail order sales. He said that if the Government were introducing powers to require photographs to be placed on firearm and shotgun certificates that was presumably so that the police and dealers would be able better to identify the person who was presenting the certificate. He asked how, if that were the case, it could apply in respect of mail order where the certificate is sent to the dealer by post.
It is a matter of speculation as to whether mail order sales will increase once tighter controls are introduced generally. Subject to the existence of a statutory definition of "mail order", of which we are unaware at the moment, the new clause has been drafted on the basis that the advertisement will normally constitute an invitation to treat; the response by the purchaser will be the offer; and the acceptance will usually be the dispatch of the goods. It is conceivable that the offer may be incorporated in the advertisement. The application for a firearm or ammunition would constitute the acceptance of that offer. It is hoped that the drafting of subsection (2) of the new clause will cover all permutations. It will cover transactions which may not fall readily within
1368
the common understanding of mail order, provided that the vendor and purchaser do not meet.
Subsection (3) of the new clause is optional in the sense that it relaxes the prohibition if the purchaser attends to produce his certificate. Our understanding is that the main objection to mail order sales is that the vendor has no way of knowing whether the purchaser is genuinely the holder of a certificate. It could be argued that it would be preferable to delete the words in brackets in subsection (3):
"(or his agent duly authorised in writing)".
Again this weakens the restriction. On the other hand it might be thought unreasonable to demand that the licence holder always attend in person at any purchase.
The penalty in subsection (4) is similar to that provided in Clause 5 proposing a restriction on the sale of ammunition for smooth-bore guns and in Clause 13 dealing with various offences by autioneers, carriers and warehousemen. The terms "firearm", "certificate" and "ammunition" are defined in Section 57 of the 1968 Firearms Act as incorporated by Clause 23(1) of the Bill. They cover shotguns as well as other firearms. As the law stands a person who wishes to purchase a shotgun or firearm ammunition by mail order must send in a shotgun or firearms certificate. We believe that the danger of those certificates getting lost or stolen in the post adds to the arguments against permitting weapons to be purchased in this way.
Finally, from the point of view of certificates getting lost but mainly from the aspect of pure common sense, the sale of weapons by mail order would decrease the control of the purchase of weapons and increase the number in circulation. It is the aim of the Government in this legislation to bring about greater control and a decrease in weapons. Therefore we ask the Minister to look at the new clause very seriously indeed. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 73, Amendment No. 73A.
Line 2, leave out ("ammunition") and insert ("shotgun").
The noble Earl said: I have put down Amendment No. 73A because I feel that ammunition needs to be separated. There are people living, for example, in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland or away down in Devon who must be able to buy ammunition through the post. Otherwise I wholeheartedly support Amendment No. 73. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and her colleague for having put it down.
I am very much against mail order firms being able to deal in firearms to the extent they do at present. Furthermore, most of us who shoot are well aware that many firearms dealers live in the community, are part of the community and have a responsibility to the community. Mail order firms could not care less whom they sell to. They are interested only in selling. Some of the firearms dealers at home, if a stranger comes into the shop, will often ring up the police and say, "Do you know this character? Can you tell me something about him?" And they do so before supplying any firearm or, for that matter, ammunition. I feel that if someone living miles away

1369
is unable to get ammunition, it must be sent through the post. Otherwise, I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Lord Gisborough: I should like to support the sentiment behind both amendments very strongly. I first came across this problem when I was interested in air guns. It was quite obvious that air guns were being sent by mail order to people who were not of an age to receive them and there was no control because the guns were going through the post. One can imagine stolen certificates and all sorts of things going through the post on a mail order basis. There is a great opportunity for fraud and the obtaining of a gun by someone who is not allowed one.
I can see the practical answer that a person living in the islands who uses cartridges should go to a dealer and buy them and subsequently write in. That seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion because the dealer will know usually with whom he is dealing. I hope that the Minister will give much consideration to the sentiments behind both amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I wish to know whether "ammunition" includes rifle ammunition. If high velocity rifle ammunition is being sent, like ·275, ·303, and ·243, it has to be extremely securely packed. To send high velocity heavy ammunition and rifle ammunition by mail order would be dangerous. It could easily be intercepted.
Lord Swansea: I believe that the amendment arises partly from a popular misconception which has appeared in the press that almost anything can be obtained by mail order. That is just not so. Any transaction by mail order is subject to exactly the same conditions under the Firearms Act as a transaction over the counter. In other words, a firearms certificate or, as the case may be, a shotgun certificate must be produced—certainly, in the case of a firearms certificate. If the amendment were to state that goods should be sent to the address shown on the firearms certificate, that would be a safeguard against stolen firearms certificates.
Members of the Committee may be reassured by a letter which I received today from a body called the Periodical Publishers Association on this very subject. All magazines of whatever kind depend to a very large extent on revenue from advertisements. Magazines covering shooting interests are no exception. They depend largely on advertising revenue.
It appears that following the publication of the Government's White Paper last winter, the Advertising Standards Authority has been in discussion with the Home Office with regard to the control of advertisements of this kind. The authority in turn consulted the Periodical Publishers Association and a working party was set up to assess the systems of control which operate at present and to explore the need for further guidelines. The result of the working party's deliberations was passed on to the Home Office.
1370
Subsequently, a new rule covering advertisements for firearms has been adopted for inclusion in the next edition of the British Code of Advertising Practice. I understand that the Home Office has expressed its approval. So it should be clear that magazine publishers operate in a responsible manner and keep a very close eye on the sorts of advertisements which appear in their publications. If Members of the Committee think back, the Government White Paper states that there is no evidence that mail order sales are being used to evade the law. That is largely due to the vigilance of the publishers of magazines. I believe the amendment to be quite unnecessary. I hope that the information I have given will help the Committee.
Lord Burton: I agree to some extent with the sentiments of the amendment, but I am a little apprehensive as to what would happen if it went into the Bill. I totally agree with what my noble friend Lord Balfour said about ammunition. I think he made a slight slip of the tongue because it is illegal to send any explosive substance through the Royal Mail. But that is by the way. It could come by carrier. It is much more likely that ammunition would be carried in such a way, probably by a firm such as Securicor.
If, by any chance, I found I had enough money, which is probably very unlikely, and I found I wanted to order myself a new Purdy, if this amendment were passed I should have to come to London to obtain it. I could not ring a supplier or write to one in London to order the gun. That is how I understand the amendment.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause mentions "the offer". I think it might help if it stated "the offer to sell". Obviously an offer to buy is not intended, but the amendment does not actually say that.
Earl Ferrers: I am aware of the concern regarding the sale of firearms by mail order. I realise the anxiety that the noble Baroness has on this matter. She has also been so far very supportive of the Bill. I shall try and explain the position.
I am happy to say that I find myself agreeing with my noble friend Lord Swansea whose intervention was extremely helpful. The problem of mail order purchases is mostly presentational. A person purchasing a Section 1 firearm or ammunition, or a shotgun, by mail order has to send in his certificate. In future, a shotgun certificate will also have to be produced for the mail order purchase of shotgun ammunition. This will, of course, bear the holder's home address so it would not be easy for anyone else to use it for mail order purchases. A possible weak link in the purchase of guns and ammunition by mail order is their security in transit, and this is one of the reasons why, under Clause 13, we are introducing a requirement for carriers of firearms and ammunition to take reasonable precautions to ensure their safe custody.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard referred to airguns. It is an offence to sell an air weapon to a person under the age of 17. It is normal practice for advertisements to require a purchaser by

1371
mail order to sign a declaration stating that he is over that age.
Subsection (3) of the new clause exempts from prohibition those transactions where, after the offer and before delivery, the purchaser or his agent (with his written authority) visits the vendor's premises and produces the appropriate certificate. Yet in the great majority of cases such a transaction would be a direct, and not a mail order, sale and it seems very unlikely that there would be any call for a mail order system where, after having sent off for a purchase through the post, one then had to appear in person as well.
If this amendment were accepted, it would probably harm a sizeable sector of the gun trade. I am not sure that we would wish to do that, if there were no great benefit to be obtained by it. No evidence whatever has been brought to our notice to suggest that there is a problem over mail order sales of firearms and shotguns. I think the situation should be tighter as a result of the Bill. We should be careful not to impose unreasonable burdens on legitimate shooters who wish to make their purchases by way of mail order.
My noble friend Lord Balfour quite rightly asked what he would do if he wished to purchase a weapon as he lives in Scotland. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said that he would have to come to London to purchase his ammunition. Those were very valid points. If this new clause were introduced it would pose a problem for the farmer or the marksman living in a remote part of the country who may not have time to travel to his nearest dealer to purchase guns or ammunition and who at present can do so quite satisfactorily by mail order. Indeed, there may be some enthusiast living miles away in the Highlands of Scotland who wishes to make a specialist purchase from a London dealer.
There are controls applying to mail order purchases as there are to purchases over the counter. The new security requirements in respect of carriers will ensure the safety of the goods in transit. We could, of course, go further on this matter, but we consider that there is no particular need. There would not be any real advantage in changing the present position; indeed, to do so would cause inconvenience to shooters.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wish to follow up the speech of the noble Earl. I am bound to say that I did not find his contribution today quite as persuasive as I have on all previous occasions during this debate.
As the noble Baroness pointed out. there is a new requirement as regards photographs. The noble Baroness specifically raised that point and 1 believe it was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. What on earth is the point of requiring photographs to be introduced as a means of tightening the controls and at the same time allowing a mail order business to continue? With great respect to the noble Earl, that does not appear to make any sense whatever.
Lord Gisborough: In addition, there is the question of advertising revenue. Surely the normal practice is to see a gun advertised. Then when one has selected the
1372
gun one wishes in the newspaper one goes to a shop and, as in the case of any other item—for example Daz—one makes a purchase. Advertising has the purpose of making one want a product, but not necessarily to want it by post.
As the Government's whole object is to reduce the number of people who want guns and who hold guns just as in the case of cigarettes where the Government are trying to reduce consumption, why should the Government encourage people to advertise guns?
Lord Burton: I wish to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He said that it was a new requirement to have photographs attached to one's application. But, if he refers to the 1968 Act, he will see that Section 26(2)(a) states that the Secretary of State may:
"require any application for a certificate to be accompanied by a photograph of the applicant".
In the whole 20 years that the Act has been in operation, that requirement has never been found necessary. That is why it is not currently done.
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, did not find my contribution as persuasive as he normally does. I think that is probably because he took a different view and was not quite as broadminded as he normally is.
The mail order business exists and works. We have not come across a great many infringements of the law as a result of the mail order business. The noble Lord asked what the point was of having photographs if one could then obtain weapons via mail order. The whole point of having photographs is to help to identify the holder who is in the possession of a certificate. It is perfectly true that if one wishes to cheat and if one wishes to go against the law and put someone else's certificate through the post one can do so. One could claim that one's name was Harris when in fact it was Ferrers when one was sending the certificate of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, through the post. That can be done and in that case an offence would be committed.
But on the principle that there is a certain amount of quite legitimate business carried on, and that those who wish to purchase by mail order will have to go through the same processes as those who wish to purchase over the counter, it would be a pity to constrict the mail order business, particularly for those who, as has been mentioned, live in remote parts of the country.
I should like to make several observations, but I shall constrain myself to making only one to my noble friend Lord Gisborough. It is not the Government's intention to reduce the number of people who keep firearms of any nature. It is the Government's intention to ensure that there is control over those who keep them and that we should know where they are.
The Earl of Balfour: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 73A.
Amendment to Amendment No. 73, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am disappointed that the Minister did not appreciate the important points that I felt I had made. Nor did I find convincing the problems suggested as regards shooters in Scotland who would suddenly find themselves unable to purchase guns. I should have thought that in Scotland there would have been a great number of suppliers in many areas through whom those people could obtain guns.
As I said when I moved the amendment, we have two objectives in tabling it. The first is that we are worried about the loss or theft of certificates which are sent by post. Secondly, we feel that allowing the purchase of weapons by mail order will do nothing to decrease the number of weapons in circulation. I believe that that is one of the Government's objectives in bringing forward this legislation. It is a matter of common sense that more guns will be sold if they can be bought by mail order. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out the futility of requiring photographs on certificates if weapons can be bought by post. That esposes the absurdity of the situation.
It is disappointing that we have not been able to help the Government to make a better Bill. We shall consider what is to be done at Report stage. We feel strongly about the measure. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Rifle and pistol clubs]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 7, line 7, leave out from ("practice") to end of line 8 and insert ("and competition with small-bore rifles and pistols or full-bore rifles and pistols or any combination of them").
The noble Lord said: Clause 14 deals with rifle and pistol clubs. I believe that subsection (2) needs to be redrawn. There are many types of ranges. Some are enclosed, indoor ranges and are used mostly for small-bore rifles and pistols. Outdoor ranges are mostly military ranges. They are subject to inspection by the School of Infantry, which is delegated by the Home Office to inspect the ranges and issue safety certificates. Those safety certificates mention certain calibres of weapons which may be used on a particular range.
It is generally understood that the greater calibre includes the lesser and that on a range approved for full-bore rifles and pistols, small-bore rifles and pistols may also he used. The subsection is vague as it is presently drawn. The amendment attempts to define it more closely. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 74 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 75 and 76.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 14(2) provides that the Secretary of State's power to approve a gun club may be limited to apply to target practice with such types of rifles or pistols as are specified in the approval. The amendment would make no difference as regards current or intended practice in this respect. It specifies that the types of weapon for which approval may be
1374
granted may be limited to small-bore rifles and pistols and full-bore rifles and pistols. These are the only limitations which are placed on approvals, and to that extent such specific reference to them is unnecessary.
However, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that such a future limitation may need to include a particularly unacceptable make or model of firearm, nor would we wish to do so. In so far as the amendment seeks to add competition to the purposes for which approval may be given I believe the amendment goes too far. The purpose of a Clause 14 approval is to allow members to engage specifically in target practice without the need for a firearm certificate. This enables those who have just embarked on a shooting career, or who cannot afford a gun, to do so without having to obtain a certificate. But we believe that those who wish to go on and compete in outside competition should have to obtain a certificate. I do not think that that is asking too much.
Lord Brain: Perhaps I may pick up one small point which the noble Earl has made. Where is the boundary for beginners between target practice and competition? There may be small internal competitions. Will those he excluded? I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Earl that if beginners go to other rifle clubs for competition purposes, they should be covered. Even then, there are sometimes side-by-side competitions between junior members of rifle clubs who do not own rifles. They may go to another club and take part in friendly target practice. However, it is also competitive. It is a small point and the noble Earl may not wish to answer immediately.
Earl Ferrers: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brain, for putting that question. I can only answer him with a generality. The general purpose of the clause is to allow young people who are starting to shoot to go to clubs and use the guns and facilities without having to have a certificate. If they go on to become more proficient, then they should obtain a certificate.
I believe that the noble Lord means that if he is a young man who is a member of a gun club and I am also a young man who is a member of a gun club, it is perfectly all right for either of us individually to shoot at targets. However, if we both shoot at a target together, we are competing. I believe that that is a nicety. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the general principle.
Lord Swansea: I believe that my noble friend and I have been speaking to two different points. I shall study what he has said. Perhaps I shall return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. I was referring to the types of rifle or pistol which might be used on a range. My noble friend was concerned with the use by members of a club of that club's rifles or pistols without a firearms certificate. I shall consider whether to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 7, line 7, leave out ("types of").
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if, in speaking to Amendment No. 75, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 76, 83 and 84. Amendments Nos. 75, 83 and 84 propose that the words "types of" should be left out of the relevant subsections. The words cannot be considered independently. In two of the amendments I have proposed that the words "calibre and muzzle energy" should be inserted after the word "pistols". The sentence at line 7 would then read: "with only such rifles or pistols of such calibre and muzzle energy". Amendment No. 76 would add matters mentioned by my noble friend Lord Swansea when he spoke to the previous amendment.
The same words are used in three places in the Bill. I believe that the words "types or does not add anything to what is contained in the Bill. The amendment which concerns calibre and muzzle velocity is an attempt to describe clearly the criteria by which safety to the public can be judged. It seems to me that the alternative is just to describe the weapon that is used—for example, a Kalashnikov. That does not seem to me to have any scientific attraction; certainly it does not have such an appeal as the words "calibre and muzzle energy". If one uses a specific name such as that other meanings so often attach themselves to it, particularly after the sad events of Hungerford. That is the reason for my proposal in the four amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: These amendments seek to specify further that the approval should only be given for rifles and pistols of the calibre and muzzle energy listed on the range safety certificate, which will have been issued by the Ministry of Defence for the firing range to which the club has access.
I do not believe that the amendment would make any practical difference as regards current or future practices. Home Office approval for gun clubs is given in terms of small-bore and full-bore weapons, whereas the range approval from the Ministry of Defence details calibre and muzzle energy. Obviously the Home Office would only approve a club for those categories of weapons covered by the range safety certificate. To that extent I do not believe that specific reference to these matters is necessary. However, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that it may be necessary at some future date to deal with some particularly unacceptable, or acceptable, specific model of firearm; nor would we wish to do so.
Viscount Dilhorne: I appreciate what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 7, line 11, at end insert—
("(3A) A person aggrieved by the refusal of the Secretary of State to approve a club, or to renew the approval of a club, or by the imposition of conditions, may in accordance with section 44 of the principal Act appeal against the decision.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the question of the approval of a club. It is possible that approval might be refused, withheld or be subject to certain conditions. Perhaps my noble friend could enlighten the Committee further about the possible circumstances in which approval might be refused.
The Bill as it stands makes no provision for an appeal against refusal of approval. I think that that is quite unjust and should be put right. That is especially so now since approvals are to be valid only for six years. It is very important that it should be possible for shooting to be carried on at a club under such reasonable conditions as are laid down by the Secretary of State.
If approval of a club is withheld for whatever reason there should be a means of appeal. That appeal, I believe, should probably lie under the procedure laid down in Section 44 of the principal Act. There is already a precedent for appeals of this kind. I believe that it is highly desirable. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: I urge that the Government give way at least on this one amendment. The whole Bill is a massive exercise in overkill—overkill which has been brought about, one suspects, largely if not entirely because of populist pressures from the tabloid newspapers. The consequence is that many thousands of law-abiding people will be deprived of rights they have held for generations.
I understand the electoral pressures upon the Government but I do not believe that acceptance of the amendment would cost them one single vote—rather the reverse. Surely simple fairness demands that this very modest amendment be accepted.
Earl Ferrers: I hope that I shall be able to help my noble friend Lord Swansea on this issue. I do not believe that there is cause for him to be unduly concerned.
The amendment would give a right of appeal both against a refusal by the Secretary of State to approve a rifle or pistol club, and also against any conditions attached to the approval of the club. The amendment refers to Section 44 of the 1968 Act. However, that is concerned with appeals against decisions by chief officers of police which is a very different matter. Although the police may assist with local inquiries concerning clubs seeking approval, it will be the Secretary of State who makes the final decision whether or not to approve a club.
I do not think that it is right for there to be an appeal against the Secretary of State's decision. We shall lay down guidelines on the criteria to be fulfilled, and it will be up to clubs to apply if they wish to do so. I do not think that my noble friend can suggest that the criteria—a proper constitution, that the club is run by fit and proper persons, and with access to an approved range—are either onerous or so complicated as to be capable of infinitely variable interpretation. If clubs do not qualify, or decide not to apply, the members can still pursue their shooting interests elsewhere, but they will have to have

1377
individual certificates or else join another club that is approved. The decision of the Secretary of State will have to be a reasonable one, or it will be open to judicial review.
The real point is that before approval of a club it has to show that it meets certain conditions. If it cannot satisfy those conditions it can attain them, or if it does not wish to do so it is not unreasonable that the club should not be approved.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary made a statement the other day in answer to a question. which I shall repeat to my noble friend because he may find it of help. He said:
"On the basis of inquiries made by the chief officer of police for the area concerned, my right honourable friend has to be satisfied that:
(i) safety certificates for the categories of firearms to be fired are in existence for the ranges to he used".
That does not sound unreasonable.
"(ii) the security arrangements for the storage of club firearms and ammunition are satisfactory".
That does not seem unreasonable.
"(iii) the application is being made by or on behalf of a bona fide club",
and that does not seem unreasonable.
"and (iv) there are no other considerations that would make the club unsuitable for approval".—(Official Report, Commons, 15/1/88; col. 446).
I think my noble friend will realise that those are fairly reasonable conditions.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with what the noble Earl has just said. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I believe that it is going too far to say that this is an exercise in overkill. It is, in my view, a very moderate response to an extremely serious situation. As I indicated in the earlier debate it is the view of the police service, virtually unanimously, that the Bill does not go far enough.
The point about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, which I find a little difficult to understand is that the noble Lord and his friends have been saying consistently that they want a national standard to be applied. They have indicated that they are very uneasy about 43 separate chief constables in England and Wales applying different criteria. This particular provision, under which the Secretary of State will make a decision, in fact applies national criteria, which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has quoted, set out by his honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
It seems to me an extraordinary proposition to say that a Secretary of State's decision on a matter of this kind, based on the criteria which have been set out, should be appealable to a Crown Court. Offhand I can think of no precedent for any such requirement in any other piece of legislation. I am not for one moment saying that there is not, but offhand I can not think of one. Therefore I very much agree with everything that has been said by the noble Earl and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Swansea: I have no intention of pressing this amendment but I find the concept put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that any government are infallible an interesting one. Governments can and do sometimes make mistakes. It is comforting to know that we are dealing with decisions on a national basis made by the Secretary of State rather than by a chief constable, and one hopes that those criteria would apply throughout the country. I am sure that they would do so.
I am very grateful to my noble friend for outlining those criteria, which go some way toward reassuring me concerning the standards to be laid down for approval of clubs. I do not think that we need to pursue this matter further at this moment and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 7, line 12, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: Clause 14(4) of the Bill provides for a fee of £33 to be paid for the grant or renewal of an approval of a club. That is something which we have not had before at any time. I realise that a club does not have to have a firearms certificate, but even so it seems a little unreasonable to bring in a fee of this scale at this stage. The clubs do all the administrative work in regard to the rifles that they own and there is little if anything for the police force to do. There can he little justification for the police to charge a fee for approval. It seems quite unnecessary to embody this subsection in the Bill and my amendment seeks to remove it. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope that I am not making too much of this matter, but as the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, will realise this amendment was supposed to have been discussed, in terms of the suggested grouping of amendments, together with Amendment Nos. 74 and 77. I hope that in the remaining stages of this Bill we shall be able to keep to the groupings; otherwise this Committee will sit extremely late tonight.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for that intervention. As he made it, he looked at me and wagged his head as though it were my fault, but I can assure him that it was not. I agree that if we had taken the amendment earlier, it might have proved more expeditious.
I shall make my remarks as brief as possible and say to my noble friend only that he seeks to remove the fee of £33, but I do not see why the taxpayer should take on this charge. Fees are payable to cover the costs of issuing shotgun firearms certificates, visitors' permits, museum licences and for registration as dealers. The point of the fee is just to cover the administrative costs involved. I do not see why clubs should be treated any differently from others. When one takes account of the fact that the fee is £33 and will last for six years—so the charge is £5 a year and for that the club obtains a free firearms certificate which itself would have cost £33 for only three years—the fee is not unreasonable.
Lord Swansea: I am sorry that my noble friend has not taken on board the substance of this amendment. Many clubs are quite small affairs which are run very cheaply indeed on an absolute shoestring. Even if the fee only averages out at £5 a year, it is still a consideration that has to be taken into account in the budgeting of the club. When put on top of the other expenses that a club may have to pay for its ammunition, hire of the range and so forth, the sum mounts up very considerably. However, I do not intend to press this amendment at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 7, line 16, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete the whole of subsection (5). It is not tabled in the belief that the constable, chief constable or somebody should not visit premises. I support the principle behind subsection (5).
Earl Ferrers: With the reprimand from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, ringing in my ears, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Brain, is speaking to Amendments Nos. 79, 80, 81 and 82.
Lord Brain: I am speaking to Amendment No. 79. The reasons for not speaking to the other amendments will become clear as I go along. However, I am quite happy that they should be considered with this amendment, and I shall continue the discussion in that way. I beg the Committee's pardon.
As I said, I am quite happy with the idea that there is a need for inspection. I am concerned at the way the clause as at present worded brings into operation that inspection. It starts with a constable. Is it intended that a sergeant may not he authorised in the same way to go out and do the same thing if it is felt more appropriate?
Earl Nelson: I beg pardon for interrupting the noble Lord, but the designation "constable" does not mean a police constable. The words "A constable" are a reference to any officer in the police service.
Lord Brain: I apologise. The point is that he is duly authorised by a chief officer of police. How many will be authorised? Will it just be those officers in the firearms section? Can a vast number be authorised? For example, can any officer—and I use the word advisedly because I do not want to cause any confusion—who is going out in a patrol car for a purpose in the area be duly authorised? It seems to me to be a very broad term in this context.
It is not stated that he has to be in uniform. There have been a number of occasions, and in particular one in Leicestershire, where people carrying bogus warrant cards and representing themselves to be police officers raided a firearms dealer's premises. Although the warrant cards appeared to authorise them to go in, there were problems. The dealer was beaten up and his stock was stolen. Should it be an operation carried out in uniform?
1380
Subsection (6) states that it is an offence if a person intentionally obstructs the constable. Does that mean that he cannot telephone the station to find out whether the constable is supposed to be doing that job? Does the constable have to notify someone at his base that he will be doing it? Can he just do it at his own whim, at any time of the day or night?
He may,
"enter any premises occupied or used by a club".
I know that in many cases this will be absolutely clear, because there will be a range and perhaps drinking premises, a bar, cloakroom or something attached. But let us take a case, which I know prefectly well, in which a social club had a small rifle section that used a range belonging to the Army Cadet Corps.
Apart from drinking, none of the premises was ever used for the purposes of the rifle club. The secretary lived somewhere else and it was his name on the rifle club certificate. In that case, is his home the premises that may be visited by the police at any time, and how is his wife, if she is there, to know that this is what can be done, and so on? There is a need—I shall read carefully what the Minister has said—to tighten this up, possibly by means of some specific words—"in uniform"; "having informed his station office" and suchlike—that could usefully be incorporated in the clause.
Unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I did not feel competent to draft amendments to reflect my concerns. Although I do not think that his amendments are particularly relevant to the broad points that I make, I support them to the extent that he has done something that I did not attempt to do. 1 beg to move.
7.00 p.m.
Viscount Dilhorne: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 82 in my name, which aim at changing the wording of subsection (5). There are two particular passages that I do not like, which I ask my noble friend to consider.
The clause as drafted entitles a constable, provided that he is authorised by the chief constable of police in writing, to enter premises. There is nothing wrong with that, and I do not take exception to it. However, I take exception to what follows, which is what the amendment seeks to remedy:
"producing, if required his authority"
Perhaps I may spend a short time on that.
Amendment No. 80 effectively requires him to produce his authority and to be quite open about it. As the clause is worded, the policeman may be tempted to enter on some pretext or other and to carry out a covert examination without having to produce any authority. When the policeman arrives at a rifle or pistol club, I think that it should be made clear in the Bill that he is required to produce a document saying, "I have come here for these purposes". The amendment is directed to providing clearly what those purposes are so that those receiving police officers into their club, having been given that information, can assist them fully. If the constable duly authorised in writing does not

1381
produce the authority but then starts on a surreptitious search, there is a danger that he may draw the wrong conclusions, which he would not have done had he had the full co-operation of the club.
Amendment No. 81 seeks to change wording that is capable of various interpretations, some of which could be amusing, but in which I shall not indulge myself. The amendment seeks to leave out the words,
"anything on them, for the purpose of ascertaining".
The amendment proposes the insertion of "to ascertain", or to find out.
At the time that I drafted Amendment No. 82, I was well aware that the last part of subsection (5) states:
"for the purpose of ascertaining whether the provisions of this section and any limitations in the approval are being complied with".
It is not easy for the owner of a rifle or pistol club to carry in his head the provisions of the section. The amendment is designed to prevent a constable going to premises on such a general provision that it amounts to a fishing expedition. It too has the purpose of informing the person who is being visited what is taking place, which seems to me right and proper. He should know when the constable is coming and the purpose of the visit. In order to obtain a certificate, he has had to satisfy the authorities that he is a good citizen and worthy of the certificate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should have said earlier that, if Amendment No. 79 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 82.
Earl Ferrers: As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Brain, is concerned about how this will be dealt with; but I think that his concern need not be as substantial as he has made it out to be. If there is to be club approval, the system has to be properly administered and monitored; and, if the public are to have faith in it, there must be a way of independently verifying the club's practices. The police are the obvious body to do this. There would be no point in having a system of approval if there was no way of ascertaining whether a club is complying with the requirements. It is quite true that a police officer may be in uniform, and in that case everybody knows who he is.
Amendment No. 80 introduces a requirement to provide a copy of the authority for retention by the club concerned. I do not believe that there is any need for this. I do not see what purpose it would serve. The document would contain no useful information, but would simply indicate that the chief officer's authority for the visit has been given. This is provided in the Bill in a standard form, and I see no reason for departing from that.
I remind my noble friend Lord Dilhorne and the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that subsection 1(5) states:
"A constable duly authorised in writing in that behalf by a chief officer of police may, on producing if required his authority".
If anyone wonders what he is doing, he has to show it.
1382
When my noble friend Lord Dilhorne said that there might be covert examination, I thought that he was stretching the imagination a little far. If an odd person came to the club, presumably the first thing that one would say is, "Who are you?". If the visitor is a police officer, he will say, "I am a police officer coming for some special reason, and here is my authority". I believe that my noble friend's imagination has run ahead of him.
Amendment No. 81 specifically omits the reference to the inspection by a constable of "anything on them", that is, club premises. It is obviously likely to be necessary in the course of a visit to inspect things on the premises such as the firearms that the club is using to ascertain whether it is complying with any limitation that may be attached to the approval.
Amendment No. 82 provides that the authority should specify the reasons for the visit. I do not believe that this is necessary. The reasons for the visit will be quite obvious. Subsection (5) sets out that the reasons are to ascertain
"whether the provisions of this section and any limitations in the approval are being complied with".
The constable's authority can be granted only for that reason.
Given that, the amendment appears to me to be not only unnecessary but also misleading in suggesting that there could be other reasons.
Lord Brain: I thank the Minister. I am satisfied that "the authority" and other matters will cover it. As the Minister says, the local firearms unit must build up confidence and ensure that it will not do anything unnecessarily harassing but will exercise fairness in its operation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 to 84 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, perhaps this would be a convenient time to take the dinner hour business. In moving that the House be resumed may I suggest that we return to the Firearms Bill at 8 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Solicitors (Scotland) Bill
7.11 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to give the Council of the Law Society and the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal powers to discipline solicitors who do poor professional work; that is, work which is not of the quality which could reasonably be expected of a competent solicitor. The powers which the Bill provides are broadly similar to those given to the English Law Society by Section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act which experience has shown in general works satisfactorily.

1383
The Bill, promoted by the Law Society of Scotland, has found general favour with Members from both sides of the House. We should be grateful to Mr. Alistair Darling, the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, Central, who steered the Bill through another place. The Bill has widespread support from consumer interests and will be appreciated by the small minority of clients who find that they have a complaint about their solicitor.
Under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, the Law Society of Scotland has a duty to promote the interests of the solicitor profession in Scotland and the interests of the public in relation to that profession. The 1980 Act provides for making of rules by the Council of the Law Society regulating professional practice, conduct and discipline. These rules require to be approved by the Lord President of the Court of Session. The Act also provides for complaints to be made to the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal of cases of apparent professional misconduct and for the tribunal to investigate such complaints. A range of disciplinary powers is available to the tribunal. This Bill, however, would expand these powers to cover cases where the standard of professional service was inadequate although not necessarily of a standard which might be regarded as falling within the generally accepted meaning of professional misconduct. The new measures should help to reduce public dissatisfaction at the present over-rigid distinction between matters of conduct, where the disciplinary machinery applies, and matters of negligence where the client can only find a remedy through raising a civil action in the courts.
Complaints about the work of solicitors vary. In some cases a complaint may be fairly minor, perhaps about work which has not been done to the standard sought by the client. At other extremes there are fortunately rare cases which attract widespread publicity, where a solicitor's conduct falls very far short of what is expected. The more extreme cases are already provided for in legislation which provides a framework for investigating complaints and disciplining solicitors through the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal. The tribunal has many of the powers of a court and it can censure, fine or even strike-off a solicitor who is found guilty of professional misconduct. There is nothing in these provisions to provide a quick remedy for the client. What is provided in the Bill is a system for investigating the less serious type of complaint in cases where the services are not of a quality which could reasonably be expected of a competent solicitor. The Bill gives powers to the Law Society to investigate such cases and, if it upholds the complaint, to prescribe certain remedies. A solicitor might be asked to refund part or all of the fees paid by the client; or to take steps at his own expense to correct shoddy work; or to instruct another solicitor to rectify the deficiency.
The purpose of the Bill is, first, to extend the powers of the Council of the Law Society to enable it to investigate complaints against solicitors of inadequate professional services and to require solicitors, where such complaints are established, to take action to provide a remedy to the client.
1384
These powers would be in addition to, and distinct from, the existing powers which the council already has for dealing with misconduct. The Bill also contains substantial provisions to protect the solicitor from unjustifiable complaints. As well as the wide discretion available to the Council of the Law Society as to whether or not to use its disciplinary powers, the Bill provides for an appeal procedure to the discipline tribunal and to the Court of Session.
Secondly, the Bill seeks to extend the role of the discipline tribunal so that it can deal with inadequate professional services as well as performing its existing function in relation to professional misconduct. The tribunal would maintain its function as an appeals body to which solicitors aggrieved at a decision of the Council of the Law Society can turn. As an appeal body it would have powers to quash, confirm, or vary any determination or direction by the council. It would also have an enforcement function to ensure that solicitors comply with decisions of the council.
Thirdly, the Bill gives the Lay Observer for Scotland power to report complaints directly to the discipline tribunal. The Lay Observer is the independent person appointed by the Secretary of State to investigate complaints from members of the public about the Law Society's handling of allegations against solicitors. The Lay Observer sees the Law Society's files, can issue an opinion analysing the case and set out her conclusions. These may include recommendations that the Law Society should take certain actions on the complaints. This opinion is not however legally binding on the Law Society. It has been said that the Lay Observer for Scotland holds an office which has no teeth. The Bill deals firmly with criticism of that kind by giving the Lay Observer power to report cases direct to the discipline tribunal. The new power is included in the Bill largely in response to representations from the Lay Observer herself, from consumer organisations and the public generally who have been concerned that the Lay Observer has no real power and can only work through unenforceable criticism of the Law Society's handling of a complaint. The Law Society, however, would retain responsibility for dealing with complaints against solicitors in the first instance and the Lay Observer would only become involved after the Law Society had reached a final decision on a complaint. The Lay Observer is not empowered to conduct cases at the tribunal, merely to report cases to the tribunal.
The Bill would also allow the Law Society to suspend a solicitor's practising certificate in cases where it believes that there has been professional misconduct arising through grossly overcharging fees to a client. Here again there are provisions for the solicitor to appeal to the court.
Since the Bill has been discussed in another place some of its provisions have been criticised, I suspect due largely to misunderstanding. Some solicitors have raised the question of whether the giving of legal advice should be the sole preserve of solicitors. That has never been the case. Accountants, tax advisers, and planning consultants and many more require to give legal advice when carrying out their professional work. This has always been and will remain the practice. What also remains unaltered by the Bill is

1385
that it is still a criminal offence for anyone to represent himself as a solicitor if he is not a solicitor.
The other matter which has been raised is whether people will be able to gain access to a lawyer's papers against the client's will. This is a total misconception of the Bill. A person "having an interest" may make a complaint. Such a person would be the client himself, somebody related to the client such as a beneficiary under a will or the client's executor or family. It could not be the client's opponent in the litigation.
The power is given to the Law Society to require production of papers and not to the person making the complaint. It does not require the Law Society to make papers available to the person who makes the complaint. It is necessary that the Law Society should have the powers to see the solicitor's papers to find out if there is anything in the complaint.
The Bill also makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. They include important provisions which are necessary to enable the Law Society to gain full recognition as a professional body under the provisions of the Financial Services Act. An important survey carried out by the Consumer Council in Scotland showed that 84 per cent. of clients were satisfied with their solicitors. The system for investigating complaints against solicitors, which the Bill will improve, has a part to play in maintaining that trust. Public standing of the solicitor profession is high and that is due partly to the rigorous system of support and supervision exercised by the Law Society. It is very significant that the Law Society should have seen fit to seek further powers to improve that important function.
I suggest that the Bill is a sensible and worthwhile measure. It contains a number of valuable provisions which will prove to be of considerable benefit to clients and solicitors and it will strengthen the relationship built on trust which exists between solicitors and their clients. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Morton of Shuna.)
7.21 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I welcome the Bill because, in spite of the Law Society's present powers, there still exist hundreds of stories of incompetence by solicitors. They appear to go unpunished and certainly there is no redress for the client.
I hope that adequate professional competence includes the management of people's money. One of the worst cases of which I know is that of some old cousins of my grandfather. My father thought that they were becoming progressively better off because as another died they received a little more money. However, they appeared to him to be getting poorer. Eventually he discovered that the solicitor had left their money in government bonds at the end of the war and they were becoming poorer and poorer. My father obtained control of the money and, although
1386
a simple farmer, managed to double their income in a short space of time.
Another example is that of a French lady of whom I know who in 1949 married a Scotsman. She had a son in 1950. Eighteen years later she was much bothered by the French Army calling up her son in spite of her solicitor having written to explain that she was a British citizen. Eventually she had to write and she discovered that her solicitor had given her marriage date as 1959, her son having been born in 1950. It is the kind of mistake which can be slightly embarrassing and which is repeated in many cases. Therefore I am glad that the profession is keen to introduce measures which will help.
A number of issues have been raised by the Scottish Law Society. I believe that the definition of the phrase "adequate professional competence" is a little difficult but that it must be broad. The only way in which one can assess that is by competent solicitors and competent people deciding what is competent. I believe that several of the complaints have some ground, and the noble Lord who is promoting the Bill dealt with one or two of them. As regards a solicitor having to defend a case which is rubbish but which costs him money, it might be as well if he could claim his expenses. There will certainly he frivolous and imaginary complaints brought against solicitors.
I find interesting the phrase "grossly excessive fees". Do I gather that excessive fees are all right hut that they must be grossly excessive to he caught by the Bill? Or is it merely a question of the difficulty of definition?
I welcome the Bill. It is necessary for the profession to police itself. It needs the backing of law and the Bill appears to be necessary. I wonder what is meant by Clause 1(2)(b) on page 2 of the Bill. It states:
"to direct the solicitor to secure the rectification at his own expense of any such error, omission or other deficiency arising in connection with the services as the Council may specify".
Does rectification apply if he has lost the client a great deal of money by failing to put forward an offer on a house or to buy a share? Or does it apply only to his fees? It is a little unclear and it appears that under the present law one must sue. However, if that is the meaning of the provision I believe that it is a good thing.
I welcome the Bill and I should be pleased to have an explanation of the points that I have raised.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, in such august legal company I should briefly like to welcome the Bill. My noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna should be congratulated for having taken up the baton from my honourable friend in another place, Alistair Darling. We should also thank the Law Society for going into a great deal of detail in order to answer many of the calls that it has had over the years concerning solicitors and including those on the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, spoke of the hundreds of stories that one hears. Many of them are apocryphal and I am sure that we could cite our own examples of solicitors who have not been quite up to the mark. I believe that it is right that the layman

1387
should be given some protection. There is a certain fear or strangeness when confronting a solicitor who apparently knows his way around. Perhaps the Bill will go some way towards reducing the law's delays, at least as regards those caused by dilatoriness on the part of solicitors. We may have another Bill from the Law Society or the Society of Advocates to abolish some of the law's delays which occur in the courthouses.
Embodied in the Bill is the fact that on occasions a solicitor needs protection from clients, and that is also important. It is not one-way traffic. From what I have seen of the Bill, and from what my noble friend Lord Morton has described, I understand that there is a certain protection for solicitors from clients who are perhaps unreasonable.
I am sure that the Bill is needed. I believe that we should thank the Law Society for taking the work seriously. It has a great deal of experience of complaints from solicitors and I hope that the existence of the Bill will improve the service to the clients. One does not know who will be the solicitors' clients the next day or the next week, so the Bill could apply to almost anyone in the land. The Bill may give solicitors a better framework in which to work. At least they will know where they stand as regards discipline and the powers of the Law Society. The Bill should be beneficial all round and I welcome it.
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, this Bill has the full support of the Government. We were very pleased to lend the Law Society of Scotland assistance with its drafting. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, in congratulating Mr. Alistair Darling, for introducing the Bill in another place on behalf of the Law Society and I would further congratulate the noble Lord for introducing it in your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may describe him as a worthy advocate for a solicitor's Bill since he has practised on both sides of the profession.
I know from consultations which have taken place that there is wide support for the Bill among such groups as the Scottish Consumer Council and the Scottish Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux which may reasonably be said to represent the interests of clients. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in giving a welcome to the Bill, made a reference to hundreds of cases of dissatisfaction but perhaps I may remind him, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said in opening, that the Scottish Consumer Council carried out a survey just over a year ago and found that 84 per cent. of the public were satisfied—and that says a lot for the profession.
I am also aware of anxiety about some aspects of the Bill from groups with the solicitor profession itself. I think there has been some misunderstanding of certain of the Bill's provisions, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morton, deal with those in opening. It has not perhaps been fully appreciated that the basic structure of the legislation affecting solicitors, including the discipline provisions, remains unaltered.
1388
In the vast majority of cases, clients are fully satisfied with the services provided by their solicitor. In a few unhappy instances, however, this is not so. The powers contained in this Bill will enable the council of the Law Society to take appropriate action to deal with the less serious disciplinary cases. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to grossly excessive fees. That is clearly a provision which the Law Society wished to see included and I can understand why they felt that that was appropriate in a Bill dealing with discipline.
The basic principles of the Bill are quite simple and, I suggest, hard to challenge. Few people can object to a system which gives redress to the client who has received services which fell short of what might reasonably be expected from a competent solicitor. The Bill contains nothing to alarm the solicitor who provides a satisfactory service. Not only has great care been taken to ensure that the solicitor has a fair hearing before the Council of the Law Society reaches a decision on a complaint, but there is provision for appeal to the discipline tribunal and, thereafter, to the Court of Session, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, reminded us.
I welcome the new power given to the lay observer to report a case direct to the discipline tribunal where a dissatisfied client has reported the case to the Lay Observer and the latter is unhappy about the outcome of the case after investigation by the Law Society. This power, as well as the main provisions of the Bill dealing with inadequate professional services, has been available in England and Wales for a few years now and I suggest it is appropriate that Scotland should have it also.
I should underline that the lay observer would not utilise the new power until the Law Society had reached a decision on a case. Primary responsibility for investigating complaints about solicitors will remain with the Law Society. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to issue a direction in this sense to the Lay Observer in respect of the new power if the Bill is enacted.
The procedures which will apply in the event of a report from the Lay Observer to the disciplinary tribunal are matters appropriately to be dealt with under the disciplinary tribunals rules. These will be reviewed by the Lord President of the Court of Session after the enactment of the Bill.
I am grateful to the Council of the Law Society for supporting the inclusion in the Bill of a small number of amendments to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 which were the subject of consultation at the end of last year by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are designed to simplify the legislation relating to solicitors and reduce the extent to which the profession is controlled by statute.
I am conscious that there is opposition in some quarters to the removal of the reference to "legal advice" from Section 33 of the 1980 Act. That section prevents unqualified persons from suing for recovery of a fee for carrying out certain business. Many professional people already give advice on the law as part of their services to clients, for example, as the noble Lord said. on finance or planning matters. This

1389
does not mean that anyone can offer their services as a solicitor since, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, reminded us, under Sections 31 and 32 of the 1980 Act, it is a criminal offence for an unqualified person to pretend to be a solicitor or to use any name, title or description implying that one is qualified to act as a solicitor.
Returning to the main provisions of the Bill, I know of the unease felt in certain quarters about the implications of the new discipline powers. As with any new system it is often easy to allow fears about exactly how it will operate in all imaginable situations to overshadow the benefits especially when these will fall on another party, in this case the as yet unidentified client. The Government hope these new disciplinary powers will soon he introduced. We believe they are well conceived and prescribed. But we will be taking a close interest in how the system works in practice and will be ready to discuss with the Law Society any problems which cannot be settled within the existing legislation.
I am sure that your Lordships will recognise this Bill as a valuable and welcome measure.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Corneal Tissue (Northern Ireland) Order 1988
7.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th June he approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is intended to bring the law in Northern Ireland on the removal of eyes or parts of eyes for corneal grafting and for medical education and research into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords may recall the passage through the House of a Private Member's Bill, introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Exeter, then presented in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Cullen, to become the Corneal Tissue Act 1986. That Act amended the law in Great Britain to allow staff employed by health authorities, who are not medically qualified, to remove eyes from deceased persons subject to proper safeguards. This order replicates those provisions for Northern Ireland. "Replicates" is a word which I do not always use but I understand that it means to repeat identically both the operations carried out as well as the legal requirements. I shall use that word later on.
The purpose of the order is this. As was the case in the rest of the United Kingdom prior to the 1986 Act, the existing law in Northern Ireland—the Human Tissue Act (Northern Ireland) 1962—requires the removal of organs from bodies for medical purposes to be carried out only by registered medical practitioners. In the case of most transplantable organs, such as kidneys, hearts, livers and pancreases, this restriction is necessary and will
1390
remain in force. However the removal of eyes is different from the removal of other organs in that it is a comparatively simple technique which does not require the skills of an experienced surgeon and can be carried out several hours after death. The order will amend the existing Northern Ireland Act to permit technicians who are suitably trained and supervised to perform this task.
The point of this is, of course, to increase the supply of tissue for corneal grafting. While there is much interest and support in the Province for corneal grafting we have a shortfall in supply of corneal tissue. The present requirement that corneas be removed only by a qualified doctor is a serious constraint in obtaining tissue. Medical staff have busy clinical schedules and in practice have considerable difficulty finding time to remove corneal tissue from donors, especially those who happen to die elsewhere than in hospitals that have an ophthalmic surgery department. This in turn means that many corneal grafts are performed as emergency procedures as and when suitable tissue becomes available. By allowing suitably trained non-medical staff to carry out this comparatively simple procedure it will be possible to increase the supply of tissue from donors whether they die at home or in hospitals.
Tissue—as it is called—can be stored at the eye bank at the Royal Victoria Hospital for up to 14 days. By enabling more tissue to be available for storage the draft order should result in a number of major benefits. First, there should be an increase in the number of corneal grafts carried out. Secondly, ophthalmic surgeons should be able to use their time more effectively because corneal grafting operations can become planned procedures carried out during normal ophthalmic theatre sessions. Thirdly, more tissue will be available for medical education and research purposes.
Of course, there are safeguards in this procedure. It is recognised that where removal of corneas from bodies is to be undertaken by staff who are not medically qualified, safeguards are necessary to ensure that the procedure is undertaken competently and sensitively. The safeguards need to be flexible enough to ensure that the procurement of tissue is not unnecessarily constrained yet firm enough to ensure that the interests of the donor are protected and due regard is given to the sensitivities of relatives. There are four safeguards in the order designed to achieve this delicate balance.
The first safeguard is that only employees of a health and social services board will be permitted to remove corneal tissue. This should ensure that tissue is removed only by technicians who have been properly trained and who are subject to whatever procedures their employing authority considers necessary. At the same time any private hospitals wishing to undertake corneal grafting will be able to obtain tissue either by making an arrangement with a board or through their own doctors collecting tissue.
The second safeguard is that non-medical staff may remove eyes only if they are acting under a doctor's instructions. The doctor would, of course, be professionally accountable for any instructions he gave. The third safeguard places a responsibility on

1391
the doctor who gives the instructions to satisfy himself that the staff he instructs are suitably trained and qualified.
I stress that the medical profession is happy to accept this responsibility. Noble Lords will be interested to know that following the coming into operation of the Corneal Tissue Act 1986, the United Kingdom transplant service in Bristol has set up an eye retrieval course to train technicians to carry out this task and I am happy to say that the course will be available to Northern Ireland staff.
The fourth safeguard will ensure that the certification of death will remain very firmly the prerogative of the medical profession. It would be totally wrong for corneal tissue to be removed before death has been properly certified by a doctor. However, to make for the easier application of the provisions of the order the doctor who certifies death must not necessarily be the same doctor as the one who gives the instructions for tissue to be removed.
The provisions of this order have the full support of the medical profession as a whole and the specific agreement of ophthalmic surgeons in Northern Ireland. Corneal grafting is a procedure which can safeguard or, far better, restore sight. Your Lordships will agree that it is of the utmost importance that an adequate supply of tissue is available to keep the eye bank at the Royal Victoria Hospital well stocked. No one in need of this type of operation should be denied that opportunity because of the shortage of tissue. Corneal tissue has not in the past been collected from many potential donors. This order will remove the single greatest impediment to the collection of that tissue; namely, the need for it to be collected by a doctor.
I referred to the Corneal Tissue Act which was instigated by my honourable friend the Member for Exeter and conducted through this House by my noble friend Lord Cullen. That Act, which came into force two years ago, has operated with much success in Great Britain—that is, on the mainland of England, Scotland and Wales. I commend both my honourable friend the Member for Exeter and my noble friend Lord Cullen for their efforts in bringing forward that legislation which had the full support of the Government. We believe that it is highly desirable that patients in Northern Ireland should enjoy the benefits of similar legislation. With that in mind I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th June be approved. (Lord Lyell.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we give our warm and unqualified support from these Benches to the Minister and his colleagues in bringing forward this order. I am delighted that in doing so the Minister paid tribute to the work of the honourable Member for Exeter, Mr. John Hannam, who is well known to me and who has my highest respect in this and many other matters. It was right that the Minister should draw the attention of the House to the part played by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen. As we know, the noble Lord had a major parliamentary victory yesterday in this House on another matter
1392
relating to eyes. That bears repeating, at least from this side of the Chamber if not from the Government side.
The raison d'être for the order is well understood. I am grateful to the Minister for the care he took in his very lucid speech. There will be many people who read the proceedings of this House—and I am one—who are not always aware of the nuances of matters of this kind. Therefore, I express my sincere thanks to the Minister. However, the noble Lord can perhaps tell us why a measure which was seen to be wholly appropriate in 1986 has taken two years to reach this House in respect of Northern Ireland. There can be no argument about the good sense of the measures contained in the Corneal Tissue Act 1986. I should have thought that we might have seen this order a little earlier. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments in that respect.
I understand the raison d'être for the order. It is related to pressure on the time and the ability of properly qualified people to be able to deal expeditiously with needs as they arise. However, can the Minister tell the House whether there is anything different in the Northern Ireland scene compared with any other part of the British Isles in regard to special needs? I understand, of course, the difference between Northern Ireland legislation and legislation for the rest of Great Britain. But is there anything foreboding in the Northern Ireland scene which calls for special treatment? We know that, tragically, there are many differences about life in Northern Ireland compared to that on the mainland.
The Minister said that the primary purpose of the order is to increase the supply of tissue in order to meet a shortage. He said—without giving statistics, which I respect—that there must have been many instances where there has been a loss to potential recipients of a graft as a result of a deficiency in the law which this order corrects. We certainly understand that.
I put to the Minister a number of questions related to the main body of this subject on page 2 of the order. The Minister rightly drew attention to the manner in which a person in the employment of a health and social services board acting on the instructions of a registered medical practitioner is given new powers or opportunities under the order. Can the Minister give some designations of what and who those people will be? For instance, it simply states:
"a person in the employment of'.
What is the designation and the status of the individuals who will be represented by those words? Whoever the persons are they will he competent and qualified. The medical practitioner has to be satisfied that the persons in question are sufficiently qualified and trained. Can the Minister say what they will be called? I was particularly interested in what the Minister told us as regards the eye retrieval course at the UK transplant centre in Bristol. I am wondering whether there are qualifications, diplomas or certificates which will make it easier to identify the individuals concerned.
The terminology at page 2 (4) quite properly makes direct reference to the examination of the body to

1393
ensure that life is extinct. That must go without saying, but can the Minister say whether there have been any tragic circumstances in which an attempt was made to deal with the need for a corneal graft and transfer when in fact—horror of horrors!—the body has not been extinct? Perhaps the Minister can say whether it is right that those words should be in the Bill. Can he also tell us whether what we are discussing is based upon some sad experience?
The order states under (4A)(a):
"a registered medical practitioner, who must have satisfied himself by personal examination of the body that life is extinct, or (b) a person in the employment of a health and social services board".
The Minister said that that person will be under the instructions of a qualified medical practitioner. How are those instructions to be conveyed; are they to be conveyed in writing? One understands that when mistakes occur very often there is some uncertainty as to precisely what were the orders. Not everyone who is found to be at fault is prepared to own up immediately.
When we are talking about someone who is under the supervision of another, how are the lines of communication to be established? Is it a question of by word of mouth; is it a question of a general understanding based upon the qualification of the person? I shall be glad if the Minister and his colleagues give some thought as to how it is that the powers of the supervisor are to be transferred to the supervised person in order that there can be no doubt. I am not talking about any shady practice, but about the care to be taken to ensure that whoever carries out these duties is clearly instructed and supervised. We certainly give a very warm welcome to this order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and for the attention that he has paid to this short but complicated and, I hope, fairly sensitively presented order. I wish to thank him for the encomium that he has paid to my honourable and noble friends who will read what has been said this evening. I note particularly what the noble Lord said last night about my noble friend as regards reading. Fortunately, I am still able to read, though from time to time I find it hard to identify your Lordships on the other side of the Chamber in conditions of poor light.
Quite rightly, the noble Lord pointed out that this order and the Corneal Tissue Act 1986 are fraught with a certain delicate area where relatives of a deceased person may have to be asked sensitively if they have any objection to the deceased relative becoming a donor. As your Lordships will be aware, on the mainland (and as far as I am aware also in Northern Ireland) persons may carry a donor card. That will refer to the removal of other organs about which I have spoken earlier.
The main thrust of the order before us this evening deals with the removal of corneas and corneal tissue particularly in view of the delicacy of the time factor. I stated that time was of the essence. I understand that a reasonable time is anything below 14 hours after death. This is subject to all kinds of conditions. The first note I have refers to delay and not
1394
necessarily as regards the removal of the tissue. The noble Lord asked why it had taken quite so long (nearly two years) to bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. So far as I am aware, this is the first opportunity that we have had to bring an order before your Lordships. I suspect that there is also a period of consultation in Northern Ireland as regards the carrying out of this procedure.
I am quite sure that the technicians and the qualified people, though not fully medically qualified—they are not doctors—are qualified to carry out this fairly simple operation. I suspect that there have been consultations and that once necessary consultations had been completed, then the normal legislative procedure was started. That would account for the delay. If there has been any major obstacle, I shall write to the noble Lord.
As far as I am aware, on a statistical basis there is no major difference in eye maladies—if I may call them that—in Northern Ireland other than the normal divergencies. I understand that corneal transplants or the transplant of corneal tissue, is useful in a number of ophthalmic diseases or problems. I am not aware of any divergence from the average in Great Britain. Certainly, there is no serious shortage of corneal tissue; but as your Lordships will be aware, every single person who can either regain his sight or have it improved or maintained by this miraculous new technique, provides an additional blessing.
The noble Lord asked me three questions. The first related to the qualifications of persons who will carry out what he called the eye retrieval. I understand that those qualifications will be precisely the same as those for a similar person carrying out the removal of corneal tissue in Great Britain. It is for this reason that I stressed the availability of what the noble Lord called the eye retrieval course at Bristol. There are already two technicians, I understand, who will be taking part in this course which I believe lasts for one week. I am convinced that there will be opportunities for people from Northern Ireland who wish to obtain the qualification to carry out this operation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the basic qualification will be taking the course at the eye retrieval centre in Bristol? I am happy to accept that, because quite clearly the noble Lord and his advisers will be satisfied as to the quality and calibre of such a course. However, if he then goes on to say that two people are there now and that there is space for others, I wonder what ambition the Government may have in respect of the numbers.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if the noble Lord will have patience I shall come to that point. I am not aware of all the precise qualifications which these technicians would require; whether A-levels or O-levels in science, or whatever. I shall endeavour to obtain this information and write to the noble Lord saying exactly who they would be, what such people are doing at present and what the course at Bristol will do for them. The course will be a source of continued improvement in techniques for this delicate operation. I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.

1395
I am not aware of any case of removal of corneal tissue where life had not been certified as extinct. This would have been covered under the 1962 Act, to which I referred at the outset. As I say, I am not aware of any case where removal of corneal tissue has taken place where a doctor has not certified that the life of the donor is extinct. In some cases, which are permitted under the order, as the noble Lord will have noted, the doctor who authorises the qualified person to remove the corneal tissue will receive certification from a second doctor that life is extinct. This will mean that there will not be a wasted journey, perhaps the whole way across the Province, from Belfast to the other side. A doctor in the donor's home town can certify that life is extinct and then the qualified person can obtain the corneal tissue.
Perhaps the noble Lord will remind me about his third question because I am afraid I have lost it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords. I was interested in the manner in which the person who will now be covered by the order will carry out what he is allowed to do. When one certifies that a person is dead, how will the responsibility of the supervisor be passed to the supervised? Will it he in writing or in some other form?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, this should be a relatively simple operation. I shall find out and answer the noble Lord, 1 hope, in two lines.
The noble Lord has been perspicacious and kind in the welcome he has given to the order. I do not think your Lordships will wish me to say any more and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
8.4 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 15 [Visitors' permits]:
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 7, line 43, leave out from ("possession") to ("ammunition") in line 44 and insert ("purchase or acquire any firearm or").
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 87. This means that I shall be moving away from the suggested groupings, but as one clause is conditional on the other I shall obviously have to do so. In any future amendments that I move, I shall not, with the leave of the Committee, adhere to the suggestions for the groupings because I do not believe that they have been put together very succinctly.
Clause 15(1) provides for a visitor's firearm permit which authorises the possession of a Section 1 firearm but not its acquisition. On the other hand, a visitor's shotgun permit authorises the possession and acquisition of such weapons. This is an anomaly. The amendment would enable someone coming to this country with a visitor's firearm permit to purchase or acquire a Section 1 firearm as well as to possess one.
If a visitor is a fit person to possess a Section 1 firearm in Great Britain I can see no good reason why he should not be able to purchase one here at the same time. Indeed, there are good reasons for encouraging a visitor to buy a sporting firearm in Great Britain because if he purchased one here it would ensure that the firearm is within Section 1 of the Firearms Act. Secondly, it would ensure that the firearm complies with the standards of the international proof body known as the CIP; and, thirdly, it would attract foreign currency to this country, something which I am sure we would wish to encourage wherever possible.
It is perhaps also worth my pointing out that if a visitor was to purchase a firearm in this country it would save him a considerable amount of money. Under the present system it would he sent to his country of origin and he would have to pay packaging and postage costs and so forth. which add a considerable amount to the purchase price of such a weapon. An immediate delivery of the purchase is an incentive to export sales in particular as many overseas buyers prefer where possible to export a purchase as baggage rather than as freight.
Section 14 of the principal Act, which provides for overseas visitors to purchase and export shotguns in this way, has been of great importance to export sales and I can see no reason why firearms should not come under the same category. It has been pointed out many times during the course of the Bill that the police are far more concerned about the criminal use of shotguns than of rifles. That is perhaps another reason why we should seriously consider allowing such visitors to purchase firearms while they are here.
The proposed visitor's firearm permit would not be a carte blanche for either possession or acquisition. The system which operates for purchase or acquisition on an ordinary firearms certificate would be used. The visitor's firearm permit would therefore specify the firearm to be bought by class—rifle or pistol—and by calibre. The seller would enter details of the firearm in the permit and would notify the police of such a sale. The police would be kept fully informed of all transactions through the notification procedures already set out in the Bill. I believe that the amendment would give a boost to the gun trade without detriment to the spirit of the Bill or the proper control of firearms in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I rise wholeheartedly to support my noble friend in this amendment. It seems to be an appropriate moment to ask my noble friend what will happen in 1993 when we join the single European market. Surely there should be nothing to restrict European visitors from coming to this country. I believe that in another place the Minister said that the Government intend to ignore this order from the EC. If they do that surely they will then become liable for an action in the European Court. I should like to know how the Government intend to deal with the question of permits for visitors from Europe. My noble friend had in mind visitors from America, who will not be affected, but I should be interested to know how the provision will be reconciled with European law.
Earl Peel: I was in fact referring to all visitors and not just those from America.
Lord John-Mackie: I think that the principle behind the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is a very good one, as is the principle behind many of the amendments tabled under Clause 15. I come from an area in Scotland where, especially in the hills behind the farm where I was, the shooting was good. Nearly the whole of the shooting was let to visitors from abroad. That did a tremendous amount of good to the local villages.
As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, it seems to be quite ridiculous that you can bring in a gun to this country, but you cannot purchase one. He made the point that it would of course help trade in this country if you purchased the gun here. Further, I gather that you can also first-purchase it cheaper.
I think that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, should look at the matter carefully—as I am sure he will—because like the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I cannot see the difference between some one coming in and buying the gun if he has a certificate and bringing one in.
Earl Ferrers: I think that there is a difference. That is that the cardinal principle upon which the Bill operates is that firearms need a higher level of control than shotguns. It is perfectly true that a person can come in with a shotgun; he can use it here; he can purchase one here; and he can use it and he can take it away. But a firearm is considered to be in a very much higher category. That is the reason why the provisions in the Bill at the moment permit people to come here and buy a firearm, but not to possess one while they are here. The point made by the noble Lord. Lord John-Mackie (that it would be good for trade because a visitor can buy a gun) would still stand; but he can only buy it providing he exports it; he cannot buy it and use it in this country.
There is a good reason for that. A visitor, by the very nature of things. does not have a firearm certificate. The whole point about the firearm certificate is that it lists the firearms and says what they are. Moreover, the chief constable has to know that the person has a good reason for using a firearm. But he does not know about a visitor. The visitor has a permit to come and shoot here. But if he goes into a gunsmith's and buys a gun—admittedly it may be recorded on the dealer's book—he does not have a firearm licence, nor does the chief constable have any say or any jurisdiction over the purchase. That is the reason, which I think is a good one. It indicates the greater level of control, but it does not stop the person, as a visitor, from purchasing a gun and saying, "Will you send it to me at my home in America?" or, wherever he may live.
Lord Brain: I wonder whether there is not just a small anomaly here. The gun that the visitor has in his possession may by some manner be a brand new gun. I shall not necessarily go into the details of this because the gun may he loaned to an estate and therefore be an estate gun and be perfectly legal. The visitor, during his residence here, uses it legally under a firearms permit. At the end of his stay he says, "I
1398
like this rifle, please may it be sent home to me?" I believe that that is exactly the same thing. I just wonder what the difference is. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain it to me.
Earl Ferrers: I think that the difference is—and I come back to the fact—that if a visitor comes to this country and purchases a firearm, it ought to be on a firearms certificate. That is what happens if you are a resident in the United Kingdom. You go along with your firearms certificate and you explain to the chief constable, "I want to have this firearm because it will be used for this, that and the other purpose." The serial number is then put on the certificate. That is what happens when a resident makes an application. When a visitor comes, he has no firearms certificate and therefore it cannot be registered and so the police have no control over who that person is. Indeed, there would he an anomaly if we were to say that a visitor should have an easier form of control over his firearms than does a normal resident in the United Kingdom. Where the visitor has used a gun and wishes to take it away, that may be a different matter. He can still purchase one and have it sent abroad.
I turn now to a point made by my noble friend Lord Burton about the EC. We are not required to accept the European Community's directive in its present form; it is still under negotiation. The Single European Act allows each state to take such action as is necessary to preserve its own security. My noble friend is quite right to refer to the matter. I can only say to him that all such matters are very much under negotiation and one cannot tell him more than that at present because there are several years to go before we reach 1992.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: Is it not likely that the visitor who is going to purchase a firearm will want to try it out somewhere? Surely no sensible person would buy any kind of gun without first attempting to see whether he can shoot the thing. It seems a little hard if he has to buy the gun and take it home without ever having tried it. Surely he must have some sort of permission to use the firearm under certain circumstances.
Lord Brain: I think perhaps if we all read Hansard tomorrow, we may find that there will be a loophole that can be usefully used by gunsmiths, purchasers, and so on for having firearms perfectly validly on certificates during the period in which they are used in this country by a visitor. I think we can all obey the rules—perhaps not quite as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would like—under the spirit of the Act.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: One of the problems about the point made by the noble Lord (which at first sight appears reasonable) is that he has not considered its full implications. If you have a provision whereby any foreign citizen can come into this country and acquire a firearm and take it away from this country, that man may well have a string of criminal convictions for acts of extreme violence. Therefore it seems to me that in such a situation very

1399
few reasonable people would in fact oppose the Government's position on the matter.
Earl Peel: I have listened with interest to what noble Lords have said. I must say that I received the answer I expected from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I was most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie, Lord Brain and Lord Northesk for at least supporting in principle what I said.
In all these matters, if the Home Office has the will to do it, it will be done. Obviously in this case the Home Office has not. My noble friend on the Front Bench said that firearms need a higher level of control than shotguns. I am not sure that that is altogether true. I think it has been established categorically that shotguns, especially so far as concerns the police, are more of a concern than firearms. If that is the case, I see no reason whatsoever for a visitor coming over here and buying a firearm under the firearms permit system. I shall not press the amendment any further. However, I think that there is support for the broad principle behind the amendment, and I therefore ask my noble friend to perhaps give this some thought so that we may consider the matter again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 7, line 47, at end insert—
("(1A) A hotelier shall not commit an offence by reason only that. not holding a firearm or shotgun certificate, he takes into safekeeping a firearm or shotgun lawfully possessed by one of his customers.").
The noble Lord said: I am not altogether happy with the amendment as it stands. I tabled it because I think that there is a considerable problem. If one has foreign visitors or people visiting different parts of the country they will need accommodation. A number of visitors stay in hotels or boarding houses. Some shoot on a number of different properties. When they arrive with their firearm, or shotgun for that matter, what are they to do with it? Do they take it to their rooms? Many people, such as the maid or a carpenter repairing something, may have a key to the room. Can that room be considered a safe place? If not, what are they to do with the weapon?
The hotel keeper may have a safe big enough to hold the weapon. The chances are that he will not. Unless the hotelier is a keen shooting man, he will not have a certificate. Even if he has a certificate, the weapon will not be on it. He will then be taking possession of the weapon and locking it up for someone else. He commits a crime. It would be wrong for the visitor to carry the weapon around with him all the time. He would not be popular if he took it down into the dining room. How is it expected that the visitor will keep such a weapon in safe custody? It would get over part of the problem if the hotelier were considered to be a safe person to look after the weapon. He may have somewhere safe to lock it up. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am not happy with the amendment. I believe that it is probably surplus to requirements. If the situation that my noble friend described arises, the visitor is entitled to ask the
1400
hotelier to look after or to place his weapon somewhere for safe keeping. I am sure that when your Lordships go away on holiday many of you ask the proprietor to look after your wife's jewellery, or something like that. The owner of the weapon is responsible for taking reasonable precautions to look after it. If one asks the hotel staff, or uses the hotel facilities, to take reasonable care and to lock up the weapon, surely there is no need to give a hotelier the power to retain the weapon when he may not have a certificate to do so. That power could be used in the wrong way if the hotel keeper were the wrong type. I should not like to see the amendment written into the Bill.
Lord Gisborough: If we do not have the amendment, the hotel keeper can reasonably say that he will not keep the weapon. The only alternative open to the owner of the weapon is to put it in the boot of his car. We know from a recent case that to lock one's gun in the boot of a car is not a defence.
Earl Ferrers: I see what my noble friend Lord Burton is getting at, but I am bound to say that my noble friend Lord Mountgarret is correct. Anyone who takes a gun with him has to take reasonable precautions. If that person goes to a hotel, it is perfectly reasonable for him to say to the hotelier, "Do you have a safe into which I can put my gun?" If the hotelier says, "Yes, I have", that is fine; the weapon is kept in a safe place and the owner is vindicated. If the hotelier says, "No, I haven't", it is for the gun owner to find some other place. If the only place is beneath his bed, it becomes a matter of degree as to whether that is considered to be a suitable place. If he is lying on top of the gun, then perhaps it is. If he leaves it in his bedroom and goes down to dinner, it is not.
I realise that my noble friend will not stick on this point, but if his amendment were passed it would give the hotelier carte blanche to be free of all responsibility. There is no definition of a hotelier. What is a hotelier? Are you a hotelier if you run the Ritz or if you run a bed-and-breakfast place? If the amendment were to be passed, it would mean that a person staying in a hotel could say to the hotelier, "Here is my gun. Will you keep it?" If the hotelier inadvertently leaves it on the bar and someone removes it, it would be impossible to prosecute the hotelier because the amendment states:
"A hotelier shall not commit an offence by reason only that, not holding a firearm or shotgun certificate, he takes into safe keeping a firearm or shotgun lawfully possessed by one of his customers".
The amendment has the effect of removing the responsibility or liability from the hotelier.
I understand my noble friend's concern, but the answer must be that a person who goes out shooting must be responsble for his own weapon in the same way as my noble friend Lord Mountgarret said he would be if he were staying in someone else's house.
Lord Burton: Before I came South last week, I took the trouble to contact the local police and after some considerable deliberation they considered that there was a flaw in the Bill. It seems that the northern constabulary disagrees with my noble friend Lord

1401
Mountgarret and with my noble friend the Minister. It is not for me to say who is right and who is wrong.
At the moment if the owner of the hotel or boarding house takes one of these weapons into his possession, which is what he does when he locks it up, he commits an offence because he does not have a firearm certificate to hold that weapon. I do not wish to argue the point, and I am obviously not going to press the amendment. There is a point here which wants looking at. I see that my noble friend has an answer. I shall not withdraw the amendment until he has made his comment.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend. He prompted me to get to my feet, and, having been prompted, I have now forgotten what I was going to say. I remember now what it was. He made a classic flaw, if I might so put it. I f' he were to stay in an hotel and say to the hotelier, "Will you look after my weapon?" he does not give the responsibility to the hotelier. He may use the hotelier's facilities, but that gun is my noble friend's and he does not hand over responsibility for it to the hotelier.
Lord Burton: With that assurance, which I am sure will be a relief to a number of people, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 8. line 13, at end insert—
(.( ) A visitor's permit shall not be granted under this section by the chief officer of police unless that visitor can produce evidence in writing that he has a qualification from his own country permitting him to possess a shotgun or a firearm and that he has the right to buy ammunition.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment is designed merely to ensure that a visitor produces some qualifications to show that he is a suitable person to possess a shotgun or firearm in this country. He must produce some evidence. The Bill, as it stands, is too wide in this respect. This country must not be the happy hunting ground for any odd person who wants to learn how to shoot. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: However well intentioned my noble friend's amendment is, some EC countries and some other countries do not require any certification for shotguns and sporting firearms. People may own them freely. Therefore it would be difficult for any such visitor to produce written evidence of his authority to possess such a firearm or shotgun.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have some sympathy for what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is trying to do; but I am bound to say that I do not think we could possibly accept this amendment, partly for the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, has given. It is that in certain states of the United States, there is no certification procedure because of the political power of the National Rifle Association. Therefore it would be extremely inequitable were one to pass an amendment framed in the form of the noble Earl's
1402
amendment. It simply says that a visitor's permit shall not be granted unless the visitor can provide this evidence. That evidence in a number of cases would not exist.
While I am on my feet, I must make one additional point. Not perhaps for the first time 1 disagree with the general thrust of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea. I think it will be far too easy for visitors to be able to get these weapons in this country. That has caused the police the deepest concern. They have made their position and their anxieties felt in the most emphatic terms to the Home Office. They are concerned that visitors to this country will be able to acquire some weapons, notwithstanding the fact that there will be no proof that these people do not have an array of previous criminal convictions. I think that is a point which it is necessary to make repeatedly, the continuing concern of the police service that this Bill, far from being an overreaction, as it was described by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is in some respects by no means strong enough.
Earl Peel: Has the noble Lord, Lord Harris, any evidence at all to show that visitors coming into this country have ever been involved in crimes involving shotguns?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: A question of that sort is by its nature impossible to answer. I am not a chief officer of police; I do not have access to this type of information. The point which I am making is that this Bill has been introduced in order to strengthen controls over firearms and shotguns. In a number of respects it does not go far enough.
Earl Peel: The noble Lord has stated that the police would like to see controls of shotguns for foreign visitors, the buying of shotguns by foreign visitors. I come back to the point that I am not expecting the noble Lord to cite endless cases in this matter; but perhaps he will be good enough to mention just one specific case in which a visitor has been involved in such a crime using such a weapon.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I cannot answer the point of the noble Earl, I am not a chief officer of police. I do not have access to information on criminal records—
Earl Peel: But—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Please let me answer the point—quite rightly too. Criminal records are confidential records kept by police forces. I could not possibly be given information of that sort. The police would not be carrying out their responsibility for the confidentiality of their own records. That is the first point.
The second point (which the noble Earl does not seem able to accept) is that we are strengthening the law as far as it concerns United Kingdom subjects. We are doing that because we believe it is in the national interest so to do. The concern of the police service is that there is a very substantial omission as regards foreign visitors coming to this country.
Viscount Dilhorne: On what basis does the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, draw these conclusions if he has no evidence upon which to make those assertions?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I answered the question by saying that it is the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who probably know as much as the noble Viscount or myself in terms of the merits of this argument.
Earl Peel: I accept that we are strengthening the law in this matter, but I thought that the whole purpose behind the Bill was simply to strengthen the law when it was necessary to do so. In this case there is no evidence whatsoever.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have now made the point on three or four separate occasions. It is just possible that the noble Earl and I are not going to agree. What I have told the Committee is that the group of people whose views most people in this country would consider it appropriate to listen to with some degree of respect take the view that there is a serious omission in this Bill as it applies to foreign visitors to this country. They may be right; they may be wrong, but it is their view. They have rather more detailed knowledge inevitably than any of us can have.
Lord Burton: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has not been fully briefed by the chief officers of police on this subject. I do not know what happens with shotguns; but visitors cannot get a firearms certificate in this country until they produce a certificate from the police in their own area verifying that they are of good character. I hope that that will be sufficient proof for the noble Lord. I think that things are quite secure enough already; this certificate should be perfectly adequate.
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether I might help the Committee by coming back to the amendment. Perhaps I might say that I think my noble friend Lord Swansea was quite right, it would be difficult to accept this amendment because in a number of places such as some states of the United States of America no form of qualification or authorisation is required to purchase or possess a firearm and in some cases even a shotgun. Thus the effect would be that, if the noble Lord's amendment were to be included in the Bill, it would preclude large numbers of perfectly respectable legitimate shooters from coming here to shoot, not only on private estates, but elsewhere and in competitions.
The Earl of Balfour: This is clearly yet another amendment of mine which is defective, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
("(2A) Upon making a first application to acquire a firearm or shotgun permit to be used by a person intending to visit or visiting Great Britain, the prospective visitor or a person either acting as
1404
his United Kindom agent or a resident in the United Kingdom shall provide to the chief officer of police for the area intended to be visited the following information—

(a) his present permanent address and whether it has changed in the preceding five years and if so stating the previous address;

(b) his passport number (or where appropriate his identity card) stating the date and place of its issue;

(c) a certificate from the country where the visitor is resident or ordinarily resident, attesting to the visitor's good character, issued by a responsible person in that country and if in a foreign language to be translated and sworn to as to its accuracy by a certified and registered translator.").

The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. Although they are not grouped together, they affect the same subsection which I am seeking to amend. The amendment may seem to be unduly lengthy. It is not intended to be complicated or complex; but one or two things come out of it. The purposes for which I have drafted it are these, namely: clearly, some control must exist for visitors to come to this country. I have that control drafted in this way. Under Section (2A) there is a series of requirements and they are all capable of amendment. They are not exhaustive. I have had suggestions since I drafted the amendment that other requirements should he inserted. If this type of form were filled in on the first visit of a visitor to this country then it would not have to be repeatedly filled in on subsequent visits. All that would happen on subsequent visits would be that if any material change had taken place there would be an obligation on the visitors to disclose that to the police.
Surely this information could be kept in a place accessible to all police forces so that when a visitor came here he was welcomed and able to go and shoot where he wanted to and stay with different people. He would not necessarily have to go to one police chief constable although he could if he wished. He could go to any area at all.
Noble Lords will see the various provisions I have made under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). To those, we could possibly add further details such as place and date of birth, any other names used by the prospective visitor and such things as in respect of prospective visitors, not being in possession of a current firearm, shotgun or hunting licence and whatever they have. If they do not have that, then a fallback position would have to be arranged which would meet the points already discussed like a reference as to good character from the country from which the visitor comes. There would have to be something which would arise on the initial visit. It would take a little time, but it would enable reference checks to be made on the initial visit to make sure that this was not a Mafiosi or a Cosa Nostra member or some other undesirable coming here to get firearms.
There are two points on this. First, it must be made easy for visitors to come here and not to have to go through a whole lot of bureaucracy each time they visit. Secondly, when they come here they should be able to go where they want to with their shotguns rather than have such controls that they cease to come here. They are a very good earner for this country.
On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Swinton, I recall, commented that ladies were often brought who were not wives. I added that they increased the expenditure which took place. If they are not made welcome they will not come. That seems to be a very great pity. 1 think I have said all the things that need to he said to support my amendment. I have spoken, as was said, to three amendments, Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 91 although only Amendment No. 89 was called. Amendment No. 91 intends that the permit under this clause shall entitle the holder to participate during its currency in sporting and competitive events throughout Great Britain.
There are other amendments which achieve the same effect. I shall not use the word felicitous as regards that effect, as my noble friend on the Front Bench had some trouble the day before yesterday separating his c's from his s's. It appears that the drafting of the other amendments may be better than that of my amendment. However, my amendment achieves the same object. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: My noble friend is probably better briefed on this amendment than I am. I mentioned on the previous amendment that a certificate, certainly a firearms certificate, had to be secured. I am not sure of the position as regards a gun licence. If the certificate is secured, the holder's permanent address is already available. Instead of a responsible person guaranteeing that information, the police in the area where the visitor is staying are responsible. I should have thought that was a better reference than that of a responsible person. Consequently, I am rather doubtful whether there is any need for Amendment No. 89. There may be a need in the case of guns; I stand to he corrected on that. But there does not appear to be a need in the case of firearms certificates. Consequently, the amendment itself would appear to be unnecessary.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The problem with Amendment No. 91 is exactly the same as that relating to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. In a number of countries one does not have to have what is described here as a,
"valid current firearm or shotgun certificate".
The language used makes that an obligation. It would mean that anyone who came from certain parts of the United States would not be able to get the benefits that the noble Viscount aims to secure by his amendment.
Lord Burton: It may be that a Northern chief constable is more on the ball than English and Welsh ones, as he certainly requires a certificate from the police in the area from which the visitor is coming.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord gives a number of interesting illustrations of what various unnamed chief constables do. All I am saying is that on the basis of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, it would, it seems to me, be impossible for a visitor from some parts of the United States to
1406
produce a valid shotgun or firearms certificate simply because there are no such things in particular states.
Earl Ferrers: All these amendments seek to impose yet further conditions on people who come from abroad. I should have thought that, on the whole, the Committee would have felt that this was not necessary. Clause 15 already provides a sensible level of control for visitors who wish to possess firearms or shotguns in this country. There has to be an' application. That application has to be made by a person who is resident in this country to his local chief officer of police on behalf of the visitor. The chief officer must be satisfied that the visitor has a good reason for possessing the firearm, or, in the case of shotguns, for possessing, purchasing or acquiring them.
A permit will not be granted if the chief officer is satisfied that an applicant is prohibited by the principal Act from possessing the weapons or ammunition or that possession of such weapons represents a danger to the public safety or to the peace. The amendments of my noble friend would add a lot of extra conditions. A visitor's application would have to include the following requirements:

"(a) his present permanent address and whether it has changed in the preceding five years and if so stating the previous address;

(b) his passport number (or where appropriate his identity card) stating the date and place of its issue;

(c) a certificate from the country where the visitor is resident".

That adds quite a lot to the bureaucratic regime which many of my noble friends have criticised. I do not believe that that is desirable.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am disappointed with that reply. My remarks do not appear to have landed on any ground at all. I shall deal with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I said in proposing the amendments that a visitor from a country where there was no regime of firearms would have to have recourse to a good referee. I thought that the best evidence available of that person's integrity. I believe that answers the point.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect that does not deal with Amendment No. 91. I think there is some confusion between myself and the noble Viscount as we cannot hear one another too well. Neither of us is sufficiently close to a microphone. All I am saying is that unfortunately the interpretation placed by the noble Viscount on his Amendment No. 91 does not appear in the amendment itself.
Viscount Dilhorne: The other point my noble friend on the Front Bench does not seem to have taken on board is that although more is required by this provision—in that respect, he is right—the intention is that the conditions have only to be fulfilled once. However, the sum of the parts of the provisions of Clause 15 will add up over the years to considerably more bureaucratic information. It will be constantly repeated, without any change. I hope that the noble Earl will reconsider the essence of my amendment before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
("3A) A visitor's permit granted under this section shall be valid for all parts of the United Kingdom.").
The noble Earl said: this is a slightly more simple version of the previous amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Dilhorne. But, of course, he is a lawyer and I am not.
Before dealing with the principles behind the amendment, perhaps I should explain that I contacted the Public Bill Office with a view to obtaining the words "United Kingdom" changed to "Great Britain". Unfortunately that was overlooked; it has not been done. I think however that I am entitled to speak to the amendment as if those words had been changed. I hope that the Committee will regard "United Kingdom" in this context as "Great Britain". I shall, of course, keep Northern Ireland out of my remarks.
This is the first of a number of amendments standing in my name which are designed to overcome what my noble friend Lord Swinton described on Second reading as,
"numerous little discouragements towards foreign visitors coming to this country".
My noble friend perhaps did not stress the discouragements quite strongly enough. The word "little" is not quite the right terminology. Some of the discouragements are, I believe, very important and rather significant.
Although the amendment comes under the part of the Bill referring to a single person's permit, because each individual is listed on the group permit it is intended to refer to a group application as well. I need hardly remind the Committee of the significance of foreign visitors who come and a shoot in this country. An enormous amount of revenue is generated through this business. Many agricultural properties are having to rely more and more on the income from that particular sport. I should declare an interest. On my own property in North Yorkshire, I rely very much on income from foreign visitors. I can state quite categorically that without it I could not retain the property.
If I could not keep the property, what would the outcome be? I suggest that the answer is very simple. From a conservation point of view—that is very much the theme at the moment—the estate would deteriorate very quickly indeed. I hope that the Committee will take that point on board when considering the revenue raised from this source. It is not just a simple question of revenue going into the hands or the pockets of large landowners; it is what they do with that revenue that is important. It is also worth making the point that a lot of revenue is generated by subsidiary activities such as hotels, shops, and so on.
If visitors to this country are to be impeded by restrictive bureaucracy, they will go elsewhere. The opportunities are there and I am sure that they will take them. I believe that the consequences to this country would be disastrous. I do not wish to come into conflict with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, again.
1408
However, I believe that there is no evidence to demonstrate that foreign visitors have behaved in a way which would warrant additional restrictions.
I accept that we shall lose the 30-day rule. What is proposed in the Bill is acceptable within limits. A single application, made by one individual on behalf of a single person or group, should be sufficient to deal with such cases. People who come over may, during the course of their stay, shoot on many different estates in many parts of the country. That happens frequently. The qualifications of the resident applicant —the person who will be applying for permits on behalf of an individual or a group—should be sufficient for a chief officer to make his decision.
A resident of this country who applies for a shotgun certificate or a firearm licence may be required to name a place where he is likely to use it. However, he will not have to name every estate in the country where he may be shooting or inform every chief officer of police. That would be a nonsense. Why should visitors be treated differently? It is totally illogical.
I am not aware of any other country which has territorial restrictions on firearm licences. I see no justification for the United Kingdom to impose such a restriction. We are attempting to obtain, in this clause, a system whereby one application by one resident on behalf of an individual or group is sufficient. That is the way forward. I believe that that is the only system which will be acceptable to applicants and to visitors. We must not impose territorial constraints over and above those which are imposed on residents of this country. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: I support the amendment, to which my name should also be attached. My noble friend has spoken as a provider of sporting shooting; I speak as one to whom such shooting is provided. With apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I am a visitor. I do not have a criminal record. I even have a clean driving licence.
Perhaps I may briefly explain my position when I come to this country to shoot. My experience might apply equally to visitors from the United States or any other part of the world. Depending on which way I travel, my port of entry may be Lancashire, Yorkshire, County Durham, Middlesex (if I come to Heathrow) or, if my flight is diverted, any county that one may care to mention.
When I land, whether I am travelling on a scheduled or private flight, I must present myself and my guns to Special Branch. If I were a visitor from outside the British Isles, I would present myself to Customs. I then travel from my port of entry to the place where I have taken shooting or been asked to shoot. That may be and usually is in several different parts of the country. It may be Yorkshire; it may be Inverness; and it may be anywhere from Land's End to John o' Groats.
To have to apply for a permit to shoot in every area in which I may be shooting and every area to which events which are beyond my control may take me would involve much time, money and trouble for me and for the licensing authorities. It is necessary to

1409
have a permit which is recognised and acceptable to Special Branch, Customs and anyone who may ask me to prove my right to possess the guns which I am carrying. I emphasise the word "guns" because most Americans and Europeans who visit in order to shoot grouse or pheasant will be travelling with no fewer than two guns.
I am thinking not only of the many estates whose existence depends to some extent on shooting. I am also thinking of the ancillary businesses which have been mentioned and which provide employment and revenue. A tremendous amount of money is at stake. For instance, three days' grouse shooting for a group of Americans in Scotland represents something like £20,000. A day's shooting in Gloucestershire for a team of Australians may cost as much as £8,000. The revenue from such parties would represent a considerable loss. I fear that my Texas friends would say that the obtaining of all those permits would be just too much hassle. They would not bother to come shooting in the United Kingdom.
At the other end of the scale, one must consider the clay pigeon shooter. He may visit this country in order to take part in a series of competitions in different parts of the country. He will be in the same position. However, in his case the extra expense and problems caused by having to apply for a number of permits in various areas may be prohibitive. It is essential to have a permit which, if it is issued in Yorkshire, will be recognised by all the authorities in every area.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support my noble friend in his amendment. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be able to reassure us on the point. A firearm or shotgun certificate for a resident of this country may be varied throughout the country. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us that the same will be true of a visitor's permit. I am sure that many Members of the Committee are concerned about the point.
9 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: This is one of the most commonsense amendments that we have yet seen. It would be absurd to have to apply to more than one chief constable, perhaps to several—three or four—for one visit.
We all know that there is high unemployment in the countryside. Great efforts are being made by the Development Commission and other authorities to try to reduce unemployment. Efforts to plant woodlands through the new agricultural policies will lead to more shooting opportunities for foreigners. I believe that shooting by foreign visitors makes a great deal of difference to employment in small villages. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I listened with interest to what my noble friend Lord Northesk had to say. I think we are being a little inward looking. Perhaps we should be outward looking and consider the position when a British person is invited or goes to shoot in a foreign country. I went for a weekend's pheasant
1410
shooting in France many years ago. My noble friend goes to shoot partridge in Spain. One obtains a permit and one can shoot anywhere one wants. The permit is valid for X number of days—30 days or whatever it might be. Why, therefore, should we act differently from our counterparts across the Channel? On that basis I very strongly support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Peel rather threw me when he put down the amendment, or rather when he spoke to it. My noble friend Lord Gisborough said that it was the most sensible amendment. I am bound to tell him that I cannot accept the amendment because it has an effect which I think that my noble friend did not realise. It says:
"A visitor's permit granted under this section shall he valid for all parts of the United Kingdom".
That of course would include Northern Ireland, and this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland.
Earl Peel: I explained at the beginning of the debate that I had attempted to have the amendment changed through the Public Bill Office and that I was speaking in relation to Great Britain.
Earl Ferrers: I am afraid that I had not taken that into account. Nevertheless, that threw me when I saw the amendment.
I should like to clarify the position because it is very important. We realise that foreign visitors who come to the United Kingdom bring a great deal of trade which is a very important part of the livelihood of many of the estates which provide pheasants, grouse or whatever it may be. Shooting is a business which is of great importance. We do not want to do anything that would curtail the number of foreign visitors or that would make life difficult. On the other hand, obviously we have to have some control as to what happens. Otherwise people could come from abroad with their guns and nobody would know what was happening.
I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Peel that a visitor's shotgun permit will be valid throughout Great Britain. When a visitor wishes to shoot in different areas, that can be achieved easily by attaching a condition allowing him or her to shoot on any other land with the owner's permission. If a visitor asks only, for instance, to shoot with my noble friend Lord Peel, that will be stated on his permit. If, however, he wishes to shoot in other areas the condition will allow him to shoot on my noble friend's land and on any other land, provided he has the owner's permission. What we clearly could not do is to allow people to shoot anywhere without the owner's permission.
If the foreign visitor has permission to shoot on any other land and that is stated on his permit, he is free to do so. The sponsor can ask the police to change the condition on a permit. For instance, a person might come to shoot with my noble friend Lord Peel, and that might be all that his permit allowed. While he was staying with my noble friend someone might say to him, "Come and shoot with me in Somerset", and somebody else might invite him to Wales or Scotland. He would have to go to the chief

1411
constable and ask for the permit to be altered. He would not have to go to every chief constable in whose area he intended to shoot.
I hope that that has clarified the position. I can see that many of my noble friends are quite understandably concerned that either people would come to shoot here only on certain land or if they wished to shoot elsewhere they would have to apply to the chief constable of each county. That is not so. It is merely provided that the permit states the nature of the places where the applicant wishes to shoot, and the applicant can shoot there.
Lord Swansea: Is it really necessary for the places to be specified? Can the visitor not just have a blanket permit to shoot on any land over which he has the owner's permission to shoot instead of naming every hit of ground over which he wishes to shoot?
Earl Ferrers: It depends on what the applicant asks for. If somebody comes from Portugal to stay with my noble friend Lord Peel he will ask for permission to shoot with my noble friend and that will be stated on the permit. If, on the other hand, he wants to shoot all over the place then he will apply to shoot on any other land on which he has permission from the owner. If that is stated on his permit, he may do so.
Lord Torphichen: That sounds fine, but my noble friend Lord Ferrers has not indicated clearly enough that an applicant from a foreign country will have to know that he will have to ask for the appropriate wording to be added to his permit. I can see that someone from a country which does not place territorial restrictions on visitors' permits will assume that his permit covers the whole of Great Britain. It will not occur to him that he has to ask specifically.
Earl Ferrers: I think that my noble friend Lord Torphichen is not correct. It will be for the sponsor to apply. The sponsor will apply for the visitor to shoot where he wishes to shoot. I can only assure my noble friends—and I want to be as clear as possible because I know that this is a matter which causes concern—that if a sponsor wishes to obtain a permit for a person to shoot on his land then he applies for him to shoot on this land. If that person wishes to go and shoot in six different areas and knows that he will do so, then the permit will list those six areas. On the other hand, if the applicant says, "I wish to be able to shoot anywhere in England on land for which I have the owner's permission", then that will be put on the permit.
Lord Brain: Is there not likely to be yet again a way round that in that everybody will automatically apply for permission to shoot on all land over which they have the owner's permission? In that case the Bill itself will become a nonsense. I think that we are taking the risk, however small, of legislating a piece of nonsense.
Earl Ferrers: It is difficult for me because at one moment my noble friends say, "This is disgraceful because the applicant will have to go to every single chief constable for every place on which he wants to
1412
go and shoot" and when I try to explain that is not so, the noble Lord, Lord Brain, says, "It is stupid because everyone will invite themselves to shoot everywhere".
There is one cardinal principle: the person has to have a sponsor and the sponsor has to believe and demonstrate that that person is a reasonable person and is coming to shoot on his land and is not just coming on spec. I do not think that that is unreasonable. If I might say so, I believe that many of the apprehensions which my noble friends have understandably voiced are apprehensions which they need not have.
Lord Swansea: For the avoidance of all doubt would it not be possible for my noble friend to reconsider this matter and if necessary put down an amendment himself at the next stage of the Bill along the lines of this amendment, in order to make everything absolutely clear?
Earl Ferrers: Of course I shall take account of what my noble friend has said. However, I should not have thought that it was necessary to put it in the Bill if my explanation is accepted. People are concerned that they should not have to apply for permission to shoot everywhere. I am bound to tell the Committee that there must be some form of control of visitors and weapons that come into this country. Did I hear a note of dissent from behind me? I think that there must be some kind of control; otherwise people will flood in all over the place with guns.
The only control that we suggest is that should someone wish to invite a foreigner who wishes to come to this country to shoot, that visitor cannot just come on spec. He must come to a certain place, and he must have a permit and that permit will state where he intends to shoot. if he wants to shoot all over the country on land on which he has the owner's permission to shoot, then the permit can state that; but of course the sponsor must be responsible for him. It is in the sponsor's name that he comes.
Viscount Mountgarret: I find my noble friend's remark most extraordinary. The control to which he refers is control by the existing laws of the land. If a person has a shotgun certificate and possesses a shotgun he can shoot anywhere he wants and at any time that he wants provided that he obeys the laws of the land. If he shoots on land which does not belong to him or on which he does not have permission to shoot he is trespassing or poaching and is dealt with accordingly. It is exactly the same with a visitor.
I cannot understand the reference to a sponsor. Are we not making awfully heavy weather of this matter?
If for instance one applies for a firearms certificate, one states why it is wanted, and presumably it is because one has been invited to stalk somewhere. The visitor to this country who has an invitation to shoot can go to the appropriate British consulate in his country and say that he has received the invitation, give evidence of the agent and the money he has paid and say that he would like to have a permit for 30 days to shoot in the United Kingdom. He should be allowed to have that without any further hassle. If he

1413
goes shooting on land on which he has not been invited or for which he has not paid, then he is breaking the law. Those are the controls that we have at the moment. I hope that the Government will be kind enough to accept this entirely sensible and very necessary amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl. Lord Peel, has reasonably pointed out the defect in his own amendment. He says that the amendment that we have before us at the moment relates to the United Kingdom. He said that he wanted it to read "Great Britain". However, the form of words before the Committee at the moment is defective in any event.
I understand the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, but he must appreciate that were the Committee to accept this amendment it would be making arrangements not only for Great Britain but for Northern Ireland as well. I find it hard to believe that the noble Viscount is advocating such a course.
Earl Peel: I think I am right in saying that my impression—and perhaps my noble friends will confirm it—is that I stated clearly at the beginning of the discussion that I wished to substitute the words "United Kingdom" for "Great Britain". That is the amendment to which we are speaking.
Lord Hylton: In defence of Northern Ireland, perhaps I may point out that there is some quite good wildfowling and snipe shooting there. I hope that that will be just as available to legitimate foreign visitors as any shooting in Great Britain.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord. Lord Harris. that yesterday we passed an amendment, one moved from his Benches what is more. which was acknowledged by the Government to be defective. Nevertheless it was accepted on the understanding that it would be corrected at Report stage. Exactly the same thing can be done with this amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The amendment will surely profoundly liberalise arrangements in regard to Northern Ireland. We must sometimes take account of the situation in Northern Ireland and not push it aside quite as easily as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Hylton: Does the noble Lord deny that there are at present tourists and visitors to Northern Ireland who engage in sporting activities?
Lord John-Mackie: I listened carefully to what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said in moving the amendment. I understand that he corrected the amendment at the Public Bill Office, but the correct version is not what appears on the Marshalled List. We are therefore discussing the incorrect version on the Marshalled List.
Earl Peel: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie.
1414
I am sorry to say that I am disappointed with what my noble friend said. I do not believe that it should be necessary for the owner's permission to be on the permit in regard to every estate. I think that a single application to cover the whole of Great Britain should be adequate.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend said that he was disappointed with what I had said. Everyone in the United Kingdom who owns a firearm or shotgun must have a firearms certificate or a shotgun certificate. That shows that he has good reason to possess the firearm. Indeed, in the Bill the chief officer is allowed to reject an application if the person does not have good reason to possess a firearm. It would be unfortunate if we were to permit foreigners coming into the country to have a position superior to that of people in the United Kingdom if they cannot show good reason for holding a gun. If we have no control, anyone can come into the country with guns and rifles and say they want to go shooting and stalking. We say that if a person wishes to come, a sponsor may say, "I want this man to come, and he will shoot with me"; or, "He is going to come and shoot on a variety of other places". He would be able to shoot on any land in the country provided that he has the owner's permission.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret says that that is unnecessary. I find it astonishing that he thinks that a person should come into the country and shoot on land over which he does not have the owner's permission.
Viscount Mountgarret: If my noble friend will give way, I should like to point out that I never said that at all. I said that this is covered by the existing laws of the country. Of course one does not accept that people come hither and thither and just shoot where they want. I never suggested that. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw what he said.
Earl Ferrers: I certainly take it back entirely if I misinterpreted what my noble friend said. In that case there is nothing between us. All the permit will say is that the person may shoot on land over which he has the owner's permission, in which case my noble friend and I are in agreement.
The Earl of Northesk: I would have to apply for a permit because I am a visitor. I am very muddled. Perhaps I may ask a practical question, the reply to which may help my noble friend Lord Peel.
If I apply to my son who lives in Sussex to act as sponsor for a permit—I hope that he will assume that I am a responsible person—I would say to him, "I want to shoot at Fairoak, I want to shoot with my noble friend Lord Peel, I want to shoot in Inverness and I will be invited to several other places but I am not quite sure where yet". Is that all that I have to do? If so, it is perfectly acceptable.
Earl Ferrers: It is always dangerous to give an off-the-cuff answer to a specific problem. I think that I should be right in saying that if my noble friend wished to apply to come to this country and asked his son to be a sponsor to get a permit for him but said

1415
that he did not know where he wished to shoot, apart from the original invitation, he would be permitted to shoot in this country on land over which he had the owner's permission.
Lord Monson: What is the position of overseas visitors who want to go wildfowling on public land?
Earl Ferrers: They could go wildfowling in the same way as they could go shooting deer or pheasant provided that they had the appropriate authority.
Lord Monson: I am talking about the foreshore—wildfowling on common land.
Lord Hylton: Between the high and low water marks.
Earl Peel: We have had an extended discussion on this amendment. I repeat what 1 said when I attempted to wind up on it before; namely, I am disappointed with what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said. The discussion has gone far enough and I have no option but to divide the Committee.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend does that, may I point out to him—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): The noble Earl is moving the amendment in the words which appear on the Marshalled List.
Earl Peel: No, I am moving the amendment with the words "Great Britain" substituted for the words "United Kingdom".
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the noble Earl divides the Committee, what are the rules of the Committee? I say that simply because I do not know the answer. I believe that the Committee should be aware what we are voting for. I am sure that the noble Earl will agree with me.
Earl Ferrers: I understand that my noble friend's amendment is equivalent to a manuscript amendment at Committee stage. Therefore my noble friend is entitled to move that amendment in the way in which he wishes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Therefore the Question before the Committee is that Amendment No. 92 be agreed to in the following form:
"("3A) A visitor's permit granted under this section shall be valid for all parts of Great Britain.")".
9.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 92) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 28.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Milverton, L.

Brain, L.

Monson, L.

Burton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Craigavon, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Northesk, E.

Crathorne, L.

Peel, E. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sharples, B.

Gisborough, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E.

Hylton, L.

Torphichen, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Vestey, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wynford, L.

Margadale, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balfour, E.

Harvington, L.

Barber, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Nicol, B.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trafford, L.

Hampton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("weapons") and insert ("firearms").
The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks an explanation. There appears to be some imprecision in the way in which words are used to describe various sorts of firearms. In Clause 2(2)(a) a "shotgun" is referred to and there is reference in Section 57 of the 1968 Act to a "firearm". Nowhere is there a definition of "weapon". In this instance "firearms" would seem appropriate. Obviously, there should be consistency throughout the legislation. I simply ask my noble friend whether that was intended. This is merely a point of clarification but I should be grateful if my noble friend could answer it.
Earl Ferrers: I shall be only too happy to assist my noble friend with clarification of the Bill. Amendment No. 93 seeks to substitute the word "firearms" for the expression "weapons" in paragraph (a) of Clause 15(3). However, the use of the word weapons here is intentional. Paragraph (a) is referring back to subsection (2) which deals with both visitors' firearms permits and visitors' shotgun permits and there is a risk that it might be construed as a reference only to the firearms covered by the visitors' firearm permit.
Earl Peel: I am grateful for my noble friend's response. That clarifies the point and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 8, line 22, at end insert ("if known").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was discussed on Monday and relates to visitors' permits. The proposal is to put "if known" at the end of line 22. The Bill demands that the serial number of firearms be given. As we heard on Monday, a number of guns do not have a serial number. My noble friend Lord Kimball made some very sage observations on that point. I consider that this amendment is necessary to allow such guns into the country. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: It would be a fairly rare occurrence for a firearm not to contain a serial number whereas,
1418
although the situation is improving, it is more common to come across shotguns without any numbers; for example old Belgian and other continental models. Furthermore a visitor's shotgun permit authorises the holder to purchase a gun in this country and it is unlikely, at the time when the permit is granted, he, or she, will know the serial number of the gun or guns which will subsequently be purchased. A shotgun permit does not allow the holder to purchase a firearm. We considered therefore that we should make this specific provision in respect of shotgun permits but that it was not necessary or appropriate in respect of a firearms permit.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am obliged to my noble friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 8, line 28, at end insert—
("(4A) In section 11 of the principal Act at the end of subsection (5) of that section there shall be added the words "or in the presence of any employee of the occupier".")
The noble Earl said: As the legislation stands in Section 11(5) of the principal Act a person may, without holding a shotgun certificate, borrow a shotgun from the occupier of premises and use it on those premises in the occupier's presence.
In seeking to add the words,
"or in the presence of any employee of the occupier",
I have in mind circumstances where I am happy to lend a gun to a friend and suggest that he goes out shooting with my gamekeeper. That is the principle of the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: This amendment would dilute the controls too far. It would give us the prospect of a person who does not hold a shotgun certificate using a shotgun in the presence of another person who may or may not have a shotgun certificate who, in his turn, is an employee of someone who may have a shotgun certificate. There is nothing in my noble friend's amendment to say that the employee supervising the guest must be a certificate holder or that he must be familiar with guns and how to use them safely. There is little accountability. The employee might even be a kitchen maid from some other country. I do not believe that that is what my noble friend intends.
The Earl of Balfour: I did not intend the amendment to be worded quite as widely as that. I felt that there was some desirability for a visitor or a person not holding a shotgun licence to be entitled to go out with my gamekeeper who would automatically have a licence. Perhaps I have not drafted the amendment very well and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").
The noble Earl said: This is an attempt to save issuing authorities, sponsors and visitors, time, trouble and money. The Bill does not appear to take into account that competition shooting is not seasonal. It continues throughout the year. A six-month permit may be reasonably satisfactory for game shooting or stalking but it is not satisfactory for people who visit this country for competition shooting.
In any one year a regular competitor from overseas may wish to come here on a number of dates separated by more than six months and will therefore need to apply for two permits, thus causing a great deal of unnecessary extra work for the issuing authority and extra time and trouble for the sponsor and the visitor himself.
There is also the added cost. I briefly give an example. I know of an overseas group of four people who in April came to Scotland to shoot in a clay
1420
competition. They need to return for another competition in August in order to mark up sufficient scores, which is a requirement that allows them to compete at a certain level. They intend to return in November, this time to shoot game. Therefore, they will have to apply twice for permits for which they will have to pay £24—that is, £12 each permit. That is the same cost as for an ordinary shotgun certificate valid for three years. There is some justification for a visitor's permit being valid for six years, but we are only asking that it be valid for 12 months rather than six. I hasten to add that we make that suggestion not for reasons of cost as much as for the convenience of both the visitor and the issuing authority. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. It is quite true, as he said, that visitors from overseas may come to this country for fairly long intervals and for longer than six months in a calendar year. It is entirely reasonable that the period of validity for a visitor's permit should be 12 months and not six.
Viscount Dilhorne: I support the amendment. There is one further point that I wish to add to what my noble friend said. There is another group of visitors that finds difficulty with the provisions; namely, persons from overseas who are working in the United Kingdom under contract. Very frequently the contract is for a period of three of four years. They are not citizens of the United Kingdom and they cannot obtain certificates here. Very often they are employed by the British branch of an international or overseas company. Can my noble friend on the Front Bench explore the possibility of making some arrangements for these people who fall in a rather different category from the visitors about whom we have been speaking for most of this evening. In terms of the income tax law they are ordinary residents for that period of time.
Lord Burton: This seems an eminently sensible amendment. If the persons concerned are not a security risk for six months, surely they are unlikely to be so for a period of 12 months. This Bill will cause a lot of extra work and expense and it will possibly take police off the beat. This amendment will produce a saving in the cost of administration and I believe it is an eminently sensible suggestion.
Earl Ferrers: The purpose of the clause as it stands at the moment is that by definition a visitor is someone who spends a short time in this country. Though permits will normally be issued only to cover single visits, there is a provision in subsection (5) for them to be issued for up to six months where a person is making a longer visit or where he or she intends to return for a second visit to the country within a short space of time. That should be adequate to meet the needs of most visitors and I believe that it is. However, in view of the fact that there are one or two visitors, as Members of the Committee have explained, who come here for longer periods, it seems that there will not be a great deal of harm done if we accept the amendment. I am happy to do so.
The Earl of Northesk: I am very grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. His friends in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands will be absolutely delighted. As I said at Second Reading, when my noble friend has time to come to the Isle of Man he will be made that much more welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 8, line 33, leave out (" not more than twenty").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is another attempt to try to save the issuing authorities, the sponsors and the visitors time, trouble and money. I think the best way of explaining the details is to describe as briefly as possible what happens when a group of people come from overseas to compete, say, at Bisley. I am assured that as regards Section 1 firearms it is only at Bisley or in unusual circumstances such as the Commonwealth games, that there are likely to be teams of more than 20 people.
The following information comes from Brigadier Preston, secretary of the National Rifle Association, who is a personal friend of mine and with whom I have spoken at some length about this. In the case of a team travelling together one application form is sent to the team captain for him to complete and return to the NRA. The application form is particular to the Surrey constabulary and is supplied by it.
Having filled in the form with his own particulars, the team captain then attaches a list of the names of his team together with the particulars of the firearms they will bring. On receipt of the form the NRA checks that it is correct. If it is not, the NRA takes steps to correct it through the records which it keeps of all its overseas competitors. It can, if necessary, authenticate applicants through the relevant national body through which most of the entrants are entered, though this is rarely necessary because most visitors are regular competitors and are known to the NRA in any case.
It having been confirmed that the form is correct, it is returned to the Surrey constabulary which then issues one permit only in the name of the team captain. To this is attached a list of all the team members and details of their firearms, which list consists of up to, but historically never more than, 25 names. As regards other groups of more than 20, it does not, as I am sure will be realised, apply to any form of sporting shooting. The only other occasion when it might apply—and in this connection I have spoken to Keith Murray, who is chief executive of the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association—is when a clay pigeon competition of international standing such as the Commonwealth Games or the Grand Prix is held here, when teams of a maximum allowed number of 24, so I am told, might apply for a group permit.
As it appears that a maximum number for a group permit is never likely to be more than 25, I should like to ask that not more than 20, which appears to be a
1422
completely arbitrary number and is taken so to speak out of a hat, be if not amended then at least reconsidered. If the time comes when such numbers become a problem it can be considered by the proposed consultative committee. While on the subject of a group permit, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to look into the question of the cost under Section 7. I believe that £12 for a visitors' permit for up to six people is surely expensive enough, but when one considers that the only thing the issuing authority does is to provide a form and stamp it, £60 might prove to he an embarrassment. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support the amendment. As my noble friend said just now, teams from overseas come to participate at Bisley and at other events. Indeed, the Bisley meeting of the National Rifle Association is going on right now. I have been prevented from taking part today in the first stage of the Queen's Prize because I had to be here. That is by the way. Teams of varying sizes come from overseas and some of them may well have more than 20 members. I should prefer not to see a specific number stated. The choice of the number 20 is quite arbitrary.
While a team is in this country it is entirely possible that, as well as taking part in one series of competitions at Bisley, it will split up during its visit. Some members of the team may go to Wales to shoot against a Welsh team and another part of the team may go up to Scotland to take part in an event there. If a block permit is issued to the team as a whole I do not know how the splitting of a team in those circumstances might be catered for. Perhaps my noble friend can enlighten us on that point. Further, before the team arrives in this country, or very shortly before it arrives, there might be a last-minute change after the personnel of the team has been notified to the sponsoring authority. Perhaps my noble friend can also enlighten us on that aspect?
Lord Burton: I should like to express my support for the amendment, especially in regard to the £60 fee. After all, it may be £60 now but if the Bill goes through in its present form it is likely to be substantially greater.
Earl Ferrers: The Government introduced the idea of a group application in recognition of the fact that where six or more visitors, up to a limit of 20, wished to come here for exactly the same purpose their applications could be dealt with by the police on the basis of the same inquiry and therefore at a reduced fee.
Amendment No. 98 would remove the upper limit of 20 people for a group application. It has been a principle throughout the Bill that fees for certificates, permits and authorities which are issued by the police should cover the costs of issuing them. Were the limit of 20 to be removed, the police might be faced with the prospect of issuing group permits for much larger numbers of people. Under the present system, if there are more than 20 people two lots of permits will be issued, providing they are all going to the same place.

1423
Of course, should they wish to go to different places, then they can apply for individual permits. The whole point of the group permit is to facilitate the paperwork and to provide a cheaper fee.
Lord Swansea: Perhaps I can tell my noble friend the current practice for overseas teams competing at Bisley. The names are sent in advance to the National Rifle Association's offices by the governing body in the country concerned. All the names of those in the team and details of their rifles, together with the serial numbers, are sent. The administrative work is done at our offices at Bisley at no cost to the police. When the administrative work and the compiling of details has been completed at Bisley, the application is passed to the Surrey police. The permit is then issued straightaway at no charge, because there has been no cost to the police.
The Earl of Northesk: I ask only that the cost should be considered. The amendment actually deals with the number "twenty", which seems arbitrary. It bears no relation to what happens today. I am told that the largest team attending Bisley is from Canada; it has 25 members. The largest team for clay pigeon shooting at the Commonwealth Games, or at the Grand Prix if it was ever held in this country, would consist of a maximum of 24 people. Therefore, it is the number "twenty" that we are trying to amend.
Earl Ferrers: I can see that my noble friend is trying to amend the figure 20. All I was trying to explain to him was that for simplicity it was considered that it might be desirable for a number of people coming together to be processed on the same application. My noble friend Lord Swansea said that it does not cost the police anything. I would be surprised if he knew of any business that processed additional work without there being a cost. The fee for each person would be £12. If there are 20 individuals it comes to £240. The group fee is £60. That is a considerable advantage.
I omitted to reply to one point made by my noble friend Lord Swansea with regard to last minute changes. The police will be happy to respond as quickly as possible, but we cannot give authority to the sponsor to change the names on his own account. The present arrangements for visitors are not strictly covered by the law. That is why we are trying to put them right now.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Northesk will consider that it is not unreasonable to have a fee of this nature for a group application of such a size.
The Earl of Northesk: I repeat that the amendment has nothing to do with the fee. I only asked that the fee might be considered. As I understand it, the amendment asks to leave out "not more than twenty". I ask that a group permit may be for any number required. I am obviously not going to press the amendment. It is not a matter of life and death. As I have tried to explain, the maximum number of any group is never likely to be more than 25. Will my noble friend consider altering 20 to 30, if a figure is required. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 8, line 37, leave out ("the same") and insert ("one or more").
The noble Earl said: The amendment applies to groups of people who come to this country. It would appear that the flexibility to allow a group of competition shooters to move to different venues is covered by subsection (6)(b). However, it appears that such flexibility of movement with regard to non-competition shooters—in other words, those people who come to this country for game shooting—is restricted.
I have already impressed upon the Committee the importance of commercial shooting. It is necessary to allow such groups to move from estate to estate. This amendment is to some extent consequential to the previous amendment that I moved. I shall not say any more about it. I hope that my noble friend will accept it in the logical way that I believe it should be accepted. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment seeks to provide that a group permit should allow holders to shoot on one or more private premises. I assure my noble friend that subsection (6) already provides for that. Paragraph (a) makes it clear that the holders of a group permit may use their guns for sporting purposes on the same private premises during the same period. It does not matter which private premises. It may be any number of private premises on more than one occasion provided that it is the same private premises during the same period; that is to say, provided that everyone who holds a group permit shoots at the same place at the same time. In view of the decision which was taken earlier, I wish to consider whether this affects the amendment. I do not believe that it does but I should like to consider it.
Earl Peel: Since my noble friend has said that he will consider the matter, I think that is a very satisfactory answer and I am grateful to him for it. As a result I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 8, line 40, at end insert—
(" (6A) If he is satisfied that the person making the group application or an application on behalf of another does so in the course of organising a recognised sporting activity the chief officer of police may agree with him that another person may be substituted for the person on whose behalf the application was orginally made provided that he notifies the chief officer of police within 48 hours of the substitution occurring or being arranged, whichever is the sooner.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is drawn up to try to overcome what I regard as potentially a quite considerable problem with regard to visitors' permits. Again I speak very much from personal experience in this matter. As I have already explained to the Committee, I entertain a number of foreign visitors on my estate. One of the difficulties is that at the last minute—and by last minute I am referring to, say, 48 hours; that is the number of hours mentioned in the amendment—individuals, for whatever reason, drop out. There could be a family bereavement, a

1425
severe crash on the Dow Jones—many different reasons resulting in people dropping out. It happens a lot.
This amendment is designed to try to allow a degree of flexibility so that we can permit people to substitute for those who drop out, for whatever reason. I have explained the importance of commercial shooting. I want to stress once again the point that if foreign visitors are to feel that there are degrees of restriction on coming into this country they will go elsewhere. There is no doubt about that. I believe that we must have this flexibility to allow people to change their minds at the last minute. I shall not say any more. I think I have put all the various arguments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: I also speak from personal experience because from time to time as a visitor I act as an unpaid agent or organiser, I arrange shooting for small groups of visitors coming to this country. Such is the nature of game shooting, as I am sure the Committee knows, that it is usually necessary to arrange the shooting many months before it takes place. The same could also be said for competition shooting in as much as it may be necessary to complete and send in an entry form some time before the day of the competition.
The right numbers of people matter considerably. Some noble Lords will know that a shoot will be arranged for a specific number of guns. The same can apply to a competition where, say, groups of four or six are entered as a team. When at the last moment some person drops out because he is ill or his wife is ill, or whatever, it can be most inconvenient. I think that the estate owners and competition organisers concerned, as well as we visitors, would be very grateful if the noble Earl could accept this amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I should like to support my noble friend on this. I suggest that he is being most reasonable in putting forward a time-limit of some 48 hours. It is astonishing the number of people who for some reason or another find it necessary to withdraw from a day's shooting, at much less notice than that. I should have thought that it would not be difficult to be able to substitute people at whatever hour, not just at 48 hours' notice. Anyway, this is the amendment we are discussing and I hope very much the point has been taken on board by my noble friend.
Lord Swansea: I mentioned this point earlier in connection with another amendment. It applies also to competitive teams, for example at Bisley. I suggested that my noble friend should say how such circumstances would be dealt with under the Bill. I mentioned also the question of splitting a team to take part in competitions in different parts of the country. I do not think that my noble friend replied to that point either.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment provides that when a party of overseas shooters comes over here, having made a group application for visitors' permits, a member of the group can drop out and be replaced by another and the police only have to be notified within
1426
48 hours before or after the substitution. It is difficult to see how that would operate in practice.
Visitors' permits will be issued to named individuals and will not therefore be transferable. If a visitor arrives at Customs with guns and ammunition and a visitor's permit in someone else's name, officials will have no option other than to impound those articles. I do not think that we could countenance a situation in which an overseas visitor used a permit in another person's name to justify the purchase or possession of guns when in Great Britain. It may not be possible for the police to vet the proposed substitutes if they are given only 48 hours in which to do so. The amendment would place great pressure on the police to agree nonetheless.
It is important to remember that we have to try to exert reasonable controls on firearms which come into this country. I accept that, in the case my noble friends make, very often the people concerned are bona fide. But it would be wrong to give away the right of the chief constable to control these weapons simply by saying that if someone else is substituted he must be accepted. What happens if two, three or four people suddenly find that they cannot come and two, three or four substitutes come in their place? Obviously, the police will do the best they can, and they will be given guidance to do the best they can, in the quickest possible time. But it would he unreasonable to impose an obligation on them that this must be done within a specified time by law, because they may not physically be able to do so.
Lord Burton: Can my noble friend give any idea of how long he considers is necessary as regards this provision? Surely these teams or groups coming over are sponsored by the team captain or the group leader. As far as I can make out, the police are not going to make a specific check on each individual. If a reliable group is coming, it is unlikely that it will bring over with it one totally unreliable person.
Earl Ferrers: I understand that point. But it is obviously difficult if someone arrives with guns and ammunition and someone else's permit. I hope that my noble friend will be reasonable and understand that the police will check out that situation at the earliest possible opportunity. That could well be within 48 hours, but I think it is pushing it a little far to make a statutory obligation forcing the police to undertake that check within 48 hours.
Earl Peel: We must come to terms with this matter. I think the only way we can do so is by putting a statutory limit on it. My noble friend has talked about the additional administrative problems as regards the chief constable. But, of course, we are not talking about that many people in the context of the overall responsibilities of the police. We are talking in terms of a great deal of money as regards individuals, but that is a different matter.
It cannot be beyond the ability now of the chief constable and his office, with modern communication systems, to make a change along the lines that I suggest quickly and efficiently. I go back to the point I made about the 48 hours. This is a perfectly reasonable amendment which, I think, will make life

1427
very much easier not only for those people who have commercial shooters coming to their part of the country but also, as my noble friend Lord Swansea said, for those people coming over for competition shooting. It will also make life easier and more reassuring for the foreign visitors themselves. If we make life too difficult for them, they will not come here. We all know the ramifications.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may say that it is virtually impossible for the police to take such action within a period of 48 hours in every case. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said that in a number of cases it will be possible. However, if we make that an absolute obligation, I must say to the noble Earl that, in my view there will be a number of cases where it will be impossible for a chief constable to discharge his responsibilities. That is the position. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is right.
Earl Peel: I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench regards as being a sensible number of hours. Before we can resolve the matter, the Committee must have more information. I therefore put that question to him.
Earl Ferrers: I wish to be as helpful as I can to my noble friends. I see the difficulty that they are in. I am concerned that if we write into the Bill an obligation that on all occasions the police must issue or reject a certificate within 48 hours, we shall put an unreasonable demand on them. It may well be that in many cases the police will say, "Yes, that is perfectly all right".
However, perhaps I may put a question to my noble friends. If they had a party of eight people coming from Italy to shoot and at the last moment four people dropped out and four Sicilians came instead, would my noble friends be happy that they were not members of the Mafia? Would the police be quite happy with four people coming from that part of the world without checking up to make sure that they are reasonable human beings? It would be wrong in that case to say to the police, "You must give us an answer within 48 hours". I am sure that in the majority of cases it will be possible to give an answer within that time. However, we must be chary of putting too strict an obligation in terms of time on the police. I wish to be as helpful as possible to my noble friends.
Earl Peel: I would be worried about such people as well. However, the point is surely that it will not make much difference in terms of nationality whether someone is coming in 48 hours or in three weeks. The police will never be able to check up in any case and it will not make a great deal of difference. I believe that the applicant in this country takes the responsibility.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Will the person in this country know enough about every person who is named on a certificate to meet such a responsibility? I do not think that the noble Earl is fully meeting the point which has been made by his noble friend on the Front Bench. When I was chairman of the Parole Board, I had to deal with large numbers of people
1428
who had committed serious criminal offences in this country. A number of them were foreign nationals. There is no point in pretending that we will not have, on some occasions, a real problem arising with people who come to this country for nominally sporting purposes and who have other intentions.
The noble Earl also said, "Let's not waste time because in most cases the police will not be able to check up within a period of three weeks". However, if the police have reason to suspect that there is a problem in some case, they will have the opportunity over a longer period of time to make their checks through Interpol and on some occasions directly with foreign police forces. It is quite impossible to write a time limit of 48 hours into the Bill. That would result in an impossible position in a minority of cases.
10.15 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: Since the section dealing with group applications is creating enormous difficulties—we cannot do this, we cannot do that, we cannot do the other, yet we need to do something—is it necessary to have a group application at all? If every person who comes to this country applies for and is issued with a permit for the weapon that he uses, whether a shotgun or rifle, is it necessary to have a group application? If not, the question does not arise.
The applicant is unlikely to have a clue about the people who will be coming to shoot with him if they come from abroad as paying guests. He is not likely to have a very good idea. Why does there have to be a group application?
Lord Burton: It saves an enormous amount of administration. The team leader or sponsor will be the person who will vouch for the people who come. Furthermore, for individual applications it will be necessary to apply to the police two or three weeks beforehand.
Viscount Mountgarret: In that case my noble friend's amendment must be considered very seriously.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I could add just one further remark. As this amendment is worded, the police "may" agree—it is not a question of "must" agree. So far as I can see, if the time limit is too short the chief officer of police has the right to say, "Sorry, you're too late, chum." As it is, there will he the opportunity for a substitution to be made.
Let us face it, some of those visitors spend £3,000 or £4,000, or more. They come as a group in the first instance. Many visits are planned months ahead. As my noble friend Lord Peel has said, through unfortunate circumstances two or three may drop out at short notice, or even a group of 15. I do not think that the amendment is unreasonable. I think that the expressions of opinion have shown that without it the Bill could have a disastrous effect on the number of visitors coming to this country.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: One begins to veer towards tedious repetition in some of the arguments tonight. I apologise, therefore, for troubling the

1429
Committee again. However, I hope that we shall hesitate before using words such as "disastrous". There could he other disastrous consequences were people with very substantial records of criminal violence to enter the country because we had not paid sufficient attention to the language of this statute.
The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was a very fair one. In some cases there might be an indication that some people being substituted in the group had a background of extreme violence. It would seem to me to be incredible were we to insist upon a provision of 48 hours in such circumstances, notwithstanding the warning given by a Minister of State at the Home Office with direct responsibility for the police, that in a number of cases it will be quite impossible for the police to discharge their responsibilities in that period of time.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend concludes, I wonder if I might just say this to him, because I realise that he is concerned about this question. In the majority of cases the police would almost certainly deal with the matter very quickly and there would be no trouble. All that I am saying to my noble friend is this. Do not let us put an obligation upon them which it would he quite impossible in a few rare cases for them to meet. There may be some occasions when they would have to check. It is very unlikely but I think that we ought not to place that obligation upon them.
I understand my noble friend's concern. I shall look to see whether there is any way in which we can get round the problem. Quite frankly, I do not see that there is but I am prepared to look at the matter. However, I can give no guarantee.
Earl Peel: I am grateful for my noble friend's remarks. Perhaps I may come back to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and say that of course one can never have a guarantee against criminals coming to this country. I repeat yet again that there is no record to date of people coming to shoot in this country who have behaved in an illegal fashion or whose arms have been used for illegal purposes. I know that we have pursued this matter a great deal, but it is an argument that has been used and one which I believe is wrong in these circumstances.
Having said that, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said. He says that I am unhappy about this matter. I am deeply unhappy about it. I understand that perhaps there could be administrative problems if one were to impose a 48-hours restriction on the police. However, I should he grateful to my noble friend if he would consider discussing this matter with me at a later date and certainly before Report stage. I am sure that he will. Assuming that he will, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.].
On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: I should like to take this opportunity to raise a question about the level of maximum penalties provided by Clause 15(9). It
1430
seems to me that where there may be no more than accidental technical infringements of the law, the penalties provided are quite excessive. It is true that things are not as bad as under the provisions of Clause 4, by which someone can he sent to prison for six months for lending a shotgun for 49 hours rather than 48 hours. Unfortunately I missed the boat on Clause 4 and will have to return to that point at the next stage of the Bill.
Reverting to Clause 15, whereas I agree with the Government that a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment is entirely appropriate for someone who is guilty of an offence under subsection (9)(a)—making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a permit—surely it is too high a maximum for the many offences of a minor technical nature covered by subsection (9)(b).
Lord John-Mackie: I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has appreciated the feeling that there is about Clause 15. I must declare an interest in that I let my shoot and, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, pointed out, it makes a big difference to the finances of the farm. That is on a very small scale, however.
I should like to make the point that where I lived in Scotland there were three glen shoots let to people from abroad and it made a tremendous difference to the economics of the villages concerned—Auchenblae, Fettercairn and Edzell—which benefited to a tremendous extent, because those foreign visitors usually did all their shopping in the area (unlike people who came up from England and who usually brought with them goods from Fortnum and Mason). I must say that it made a big difference to the economy of the people in that area. It has changed a little since that time. I am speaking of 40 or 50 years ago when Pierpoint Morgan, the American banker, and other people like that arrived.
I think that the noble Earl should consider anything that inhibits foreign visitors from coming and which would not make any difference to the main objects of the Bill. I am sure he will take note of it.
Earl Ferrers: There is no conceivable way that one could have listened to this debate on this clause without taking note of that. I shall certainly take note of it and, as I have told my noble friend, I shall be only to happy to see whether there are any ways round the problems that he and his noble friends have adumbrated.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who wondered whether the penalties were a little high, I can say that they are in line with those for the offence of making false statements to obtain other permits under the 1968 Act. I remind him that they are maxima. It is for the courts to decide what the penalties should be, and no doubt the courts will wish to take into account whether or not there were previous convictions.
Lord Monson: I agreed earlier that making a false statement is a serious offence, for which the maximum penalty is entirely appropriate. For technical breaches of the law under subsection (9)(b), however, I think that the maximum penalty is somewhat high.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Firearms acquired for export]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 101A is agreed to, I shall not call Amendments Nos. 102 and 103.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 101A:
Page 9, line 6, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) A person may, without holding a shotgun or firearms certificate purchase from a registered firearms dealer a shotgun or a firearm to which section 1 of the principal Act applies if—

(a) that person has not been in Great Britain for more than thirty days in the preceding 12 months; and

(b) the shotgun or firearm is purchased for the purpose only of being exported from Great Britain without coming into that person's possession.").

The noble Viscount said: Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 16 provide similar wording, but there is a distinction between them.
Subsection (1) enables any person who is in the country for not more than 30 days to purchase over the counter a shotgun and to walk out of a shop with it in his hand. There is the qualification that it has to be not more than 30 days in the preceding 12 months.
In subsection (2) there is an entirely different regime. This deals with a firearm to which Section 1 of the principal Act applies. The first distinction is that the person is not allowed to possess it. He cannot buy over the counter. The second occurs in paragraph (b), which requires the person from whom he buys it, the supplier, to send it to the airport so that it is exported by flight and cannot be used in this country. After the full debate about visitors' permits today and the debate last Monday about other permits for shotguns, it seems extraordinary that someone can come in without a shotgun certificate, walk out of a shop with a gun, remain here for 30 days and then take out the gun.
The amendment proposes to avoid the potential risk of anyone coming here and doing just that by requiring the supplier of the gun to do the same with it as he would with a Section 1 firearm. If the person wishes to use the gun, provision already exists—this was fully debated today—to enable him to acquire a visitor's permit and use it where he wishes. After what we have heard this evening, I am sure that such an application would be properly and fairly looked at.
The Earl of Balfour: It was with this thought in mind that I put down Amendment No. 102. I was asked by two firearms dealers to look into the matter. In their view they could be left in a very embarrassing position under Clause 16(1) if they sold a gun to a person who is bound to be a complete stranger to them. That was the reason. I thought that for the sake of brevity I would speak on my own amendment at the same time.
Lord Burton: Perhaps I could do the same with Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 because I was told that if one was passed the others would fall. My amendment is slightly different because it is not intended for anyone who will use the weapons in this country. These are weapons which will be sent straight for export. My amendment is intended to try to help our export market.
If an overseas firm is buying a British weapon, especially at auction, it does not matter how long its representative has been in Britain. The buyer's
1432
representative may be a British citizen, resident here, and there is no reason why the purchaser in this case need ever have the weapon in his possession, particularly if the weapon is going straight for export. If the buyer is the overseas firm then the weapon need never come into his possession in this country. Clearly we want to encourage our export market. This clause would be a restriction on the export market, or, at the very least, an impediment. I can see no good reason for the clause and therefore suggest that it be removed. If there is a good reason for putting it into the Bill perhaps there could be some rewording so as not to impede our export market.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If I may, I shall return to the amendment that I thought we were discussing, Amendment No. 101A. I have great sympathy with what is intended and I support it, but is there not a defect in it? The only shotgun to which Section 1 of the principal Act applies is one with a barrel of less than 24 inches. Should it not apply in Sections 1 and 2 of the principal Act which would achieve the purpose to which the noble Viscount spoke?
Viscount Dilhorne: I am having difficulty in understanding the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. The amendment relates to Clause 16 in the Bill. That states very clearly that a person may:
"without holding a shotgun certificate, purchase a shotgun from a registered firearms dealer and have that shotgun in his possession if … that person has not been in Great Britain for more than thirty days in the preceding 12 months".
Then there is a different regime for a Section 1 firearm. It was the shotgun I was trying to put on the same terms as the Section 1 firearm.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If the noble Viscount looks at the amendment, he will read:
"purchase from a registered firearms dealer a shotgun or a firearm to which section 1 of the principal Act applies".
Section 1 of the principal Act applies only to shotguns with barrels of less than 24 inches. Section 2 of the principal Act applies to what we would call the normal legal shotgun and therefore all I was suggesting was that if we were to have what the noble Viscount said he was intended the amendment should read:
"Sections 1 or 2 of the principal Act".
Viscount Dilhorne: I bow to the noble Lord's superior legal knowledge and research. He is quite right.
Lord Swansea: I feel that it is all a question of how one reads the amendment. It is possibly capable of misinterpretation and that is what I feel has happened in this case. I believe it should be interpreted as:
"a shotgun, or a firearm to which section I of the principal Act applies,"—
or perhaps the two should be reversed to read:
"a firearm to which section I of the principal Act applies, or a shotgun".
Either of those solutions might help the situation.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether or not that clarifies this for most people, but I find that I am more confused than I was at the beginning. I do not mean that to be in the slightest discourteous to my

1433
noble friend. It is purely that my capacity for comprehension is lagging.
My noble friend has expressed his concern that Clause 16(1) in its present form would allow an overseas visitor without a visitor's permit or firearms certificate not only to purchase but also to possess a shotgun. His amendment would put the purchase of a shotgun in such circumstances on a par with section 1 firearm that is to say the gun would be purchased for export only and would not come into the purchaser's possession in this country. The origins of Clause 16(1) are to be found in Section 14 of the 1968 Act. That allows short-stay visitors to purchase and possess shotguns in this country and to take them back overseas.
We looked long and hard at the question of whether to permit visitors to take possession of shotguns when buying for export purposes. We were concerned about the need to avoid restrictions which would have a substantial adverse effect on the sale of shotguns to visitors to this country. On balance we decided to permit possession, subject to the added safeguard in Clause 16(5) that within 48 hours the dealer will be required to notify the police of any such transaction. Among other matters, the notice will contain details of the purchaser's passport number and place of issue.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: On this happy occasion I find myself in total agreement with the noble Viscount. After many hours of debate it is something of a "first" that we find ourselves on the same side. I believe that he is entirely right. With great respect to the noble Earl, I am quite sure that the Government considered the matter. I regret to say that I believe that they came to entirely the wrong conclusion. It does not seem sensible to maintain a provision of this kind in the Bill. I believe that everything the noble Viscount has said is entirely right. I do not know what he proposes to do, particularly in the light of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. However, if he returns to the matter at Report I shall he glad to sign the amendment with him.
Lord Torphichen: I should like to return to the words,
"coming into that person's possession".
I have had the same problem previously and tried to obtain clarification on the matter. At the beginning, apart from my mistake in misreading it, is the phrase; "to have in his possession a weapon". I thought I knew what that phrase meant until we reached Clause 14(1) which exempts target practice from the rules and regulations on possession of a firearm. I presume that any other possession is not exempted in the usual way. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that a competition would not be included but simple target practice was different.
When discussing whether a hotelier would be able to keep a weapon for safe keeping, I was further confused by the meaning of the phrase "in possession". Will the Minister answer as to what is a fishing expedition and give the meaning of the phrase "in possession of a firearm"?
I do not have a firearms certificate of any kind; I do not own any weapons. If a colleague visits my house and wishes to leave in my safe, or locked up on some
1434
part of my house, a Section 1 firearm, am I in possession of the firearm? Will I accidentally fall foul of the law? If I offer to carry the firearm in my car to a range purely for his use, do I become in possession of that firearm? If I borrow it from him on a range where a competition is taking place, do I become in possession of the firearm? If I borrow it from him for target shooting am I in possession of the firearm? Does it make any difference whether, when I borrow it from him to fire, he is standing over me making sure that I do nothing wrong with it? Can the Minister clarify what is meant by the phrase "in possesion of a firearm"?
If a foreign buyer, as part of the package of the firearms dealer from whom he buys the firearm, goes to a range or premises of the dealer and, under the supervision of the dealer, is allowed to fire it, is the dealer in possession of the firearm while it is being fired or is the foreign visitor in possession of the firearm which would then be exported through the control of the firearms dealer and not the foreign visitor?
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may raise one other point. When the Bill was originally printed in another place, Section 14 of the principal Act was to be repealed. I no longer find that provision in this Bill.
Earl Ferrers: I do not believe that I can help my noble friend very much on this matter. He asks: what is possession? Possession means having something. Possession is not transferred either to the hotelier or the taxi driver or anyone else. If my noble friend has a cold and I lend him my handkerchief, he does not possess my handkerchief. It is still mine but I have loaned it to him. I do not believe that I can take the matter much further because possession means having the thing.
Lord Burton: On Amendment No. 103, I was pleased to hear my noble friend on the Front Bench say that he was confused, because I am too. I believe that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne probably covers the point I was trying to make. The worry I have about the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne is that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was correct about Sections 1 and 2; in which case, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne is defective.
Perhaps my noble friend could give an assurance that there is a point here because there is clearly no point in someone who is never going to have the weapon in his possession having to have either a shotgun or a firearms certificate if it is going straight out of the country. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will assure us that on Report there will be an amendment on this matter which is properly worded and satisfactory in this respect.
Viscount Dilhorne: Perhaps I may come back on Report and produce an amendment in correct form, bowing appropriately to the tortuous and convoluted language of the legal draftsmen which is required, to which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, drew my attention. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment and bring it back for consideration on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 9, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: I did not receive an assurance from my noble friend on the Front Bench. Perhaps he can say whether he believes that there is some substance in these amendments. If there is, perhaps the Government will draft an amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I do not believe that there is substance in them, but I shall consider what Members of the Committee have said. At the moment, I do not believe that there is.
Lord Burton: I am very disappointed to hear that, because if this weapon never gets into the person's hands why does he have to have a certificate? It is going straight out of the country. All that does is to make it harder to export and is in no way causing a security difficulty.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I can help my noble friend because I do not believe he has correctly addressed himself to this matter. The clause states:
"A person may, without holding a shotgun certificate, purchase a shotgun from a registered firearms dealer".
He does not have to have a shotgun certificate.
Lord Burton: Clearly this matter will be looked at before Report stage and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 9, line 22, leave out ("or(2)").
The noble Lord said: This covers a slightly different point. Where weapons are exported there should be no need to notify the police as required by subsection (3). It is irrelevant because the police hold no detailed records of the weapons. The police have no record of what stocks dealers hold. Unless there is a national register the police never will have a record. Therefore, there is nowhere from which the police can delete the number of a weapon which is exported.
If it is desired to set up a national register, and one wishes to prepare for that, it would be unwise to delete the weapon until it had been exported. When it is leaving the country the Customs and Excise could and should pass to the national police register, should it be set up, a copy of the export licence certifying export. I beg to move.
Lord Torphichen: Does the weapon come into that person's possession if it is merely on approval? That will clarify my earlier problem.
Earl Ferrers: A person will not be able to take possession of a gun if it is on approval. He either buys the gun or he does not buy it. If he buys it he is in possession of it.
The requirement for a dealer to notify the police of the sale of a Section 1 firearm to an overseas visitor has the virtue of ensuring that the police have comprehensive records of sales of firearms to private
1436
individuals. There may also be occasions when an overseas police force has reason to contact their counterparts in Great Britain in connection with a gun purchased in this country. It is right that the police should be notified. In any case, it would have to be put in the dealer's register.
Lord Burton: The dealer will be handling the weapon and it will never go into the hands of the person who is purchasing until it is exported. I hope my noble friend will take that point.
Earl Ferrers: Of course I take the point. I hope that my noble friend will also take the point that where a dealer in this country sells a gun to someone, whether in this country or abroad, and it is to go abroad, it is not unreasonable that, for the reasons I have given, the police should know where it is going. There may be some occasions when other police forces will wish to know about it.
Lord Burton: It is a fairly minor point but of some importance because it deals with the export trade. Our export trade, particularly in firearms, is of importance. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Firearms and ammunition in museums]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 10, leave out lines 7 to 15 and insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may by order prohibit the transport of firearms or ammunition across the Irish Sea unless—

(a) the transport is approved by the chief officers of police on both sides of the Irish Sea, and

(b) such conditions as may be specified in the order or imposed by the chief officers of police are complied with.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment merely suggests that the Secretary of State should consider restricting the transfer or arms both ways across the Irish Sea. I have tabled the amendment to give him the opportunity to consider this point. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: In one sense my noble friend has made the clause too wide and in another sense too narrow. The amendment goes too wide in referring to,
"chief officers of police on both sides of the Irish Sea".
That could be taken to include the Commissioner of the Garda in the Republic and all the chief officers in England, Wales and Scotland rather than the chief officers from whose areas the firearms are to be removed.
The clause does not, and cannot, extend to the Republic of Ireland. Nor does it cover, as my noble friend's amendment might suggest, movements of firearms and ammunition from Northern Ireland to Great Britain—that is a matter for Northern Ireland law. It would be absurd to require the consent of chief officers in the North of England or Scotland to removals from the South-West of England.
My noble friend has made the clause too narrow by referring to transport "across the Irish Sea.".Were we to adjourn to the Library and acquire an atlas we would sec that there are a number of perfectly possible, if improbable, routes from Great Britain to

1437
Northern Ireland which do not go across the Irish Sea. The unlikelihood of those routes I suggest could be an attraction to those who might not want to attract the attention of the police. As it is drafted, I believe that the clause makes it clear that it covers all movements of arms and ammunition from Great Britain to Northern Ireland whatever the route taken.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Payments in respect of prohibited weapons]:
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 106:
Page 10, line 19, after ("persons") insert ("who have been registered as firearms dealers and").
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that not only individual persons but also those who are registered as firearms dealers will qualify for compensation. It is a fairly bold matter to try to attempt to amend a clause in a Bill where the Secretary of State, in accordance with the scheme, will make payments. All one has to go on is what my noble friend the Minister said at Second Reading. Therefore, there are a number of matters that I hope the noble Lord will take into account when he produces the scheme. I hope that will be before the Report stage so that we can see the particulars of it and then consider and debate them.
The first point is that it is hard to understand what is meant exactly by "persons". Who is included and who is excluded? There is nothing in the Bill to define the word. It could be corporate persons and they could be registered firearms dealers. It could be partnerships. One is left to surmise what is meant. This amendment does not make clear the extent of the payment or the operation of the scheme. At the Second Reading it was said that it was to be 50 per cent. of the market value. My amendment is aimed at producing a value which is a fair one in order for people to obtain the right amount of compensation; namely, a sum approximate to the market value.
An arbitrary date has been taken, that is to say, 22nd September. I have had no way of finding out, but it may well be—
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether I may interrupt my noble friend because he is dealing with the wrong amendment. He is speaking to Amendment No. 107 while we are discussing Amendment No. 106.
Viscount Dilhorne: I beg the pardon of the Committee. I had better not move that amendment. My tackle is in disorder.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 10, line 22, leave out ("22nd September 1987") and insert ("17th December 1987 or the date of passing of this Act if the weapon was not at that time specified in the Act").
The noble Lord said: I am seeking here to change a date. I have a suspicion that, as drafted, I have made a slight mistake in the latter part of my amendment because "that time" could be interpreted as either 17th December or the date of the passing of the Act. I do not wish to confuse the issue. The significance of 22nd September is that it is the day when the Home Secretary made a speech to senior police officers. I do not have a recording, but in his televised speech he spoke about a ban on semiautomatic machine guns which I believe carries a very wide degree of misunderstanding. Even the White Paper which appeared on 3rd December did not include my favourite article from my first amendment, the pump-action rifle.
It was only when the Bill was first published on 17th December, which is the significant date that I have chosen, that the major part of the categories were clearly specified as to what was or was not to be a prohibited weapon and shifted from a shotgun to a firearms certificate, and so on. I have tried to tidy-up my amendment to include things which may subsequently have been changed during the passage of the Bill through the two Houses of Parliament. There may have been no need and I shall be happy if the noble Earl says that there was no need. As far as I am concerned, those changes will probably be marginal and I shall be quite happy to settle for the date of 17th December. It is totally unfair that people who having heard a garbled version of a speech to police officers on 22nd September—misreported, not issued in a press release and not widely published—should be held to believe that that was exactly what was going to he in subsequent legislation. We are Parliament. Had it been made in a Statement to Parliament I would have accepted the 22nd September without question. I feel that I have a just case. I should like to hear the noble Earl's comments. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: With great respect to my noble friend Lord Brain, I feel that this amendment is unnecessary. I have a clear recollection of the Home Secretary's announcement on 22nd September to police officers. At that time Parliament was not sitting and so that was the only way in which his announcement could have been made public. It is quite clear in my recollection that self-loading rifles were specifically mentioned in that statement. I have a copy of it at home. The amendment is unnecessary.
Earl Ferrers: I find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Swansea. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 22nd September last year his intention to prohibit certain types of firearm. This Bill, which will give effect to this intention, was introduced in another place on 17th December. People owning such firearms had adequate warning about the Government's intentions, and it is our view that money should not be paid to those who chose to ignore this warning and to buy such firearms in the knowledge of the Government's intention. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, will agree that the Bill is right as it is.
Lord Monson: Were not many people on holiday on 22nd September last year? September is a normal

1439
time for people in this country to be on holiday. Is there any precedent for an announcement made to a body such as the Police Federation being treated as if it were holy writ or the equivalent of a parliamentary Statement or a White Paper?—Surely not.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The only way in which to meet the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would have been to recall Parliament for the purpose of making a Statement which would seem to me to be a considerable overreaction. The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, and the Minister have put forward an absolutely convincing argument to the amendment.
Lord Brain: I do not disagree with self-loading rifles. I believe that pump-action rifles were not mentioned. However, I have no wish to detain the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("section 1(2)") and insert ("sections 1(2) and 7").
The noble Lord said: The reason for inserting Clause 7 in addition to Clause 1(2) is to be found in the words at the top of page five of the Bill:
"would at any previous time have been such a weapon if those sections had then been in force".
This appears to indicate that if, prior to our dear date, the 22nd September, a self-loading rifle had been converted into a single-shot rifle, it would be caught by subsection (2)(b) whereas it would not have been caught by Clause 1(2). I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: This amendment seeks to include within the buy-in scheme for firearms which will become prohibited those firearms which, as the noble Lord said, have been converted to a lower classification under existing legislation, but which will revert to their Section 5 status under the terms of Clause 7 of the Bill. We do not believe that any great numbers of guns, which would generally be those converted from fully automatic to single-shot fire, are involved. However, it is clear that shooters who lawfully held such weapons prior to September 1987 may suffer a degree of financial loss in the same way as those who hold self-loading rifles.
I am prepared to give further consideration to the matter. I accept the point in principle, and if the Committee is content perhaps I can take it away and see whether it is possible to come back with a suitable amendment on Report.
Lord Brain: In view of the good news from the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 10, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Payments made by the Secretary of State under the scheme described in subsection (I) above shall be in accordance with the market value of such firearms.").
The noble Lord said: Before I say anything about the amendment, I must declare an interest in that my younger son—who manages a farm with me—was
1440
left three rifles by his father-in-law, who was a chief inspector of police in Inverness, and a very keen rifle shot. He will now have to give up one of them which I understand is a very valuable rifle.
Apart from that, I have received a letter from one of the club members who shoots on my farm in Essex in which he says that his automatic rifle is worth £1,000. I have heard from other people on the same matter who say that it is unfair to have an almost arbitrary figure as compensation when these rifles have to be given up. I suggest that surely it is fair to have the market value.
The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has tabled a similar amendment which follows mine, although it is worded somewhat complicatedly—if that is the right word. But I tried to make mine as simple as possible. I hope that the noble Earl will take account of this, because I know that many people will feel very badly done by when they give up their rifles. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I should like to support the amendment as far as it goes. I am afraid that there is a slight flaw in it. It says "the market value", but at what date is that market value set? After all, once the weapons have become illegal the market for them is considerably less. If the noble Lord had put in a value at a date before the Secretary of State's announcement that would have been a fair one. I think it would help if he were to insert a date, and perhaps he will consider this.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Burton is quite correct. The amendment as drafted would mean the value which the guns would currently fetch in the market place. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced his proposals last September and since then the market value of those guns—in the United Kingdom at least—has quite understandably plummeted. We can see therefore that the payment under this amendment would be far less than the Government are offering. If the payments are to represent fair recompense, we must consider the price which the guns would have fetched on the open market before my right honourable friend's announcement had the effect of depressing the prices.
That is precisely what the Government's scheme does, for the buy-in scheme is intended to take account of the market value of such guns immediately before my right honourable friend's announcement last September. In a large-scale scheme such as this, it is simply impossible to arrive at a subjective valuation for each individual gun concerned, and we have therefore produced a formula which we think will operate fairly in the majority of cases and reflect, as nearly as may be, the value of such guns to their owners. I suspect that it is that formula which is the cause of the misunderstanding.
We have said that we will pay 50 per cent. of the average retail value of guns prohibited under the Bill as at the end of the summer of 1987, with the option of a flat-rate sum of £150 for owners of self-loading rifles. The operative part is 50 per cent. of the retail value, not 50 per cent. of the market value. Those are two different things. The retail value is the price at which something sells. The market value is what the market—in other words, the dealer—will pay for it.

1441
Our formula is based on a careful analysis of market prices in the summer of 1987 and will, in most cases, give the owner the approximate market value of his gun at the tiime; that is to say, the price it would have fetched at auction or had he sold his gun to a dealer. That is the market value and not the retail value, which would include the dealer's profits and the handling charges. Clearly, we cannot ask the taxpayer to pay for them. I hope that that clarifies the position.
Lord John-Mackie: It does to a certain extent. What arc the Government going to do with all the rifles and guns? Arc they going to sell them for the market value and make a great deal more money?
Earl Ferrers: The police will dispose of them.
Lord John-Mackie: Where?
Earl Ferrers: Where the police normally dispose of such things.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Where is that?
Lord Torphichen: The police in Edinburgh recently had a problem over how they dispose of guns. It is not a certain thing.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: As that case came within my jurisdiction, I say to my noble friend that it was an exception which was the cause of a prosecution. That merely proves the general rule. The police dispose of weapons which come into their possession through forfeiture or otherwise.
Lord Torphichen: I entirely understand that. I hope that I did not say anything out of line.
Lord Burton: I wonder whether my noble and learned friend is entirely correct. Someone (who I think is now dead) had a fine collection of weapons which had been confiscated by the court. He bought them hack from the sheriff clerk. I know of another case where the sheriff clerk sold the weapon to the lawyer of the chap who had had it confiscated. The lawyer handed it back to the man who had had it confiscated. All he did was buy it back.
Lord John-Mackie: The Minister may say that the matter is clear, but the noble Lords, Lord Burton and Torphichen, did not make it all that clear. Despite that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne: moved Amendment No. 110:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Basis on which payments are to he made.
.—(1) Payments to be made under section 19 above shall be the open market value on the basis of a willing seller and a willing buyer, excluding therefrom any element of a trader's markup, on or before the 22nd September 1987 dependent upon the type and condition of the firearm surrendered.
(2) Payments to be made to registered firearms dealers shall be at the cost at which they acquired the relevant firearms, or shotguns without markup.
(3) The value of the firearm shall include the value of accessories forming an intergral or detachable part of the firearm or shotgun surrendered.").
The noble Viscount said: I am greatly helped by what my noble friend the Minister has just said. I shall try to avoid repeating what has been said, but I am still concerned about persons to whom the payments will be made. I should have spoken to Amendment No. 110 with Amendment No. 106, but they were not grouped together. Fifty per cent. of the average retail value sounds a generous figure superficially.
The previous clause to which I refer in the amendment provides that a scheme, the outline of which we have, will be set up. It is rather akin to the Chancellor's Budget Statement. If one is a tax accountant one usually gets it wrong. When one sees the small print one has to reform one's initial ideas. The amendment is moved partly blindfold.
I hope that what the amendment tries to achieve will be considered effective by my noble friend. I have spelt out the right level of compensation as that at a time when the market had not been affected by impending knowledge of the statement made on or about 22nd September. On the basis of a willing seller and a willing buyer what that weapon dealer should have received must then be decided. If he should have received the retail value of the weapon, then, to be fair, that is the price of the compensation. The figure should not be too difficult to find out. I hope that before Report stage my noble friend Lord Ferrers will tell us the exact basis for arriving at 50 per cent. of the average retail value being the equivalent of an equation he has calculated in relation to the market value.
At the momemt, it is impossible to draw any conclusions. We have to accept with reservations what the Minister has said. I entirely support the previous amendment in its spirit and intention. Subsection (2) of the amendment which I am moving includes payments made to registered firearms dealers. These persons had bought the weapons—they were not prohibited at the time—with a view to re-selling them. I hope that they are included in the word "persons" under the Bill.
The other aspect which has not been addressed concerns the accessories purchased with the weapon. Very often, I am given to understand, the weapon that might have had to be surrendered will be the only one that person had. He was not privileged to own a pair of shotguns. I know they are not prohibited, but my point is that he was not privileged to have a great legal armoury at his disposal. He had one legal gun. And he should receive fair compensation. I would not go so far as to say that what my noble friend on the Front Bench has suggested is outright pillage—or even pillage. But it is a very sharp market price which a dealer would give. Some might have to give more. I think that in this case I would need further convincing that compensation at 50 per cent. is fair. I hope that my noble friend will give more information before Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I must support my noble friend's amendment. The basis of compensation already announced is parsimonious beyond belief. I doubt whether the Home Secretary really appreciates how much the owners of these firearms paid for them in the first instance. Many could have cost anything up

1443
to £1,000. When accessories are included—stainless steel barrel, bipod, flash hider and whatever—the sum is considerable. An owner told me not long ago that the cost to him had been about £4,000. Even allowing for the trader's markup, half the rental value of that rifle would barely be sufficient.
It is surprising, I think, that there is no mention in the Bill of dealers with stocks of such firearms bought in good faith. The owners who have them at present bought them in good faith; they have owned them legally. If the Government are going to tell them that they can no longer have them, they must be prepared to pay fair compensation. The dealers should also be entitled to fair compensation.
As regards subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, some accessories, as my noble friend said, are dedicated. That means that they are suitable for a particular firearm but for no other make of firearm. If the firearm itself is taken away from its present legal owner, he is left with a number of accessories which are quite useless to him because they will not fit any other rifle. I hope that my noble friend will give careful thought to this amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: The noble Viscount has made out a superb case for the amendment. I remember well the searing criticism that emanated from the Conservative Front Bench over Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn's derisory compensation terms for the naval shipbuilders at the time of the 1976 Act. If I remember rightly the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was one of those whose criticism was particularly scathing. Surely the Government do not wish to incur the same odium that that Labour Government incurred.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As I said on Second Reading, and as I hardly need to repeat, I am wholly persuaded of the need for the Bill. But I indicated on Second Reading that I had some doubts about the compensation terms. I realise that the noble Earl will not be in a position to move this evening on this question because it is really a matter for the Treasury rather than the Home Office. But I hope that he will represent to the Home Secretary that there remains some disquiet on this question. I very much hope that he will he able to come back with something rather better at a later stage of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Swansea said that the compensation arrangements were parsimonious beyond belief. He said that people should be paid what they paid for the weapon in the first place. I think that is really extending logic a bit far. If my noble friend goes and buys a car and uses it for 12 months or two years he cannot really be expected to be given the same price as he paid for the car. He can expect to receive the price at which the car would have sold had he sold it.
We have said that it would be unreasonable to pay the selling value of the weapon, in other words the cost that the person would pay for the weapon if he went and bought it from a shop because that would include the dealer's profit and the markup.
Lord Swansea: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend. I did not say that the owner should be
1444
compensated to the tune of the price he paid for the firearm. Perhaps I should have elaborated on that point. I did not suggest that the owner should receive what he paid for the weapon. At the same time the compensation could he calculated on the basis of the current value which could be gained, for example, from advertisements in the shooting press and various trade sources.
Earl Ferrers: We are making a survey of the prices that these weapons commanded last summer to see what they were. My noble friend will know that there are a whole host of weapons of all different types which could have compensation paid for them. When these weapons are sent in, we shall be able to find out their price. It will be 50 per cent. of the price which pertained before my right honourable friend's statement was made. I do not believe that is parsimonious. To give 50 per cent. of the retail price is a reasonable shot at the market price. I accept that one will never get the thing absolutely 100 per cent. right, but I think that is as near as we can reasonably get.
My noble friend Lord Dilhorne asked whether we would compensate dealers. My noble friend Lord Swansea was concerned about that. He said that they had quite reasonably and rightly purchased these weapons in order to sell them. That is perfectly true, but dealers are in a different position from private individuals. Trading in any commodity carries with it an inherent commercial risk. In any case dealers will be much better placed than private individuals to dispose of their guns on the international market. They will have the advantage of dealing in bulk, too. Therefore, I do not think that the outlets for dealers are as constricted as are the outlets for individuals. That is the reason why we think it proper to compensate individuals but not dealers.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Does the noble Earl mean that although dealers can sell those illegal arms abroad, the police, having taken possession of such arms from private individuals, will destroy them? Will they be allowed to sell the weapons to dealers abroad? That is not entirely clear.
Earl Ferrers: I shall endeavour to make it totally clear. Dealers are entitled to sell weapons abroad which are legal abroad but which are illegal in this country. They have access to the international market. The police will not sell the weapons they take in. Those weapons will be smelted.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am very disappointed by the response of the Front Bench to my amendment. The car analogy seems to me to be a bad one. There are many occasions on which the value of a car goes up. That is not taken into consideration. Another aspect about which I am not clear is the example given by my noble friend Lord Swansea. He said that he had heard of a man who had bought a rifle and spent a lot of money on it, thereby making it a better rifle. Will that person obtain the average price for an average bottom-end model of the rifle that he bought?
My noble friend has said nothing about accessories. As regards compensation to firearms dealers, dealers may not be in the preferential

1445
position that my noble friend asserts. They will be trying to sell their products in what one might call an SLR lake in Europe. The traders will know that a lot of SLRs will be coming along. Being traders, they will give a low price and dealers will have to part with them for very little. That will be caused by the Government's action. My noble friend has said nothing about why dealers should be treated differently from individuals. They are both persons. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Firearms consultative committee]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 10, line 31, leave out ("less") and insert ("more").
The noble Lord said: Clause 20 brings us to the very important matter of the Firearms Consultative Committee. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was particularly scathing at Second Reading about this very emasculated committee. Many other noble Lords echoed him. I am delighted to have the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, as well as that of my noble friend Lord Dilhornc, associated with mine in some of my later amendments to the clause.
The series of amendments is proposed in order to give the committee some teeth by two methods. The first is controlling the membership, and the second is giving the committee something to do. Amendment No. 112 would stop the committee from becoming a talking shop. There are many fringe organisations which might be represented on it. A number of people say that a committee of one is the right answer. However, I believe that a committee of 13 is absolutely adequate. Therefore, the amendment, which removes the word "less" and substitutes the word "more", means that the figure of 13 will not be exceeded. The committee may actually get someting done and not simply become an enormous conglomerate, talking a lot of rubbish and wasting a lot of time. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I support the amendment. It seems slightly unfortunate to me that there is no grouping of amendments on the clause. However, it is important, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon said at Second Reading, that the committee should not be an emasculated body with no powers other than those the Secretary of State cares to give it. It should be an effective committee. The smaller the committee the better. I support the amendment.
Viscount Dilhorne: I should also like to support this amendment, vigorously and fully. I have put down a later amendment in which I have jiggled with the numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is quite right. It is a pity that we could not have combined them and put in one amendment rather than the other.
I believe that a number such as that proposed will enable the committee to make proper decisions, provided that there is not a preponderance—an in-house loading, one might call it—of the Home Office,
1446
the military and the police over all other comers. That point comes out in another amendment. I support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: It is always difficult to strike the right balance in any committee. We do not want an arbitrary restriction on the size of the committee which might prejudice its ability to represent fully the various interests. We want to strike a balance between a very small unrepresentative group and one that was so big as to be unwieldy and incapable of ever coming to a view on anything. If we cut the committee down a number of interest groups would turn round and say it is not fair because they are not represented. We have heard, particularly at Second Reading, that certain interests ought to be represented. If we cut it down many of those interests could say that they are not represented. If we make it too large it may be unwieldy.
The only reason we have put this figure in the Bill is because we think it is a reasonable figure which will give the committee a broad spectrum of views without its being too large.
The Earl of Swinton: I am rather flabbergasted by my noble friend's answer, because it seems to me that the committee could be any size. If it cannot be fewer than 12 there is no reason why it should not be 112 or 1,012. It seems to me a very strange answer indeed. I hope that my noble friend will give me an indication as to how many people he thinks might he on the committee.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend will realise that my right honourable friend is not an idiot and will not make the committee hopelessly unwieldy with over 100 members or anything like that. The object is to have a committee of reasonable size. If one makes it fewer than 12 I think that most people would agree that it will be too small. All we say is, let it be more than 12. I cannot tell my noble friend at this moment whether it will be 14 or 13, 18 or 25. However, it will not be unwieldy.
The Earl of Swinton: I am not particularly happy but at this hour of the night I would not want to do anything other than withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("one or more or) and insert (", and representing a fair balance of interest between,").
The noble Earl said: In a way I have been rather overtaken by the reply which my noble friend gave in respect of the last amendment which I moved. It was my hope that the members of the committee would be appointed for their acknowledged competence and not as representatives of a large number of organisations and interests. I am afraid that he has rather shot that one before I got round to it.
The amendment seeks to help in this way and ensure that the committee is not overbalanced in one direction. I beg to move.
Viscount Dilhorne: I also support this amendment. I think that this is almost a more important

1447
amendment that the previous one moved by my noble friend Lord Swinton.
It is very important that there should not be an imbalance on the committee in favour of the Home Office, the police or the military, or people who will represent the Civil Service in one form or another. It must have on it an equal number of independent people representing a certain number of bodies. They must have certain powers. I hope that before we reach Report stage we shall have a better idea of how the committee will work, what its terms of reference will be and therefore some idea of what it will try to achieve.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not entertain quite the same dark suspicions of the present Home Secretary as do some noble Lords opposite. I think that it will be his desire to have a reasonable, balanced committee. Frankly, if the committee is to have any position and acquire any kind of reputation, it will only do so if it represents an honest gathering of the various specialist groups who have knowledge of the subject as well as some independent persons who do not have any involvement with the shooting interests, the Home Office or the police.
In such a situation I think that it is right to leave this matter to the Home Secretary. The Home Office has a great deal of experience in appointing committees of this kind and very rarely is there argument afterwards about the composition of the membership.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have rarely heard a more convincing argument for the amendment than has been produced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. He said that the Home Office would never do anything other than produce a fair balance of interests. In those circumstances no doubt the noble Earl will accept the amendment.
Lord Burton: I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on this occasion. One point that has not yet been made concerns the appointment of the chairman. I think that he certainly needs to be an independent person and one of some standing. I would suggest that someone like a retired judge would be ideal.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Swinton said that he did not want people on the committee to represent anything but that he wanted them to be people of broad knowledge. Yet my noble friend Lord Dilhorne said that he wanted a balance of interests. It is difficult to get the balance quite right.
Turning for one minute to the Bill, the Committee will see that it states that the Home Secretary will appoint such persons:
"appearing to him to have knowledge and experience of one or more of the following matters—

(a) the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in firearms;

(b) weapon technology; and

(c) the administration or enforcement".

It does not say that they have to represent those interests. All that they have to do is to have knowledge of them. It would not be good enough to put on the committee a person who is a cat owner, because he may not have any knowledge or interest in
1448
those three areas. It may well be that he is a cat owner as well as having a knowledge of those subjects, but the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the members of the committee should have an interest in one of those areas.
Lord Swansea: The shooting interests regard the consultative committee as of the greatest importance because it could obviate many of the arguments and discussions that have taken place in the past. The Committee will remember that in the Standing Committee in another place the amendment to set up this committee was carried against the Government's wish. At the next stage of the Bill in another place the Government amended the provisions relating to this committee, removed most of its powers and left it relatively toothless.
It is most important that it should be properly constituted and represent all interests so that no one interest is in a small minority and is permanently outvoted by the others. It should also be of a manageable size—not too large—and carry out its duties as originally intended.
There are a number of amendments to this clause on the Marshalled List and I hope that it will help to expedite our proceedings if we include some of the other amendments in our discussion on this one.
The Earl of Swinton: I am not terribly pleased with the reply and may well come back at Report stage, but at this advanced hour of the night I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 10, line 37, at end insert—
("and
(d) sport, recreation and competition.").
The noble Earl said: This carries on the issue very much in the same vein but I think that this is a most important amendment. Clause 20(1)(b) will certainly enable forensic experts to sit on this committee and Clause 20(1)(c) will certainly allow the police to be represented. Clause 20(1)(a) is far too wide—although I do not advocate its removal—and I am sure my noble friend will say that it includes those with a knowledge of sport, recreation and competition. It is essential to have on the committee people with knowledge of sport, recreation and competition, and this should be shown on the face of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: I cannot help but find my noble friend's argument quite amusing, if I may say so. A short while ago he said that he wanted the committee to be nice and small so that it could make progress. He then said that people must not represent any particular interests. He now puts forward an amendment that a particular interest should be represented. The fact is that sport, recreation and competition are all covered under Clause 20(1)(a). It was the intention that they should be covered under the clause. Many people of course are not specifically referred to. There is no reference to farmers, gamekeepers, pest controllers and those involved in land management, all of whom have an interest. Once one starts to specify one category of people that must

1449
be represented, ipso facto, one excludes others by implication.
I hope that my noble friend will accept my assurance that my right honourable friend is fully seized of the desire to ensure that those interests are represented. It is for that reason that the clause has been drawn up as presently drafted.
Earl Peel: I support my noble friend Lord Swinton. Sport and recreation constitute the greatest use of firearms in the country. As I said on Second Reading, it is all very well to have on the committee people who understand the technical side of weaponry, but there must also be people who appreciate how it will be used in practice on the field. The inclusion of the words proposed would strengthen the committee enormously.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am sure that my noble friend the Minister knows exactly what my noble friend Lord Swinton means when he describes the type of person that he wishes to have on the committee. They are people with a good, broad outlook and understanding. I suspect that my noble friend means that he does not want a lot of technical boffins sitting there scratching their heads and arguing technicalities about muzzle energy, and so on. There is no difference between what I said earlier and what he now says about competition. It is important that the committee should be comprised of people with broad views who enjoy the sport of competition shooting and the use of firearms and shotguns.
Earl Ferrers: There is no suggestion that the people on the committee will not be broad-minded and people of experience. Of course they will be. Those qualities do not necessarily rest only in people involved in sport, recreation and competition; others can have such qualities.
It is our intention to have a committee that is sound and effective with people of good, broad knowledge. If one category of person is to be represented, then what about dealers, (who are important people), manufacturers of the weapons, defence manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, who are all deeply involved with weapons? I just hope that my noble friend will accept my assurances which arc given in good faith that the interests which he is concerned to see represented are covered by the wording of the Bill.
The Earl of Swinton: I believe I am more puzzled by my noble friend who found me amusing. I find his argument somewhat strange when he talks about dealers. Surely they are the very people who are specified as being in,
"the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms".
I should have thought that anybody who transacted in firearms was probably a dealer. My noble friend also mentioned weapon manufacturers. Surely they are covered by "weapon technology". I do not understand the purpose of paragraphs (a), (b) or even (c). One might just as well say that these people
"have some knowledge of the field of firearms".
I feel that the Bill affects above all—as my noble friend Lord Peel said, and I am grateful for his intervention—people who shoot for pleasure,
1450
recreation, sport, game or target shooting. They are the kind of people who are being punished by the Bill. They are the one kind of person who should be spelled out on this Firearms Consultative Committee.
Will my noble friend agree to have another look at this, otherwise I feel very strongly inclined to divide the Committee?
Lord Burton: I can remember many years ago when noble Lords set up a committee on firefighting in woodland. I was put on that committee and found myself a lone voice with many firemen and civil servants who were quite determined that there should not be any change. I believe that we want to be very careful that this committee is not established on the same kind of basis.
Earl Ferrers: I find myself in some difficulty here because I do not know how to explain any more clearly to my noble friend what is intended by the clause. I have told him that the interests that he wishes to have represented are already covered. He wants that written into the Bill. It is always possible to write anything into a Bill, but if that is done it is automatically assumed to exclude others. I shall certainly consider this point because I realise what my noble friend is concerned about, but I cannot give any guarantee that I shall come up with a magical answer because I believe that he might be guilty of putting into the Bill just one section of people and specifying them particularly. But I shall certainly look at it.
The Earl of Swinton: People are specifically put in now under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). However at the same time my noble friend has said that he will consider the matter and with that undertaking I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 10, line 38, at beginning insert—
("( ) The membership of the committee shall consist of representatives drawn from subsection (1) above, amongst whom will be represented the Home Office, the Police, serving members of the armed forces, firearms and shotgun users and their associations such that the representatives of the Home Office, Her Majesty's Constabulary of Police past or present and serving members of the armed forces shall not exceed fifty per cent. of the total membership of the committee; furthermore,

(a) the Chairman thereof shall be elected by a majority of the votes cast by the full committee and in the event of a split decision the duly elected Chairman shall exercise a casting vote to determine the matter at issue; and

(b) ").

The noble Viscount said: I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 123 because the two go together. I have very little to say on this at this stage of the night and after what has already been said. This is an initial attempt to try to lay out the formation of that committee without condescending to say how the other 50 per cent. is likely to be made up. The pith and moment of what I have to put down I have already stated. It is very important to see that there is not a preponderance of the Home Office and the police on the committee so that they have the

1451
casting vote and the weight on it. They do not really then have to take too much account—or they only have to take account of how much they want to—of the other representations made.
Amendment No. 123 is intentionally proposed to give an unfettered discretion to the committee to get advice from other prople if they wish, to invite people to attend upon it and to answer certain questions. Obviously people do not have to participate, but I should imagine that if there is a difficult matter that has to be discussed that provision would be of great benefit. It would have been of great benefit if the committee had existed before the Bill came into effect and those procedures had been followed. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: In view of the Government's position, which I have already stated, on the composition of the Firearms Consultative Committee, I do not believe that Amendent No. 116 is necessary.
We have made it clear that the committee will embrace the shooting interests, the gun trade, the police and the home departments. We have also made clear, that we envisage that the chairman will be a person of independent standing rather than a representative of any particular interest. It is not intended that the choice of chairman should be left to the committee. I believe that to do so will cause only more difficulties if, as is suggested by the amendment, he is given a casting vote.
Given the wide variety of interests which may be represented, it is conceivable that the committee may find itself unable to appoint a chairman. It would then never get off the ground. I believe that it is right for my right honourable friend to find a person of stature to be the chairman of the committee.
Amendment No. 123 seeks to give the committee the right to consult experts outside its membership. However, it already has this power. There is nothing to stop it from seeking specialist advice from whatever quarter. Members of the Committee will appreciate that the committee will be be made up of people who are expert in this field. In the unlikely event of supplementary advice being required, it will talk to the appropriate people. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to give it statutory power to do so.
Viscount Dilhorne: When I tabled the amendment it was necessary to be speculative about what I now discover has been disclosed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. There was a lack of any provision stating the way in which the committee would be made up—it was couched only in the broadest of terms—and therefore I felt it necessary to draw that cover in order to discover his intention.
I am pleased to hear that the committee will have the power which I drafted in Amendment No. 123. At this time of night I am reassured by what my noble friend has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 117:
Page line 3, leave out ("(c)").
The noble Viscount said: This is a small amendment and it is self-explanatory. When there is a committee consisting of people who will have knowledge of the use or keeping, or transacting in, firearms, and of weapon technology, manufacturing, dealers and so forth, I do not understand why one of the Committee's functions should not be:
"the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)",
as opposed to subsection (1)(c). I beg to move.
Viscount Dilhorne: I wish to support the amendment although I shall not speak to it at length because of the time of night. My noble friend's remarks appear to have a great deal of sense and for that reason I put my name to the amendment. It appears extraordinary that in subsection (4)(a) only one paragraph, (c), is applied. One looks to see what (c) stands for and it is:
"the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act".
I can see no reason why that should have a preponderance, particularly after the amendment recently moved by my noble friend Lord Swinton to include a paragraph (d). Nor do I see why paragraph (c) should have a preference over either paragraphs (a) or (b). I do not think that more can be said. If it is deleted it would make a great deal of sense and not give an indication that there is one form of interest which has a greater sway over the others in the structure of the committee. Perhaps it is for that reason that other amendments have been tabled.
Earl Ferrers: If my noble friend were to look at the Bill he would see that:
"It shall be the function of the committee … to keep under review the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c)".
My noble friend wishes to remove subsection (1)(c). We are specifically referring to the provisions of the 1968 and 1982 Acts. Only subsection (1)(c) makes any mention of those provisions. Therefore, to leave out subsection 1(c), as the amendment suggests, would be a nonsense. The committee will still retain ample scope to consider matters relating to the development, possession and use of firearms as they arise.
Viscount Dilhorne: Perhaps the noble Earl will give way. His reference to the principal Act is extraordinary because Clause 20 makes no reference at all to that. It is a homeless persons clause. There is no reference to where it is to be found in the principal Act. We are left in glorious, excited expectation of how it is to be fitted into the Act. I remind my noble friend that the Bill is entitled:
"An Act to amend the Firearms Act 1968".
There is no reference as to how it is to be fitted into the Act. My noble friend has cited a reference to that Act which the clause does not provide.
Earl Ferrers: I am hesitant to take issue with my noble friend who is a distinguished lawyer. However, if he looks at Clause 20 1(c) he will read,

1453
"the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act".
The principal Act is referred to.
Viscount Mountgarret: I do not understand it all. When we get the legal profession at it, I become completely lost. I should have thought it would be a good idea for the committee to consider every aspect of anything to do with guns. However, if my noble friend does not like that, so be it. Perhaps he might like to think again about the matter. I should have thought it made sense. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 11, line 7, leave out ("if requested by the Secretary of State to do so,").
The noble Earl said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 119. The amendments are not grouped together but they cover the same point. I cannot understand the reference in Clause 20(4)(b).
"if requested by the Secretary of State to do so".
Clause 20(4)(a) states,
"to keep under review the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above and to make to the Secretary of State such recommendations as the committee may from time to time think necessary for the improvement of the working of those provisions".
Therefore, the committee can look at the provisions, decide that some are not working very well or should be working better and may then recommend to the Secretary of State that they should be improved. However, it cannot make proposals about improvements unless requested by the Secretary of State to do so. This is an absolute nonsense. The committee cannot do its job properly. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I strongly support the amendment together with Amendment No. 119 and, when we come to it, Amendment No. 121. I suggest that these are almost the most important amendments to the clause with the possible exception of Amendment No. 122 which refers to the code of conduct.
The Government are proposing a committee which has no power at all. It is a sort of emasculated, toothless animal which cannot do anything unless the Secretary of State chooses to ask it to do so. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said,
"if requested by the Secretary of State to do so"
is pointless. It makes the situation absolutely absurd. The committee has advised itself of what is necessary but cannot tell the Secretary of State until he asks. It is like a letter saying "I would think of asking you to this if you would first say yes; and if you would reply that you might he minded to say yes, we will then ask you the question". It is an absolute absurdity. The same could be said about referring to the committee. There is nothing to stop the Secretary of State referring any matter he wishes to the committee, but why on earth cannot the committee go to the Secretary of State and say, "We thought of this; can we ask you to consider it?" The drafting of the clause is absurd.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: This is one of those rare occasions when I find I am not in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I give him an example which will, I hope, indicate to him that what he said does not carry a great deal of weight.
One of the errors made by the present Government when they first came into office in 1979 was to abolish the Advisory Council on the Penal System. It was a body which had won remarkable respect, and I believe most people in the area of criminal justice policy mourned its passing. However, it could only consider matters which were referred to it by the Secretary of State. It was not, as a result of that, an entirely toothless organisation. It had substantial support from a wide section of those connected with criminal justice policy. In short, I do not believe that by this amendment the committee will be made a more worthwhile organisation. The experience of the Advisory Council on the Penal Systems indicates that that would not be so.
Lord Swansea: It is highly important that this committee shoud be able to exercise some initiative of its own and not deal just with such matters as are referred to it by the Secretary of State. It is conceivable that at some time in the future a Secretary of State may feel that there is a point which might give rise to some embarrassment to him or his department and therefore refrains from referring it to the committee. It could be swept under the carpet for ever. Therefore, it is most important that there should be two-way traffic and that the committee should be able to make proposals to the Secretary of State on its own initiative.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I come back for a moment to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. There is no similarity between a committee looking at the whole of penal affairs and a committee considering a firearms Act and its operation. We need only consider what we have done in the past 12 months with the Criminal Justice Bill, which did not go over the whole aspect of criminal law, and perhaps the 400-odd Commons amendments which we have to consider on Friday. That is a far wider sphere and therefore there is logic in saying that the Home Secretary only refers certain matters to such a committee and does not give it a wide brief. In this case the committee is operating in a restricted sphere and can surely think for itself.
Lord Monson: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that this is an important amendment and that without it the committee will, in effect, be emasculated. If we successfully insist on the amendment tonight we should also accept the following amendment, No. 119, without which the clause will be somewhat defective.
Lord Burton: I support the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. There is just one point to add. This is a technical subject. It is important that the technicalities are considered. It is possible that the Secretary of State and perhaps some of his advisers are not aware of those technicalities.
Earl Ferrers: The interesting fact about this Committee is that one can never be certain on any amendment who is going to side with whom. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was on his own but I am grateful to him for saying that even with the Bill drafted as it is, in his view at least it is not the emasculated, toothless animal which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, believes it is. One could hardly think of a more hideous description. However, I see what he is trying to get at.
I do not believe that the committee is as toothless as is made out. It is for the committee to make an annual report, and it can say in that report exactly what it likes, whether the matter has been referred to it by the Home Secretary or not. It is perfectly entitled to say it thinks that certain actions should be taken. That decision will be taken to Parliament for it to be discussed if Parliament thinks fit. We are anxious to get the committee to work well and to be successful. I can understand what my noble friend's amendment seeks to do. He wishes the committee to have the power to look at matters without being requested to do so by the Secretary of State. It seems a reasonable amendment and I am happy to accept it.
12 midnight
Viscount Mountgarret: This is the second time this evening that I have been flabbergasted. I certainly say that my noble friend Lord Ferrers is not a toothless and emaciated Minister. I am very pleased that he has taken this course, and I am delighted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 11, line 8, after ("provisions") insert ("if it thinks fit").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is consequential to the previous one and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 11, line 8, after ("provisions") insert—
("( ) to advise the Secretary of State regarding guidelines for Chief Constables relating to the issue, renewal or revoking of firearm and shotgun certificates;").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment is quite clear. I believe it to be a good idea for this function to be spelt out specifically so that the committee has it in front of it. I shall be interested to hear whether that meets with approval. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that subsection (4)(a) already adequately covers this point by allowing the committee to make such recommendations as it thinks necessary for the improvement of the working of the controls. That covers the point that my noble friend seeks to make.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am sorry, but perhaps I did not say as much as I should have done on that point. There is a wide disparity of views among chief constables when they come to consider the granting or otherwise of shotgun and firearms certificates. It might be constructive and helpful to constabularies
1456
to have the guidelines laid down and this would be a function of the committee. I wonder whether it is covered as well under subsection (4)(a) as my noble friend suggested.
Earl Ferrers: I can say only that my noble friend can wonder. I am advised that his wonderment is unnecessary because it is covered. I do not know how I can help my noble friend any further. The point that he seeks to make is covered in the Bill
Viscount Mountgarret: I am grateful to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("which he may refer to the committee").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to when supporting Amendment No. 118. We have had the argument on this and it is the mirror image of Amendment No. 118 which the Minister accepted. Without further argument, I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the need for this amendment is not so clear when subsection (4)(a) already allows the committee ample scope to make recommendations in the working of the firearms control. The sole purpose of subsection (4)(c) is to enable my right honourable friend to seek the advice of the committee on virtually any matter connected with firearms control where he sees a need for it. There may be a few areas where it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to seek advice from the committee for the reason that there are areas where it is inappropriate for him to act whether by means of legislation, guidance or advice or whatever. One such matter is the operational discretion and control of a chief constable. It would be unacceptable that the committee should be able to offer advice on matters on that kind.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not want to be too technical and legal at this time in the morning but subsection 4(a) entitles the committee,
"to keep under review the working of the provisions"
and to make recommendations that the committee thinks necessary for the improvement of the working of the provisions. Subsection (4)(c) is related not only to the working of the provisions but to anything relating to the provisions. In considering the working of the provisions it may come to something on which it might want to advise the Secretary of State relating to the provisions and not particularly to the working of the provisions. Therefore I can see no reason why it should not do so. Under the clause as it stands it cannot do so unless the Secretary of State refers it. That is why I said the amendment is the mirror image of the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. It seems to me that there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State referring to it without the power and there is a reason why the committee should be able to advise that there is something relating to the provisions without the Secretary of State having to ask it. That is why I move the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I see that point but I do not believe that it is a mirror image. Subsection (4)(b) allows the committee to make proposals for amending those provisions. Subsection (4)(c) requires the committee,
"to advise the Secretary of State on any other matter relating to those provisions which he may refer to the committee".
There are certain matters such as the instructions which he gives to chief constables which are very much the responsibility of the Home Secretary. I do not think that this is quite the mirror image that the noble Lord thinks. Perhaps I may write to him about that after I have clarified the position a little more.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 11, line 10, at end insert—
("(4A) The Consultative Committee shall prepare, and shall revise from time to time as they think fit, a code of practice for users of firearms on—

(a) security and safekeeping of firearms;

(b) the proper use of firearms; and

(c) such other matters as the Secretary of State shall determine.

(4B) When the Committee propose to issue the code, or amendments thereto, it shall transmit a draft to the Secretary of State who shall—

(a) if he approves it, lay it before both Houses of Parliament; and

(b) if he does not approve of it, publish details of his reasons for withholding approval.

(4C) If the draft is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the Code and it shall come into effect.
(4D) In all criminal and civil proceedings any such code shall he admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to he relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.").
The noble Earl said: This is an important amendment even at this hour of the morning. We heard much during the first day of the Committee of the Government's much publicised memorandum of guidance. It seems like a year ago but it was only on Monday evening and night of this week. My noble friend Lord Ferrers made much of the fact that it is to be published. We also heard that this will have no force in law. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out that each chief of police has a unique power in his own area and because we do not have a national police force we cannot control them centrally. I hope and believe that this code of practice, through constant reference to it by the courts, will gradually establish common standards and practice across the country and will make things better as it goes on.
This amendment has followed the precedents of the Employment Protection Act 1975 which permits ACAS to issue a code of practice except that if the code is approved by both Houses of Parliament the Secretary of State in this instance rather than the committee will be responsible for issuing it. Subsection (4)(d) comes straight from Section 67(11) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I therefore believe that this amendment is technically correct as well as highly desirable. It will give the
1458
committee some real teeth and will help with a code throughout the country. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support the amendment. It is highly important and it could lead to much greater uniformity of practice thoughout the country. This is one of the biggest problems to bedevil shooting interests in different parts of the country. We have discussed this many times with Home Office officials. A chief constable has very wide discretion in his area. It is quite understandable that different chief constables apply and interpret the law in widely differing ways. That fact is recognised by the Home Office which says that the chief constable has such discretion.
On the other hand, the chief constable may say that he is bound by the Home Office guidelines. So the poor shooter is in a pig-in-the-middle situation which cannot he good for anyone. If a code of practice, such as the one suggested here, was established it would go a long way towards improving the situation.
On security and safekeeping, some chief constables have tried to lay down detailed specifications; for example, steel cupboards. They have specified cupboards and materials which are not commonly available on the market. Again, some chief constables have tried to lay down unreasonable territorial conditions for the use of firearms. Those are just two examples of ways in which the code of conduct could be most useful. Therefore I strongly support the amendment.
Viscount Dilhorne: I too should like to support the amendment. However, there are one or two things about which I am not quite clear. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to help me. I am delighted to see in subsection (4C) that this will be done by resolution, by means of a statutory instrument. If that is the case, I wonder why there is provision in subsection (4D) for the code to be "admissable in evidence". Surely, once it has been passed by this place and comes into effect by means of a resolution, that makes it perfectly good law.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The obvious answer to the point raised by the noble Viscount is that one should think of the Highway Code. It is issued, but can only be referred to in evidence as setting a standard because of the Road Traffic Act. It is only a code of practice; it does not have the force of law. I strongly support the amendment which would add a code and lay down standards. I hope that the Government are minded to accept that there should be such a code.
Lord Burton: I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Swansea said. However, I am a little bit worried that the amendment as it is presently worded would not in fact do what the noble Lord requires. It refers to,
"a code of practice for users".
I think that if it was a code of practice on firearms then we might get uniformity throughout the country. But, so far as I can see, it will have no effect whatsoever on the way that the law is administered by different constabularies in different parts of the country.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to ask one question in this respect because I think that it might be the only opportunity in the proceedings to do so. We were assured by my noble friend the Minister that the Firearms Rules of 1969 would be revised in tandem with this Bill. Is there any chance of this revision being produced before we reach Report stage?
Earl Ferrers: The amendment would give the committee the added responsibility of preparing and subsequently revising a code of practice for firearms users, which would be approved by the Secretary of State and by Parliament. Obviously the safe use of firearms should be encouraged. But I am not sure that it would be easy to produce such guidance as the amendment envisages; it is possible that this could end up in conflict with the guidance which has been given to the police. If the code were admissible in court it could be construed as having the force of law and the committee might inadvertently be usurping the proper function of the Government in putting forward law for approval by Parliament. It could conflict with the chief officer's role in the enforcement of firearms legislation.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not understand the point that the Minister has just made. If the code is prepared, it cannot be approved by Parliament unless the Secretary of State approves it first. I do not see how the Secretary of State could approve something which contradicted the guidelines that he was issuing to chief officers of police. Perhaps I am not following the Minister's argument. It seemed to me that there was inconsistency. If one looks at subsection (4B) one sees that the Secretary of State has to approve the code before Parliament can have a look at it.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Morton, was following me perfectly. If he had contained himself a little longer I might have been able to explain the problem to him. Subsection (4B)(b) provides:
"When the Committee propose to issue the code, or amendments thereto, it shall transmit a draft to the Secretary of State who shall—

(b) if he does not approve of it. publish details of his reasons for withholding approval".

That is fairly important because everyone then knows why the Secretary of State does not agree with the committee's proposals. He could he pilloried for not so agreeing. I do not know that that is a good thing.
The code may, for instance, say that the weapons should be kept under lock and key. When the chief officer visits some premises he may find that while the weapons are kept under lock and key the lock and key are so flimsy that the whole thing is insecure. It is possible that he could bring a prosecution, and the defendant might say, "This should not have been done, because I have kept the weapon in accordance with the code". It detracts from the authority of the chief officer of police to ensure that the weapons are looked after properly. I give that as an example.
I understand the point that the Committee is anxious to make. I do not believe that this set of proposals is correct.
The Earl of Swinton: I am grateful to all noble Lords from all sides of the Committee, especially the noble Lord, Lord Morton who have spoken in support of the amendment. I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend Lord Balfour as to when the memorandum will be published. It is a matter for my noble friend. He may want to answer now; he may not.
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry. I meant to refer to that point. The answer is that I am afraid that the memorandum will not be published by the Report stage.
The Earl of Swinton: My noble friend questioned the provision in subsection (4B)(b) which states:
"if he does not approve of it, publish details of his reasons for withholding approval".
That comes straight out of the Employment Protection Act 1975 under which ACAS proposed to issue a code of practice.
I quote from Section 6(4):
"If the Service determines to proceed with the draft, it shall transmit the draft to the Secretary of State who shall—

(a) if he approves of it, lay it before both Houes of Parliament; and

(b) if he does not approve of it, publish details of his reasons for withholding approval".

At least one of my noble friend's right honourable friends has to put up with that provision. He seems to live with it, and I am not sure why the Home Secretary could not live with it.
Having said that, I believe that the amendment has merit. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Burton that it may not be properly drafted with regard to the practice for users of firearms. I shall have a look at what my noble friend has said. I may well return on Report with a similar amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment. I shall take into account the point that the Committee has made and look at the matter before the next stage.
The Earl of Swinton: I am even more grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
("(4A) The Secretary of State shall consult with the Committee on any proposals to amend the principal Act or this Act or orders made under these Acts").
The noble Earl said: I think this amendment is absolutely self-explanatory. Had the Secretary of State had to consult the committee before introducing this Bill, the Government might have had a much easier ride in getting it through both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I have no doubt that the government of the day would consult the committee, which is after all a recognised body of experts on the administration of the Act, just as the Government

1461
have consulted members of the shooting organisations about this Bill. I do not believe that this need be a statutory requirement.
Lord Swansea: If that is the case, one might ask why the Government did not do precisely that in relation to the proposals in the present Bill, before the Home Secretary announced his conclusions in September.
Earl Ferrers: With respect, that is a different matter. What I said was that I have no doubt that if there was a change or if the Home Secretary wished to change the law he would consult the committee about changing it. That is totally different from deciding that the law should be changed.
The Earl of Swinton: I am quite happy with my noble friend's answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 11, line 12 at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may make to members of the committee such payments as he may determine in respect of expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties.").
The noble Earl said: What a surprise! These amendments are straightforward. Amendment No. 125 provides for the payment to the chairman and members of the Firearms Consultative Committee of expenses they may incur in the course of their duties. We are talking here of travelling and subsistence costs and the like, and it is clearly right that the Government should meet these expenses.
Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 provide that the Secretary of State's expenditure in making these payments and in relation to the committee shall be met out of money provided by Parliament. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 11, line 13, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) The committee shall exist in the first instance for five years beginning on the day on which section 1 of this Act comes into force, and shall continue thereafter unless the Secretary of State provides by order made by statutory instrument for it to cease to exist, and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: I am sure that the Committee will be delighted to know that this is the last amendment on the clause that I am moving tonight. This is another very important amendment. It removes the sword of Damocles which is hanging over the committee. It ensures that it will continue unless the Secretary of State, with the approval of Parliament, decides to dispense with it. That is instead of what is in the Bill at the present time; namely, that it shall cease after five years unless the Secretary of State decides to continue its existence. I should have thought it would be much more sensible, much more encouraging for the committee if its future was described in the way set out in my
1462
amendment and not in the way set out in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I strongly support this amendment for exactly the reasons the noble Earl has given. There is nothing further that I need say.
Earl Ferrers: I think that the committee should be allowed to continue at the discretion of the Secretary of State according to how useful it has proved itself to be during the five-year period. It is an odd thing, but in another place those in favour of this body argued that it should be established for a limited period initially in order to enable it to prove its worth. It is right that its existence and its cost-effectiveness to the taxpayer should be kept under review. I think the clause as it stands allows for a review every three years and I should have thought that that was reasonable.
The Earl of Swinton: I am not altogether happy with my noble friend's reply. It seems to me that the noble Earl has used a contrary argument to the decisions which were taken in the other place during the course of this debate. He is taking one which suits him this time. The amendment still gives the Secretary of State powers to dispense with the committee if he thinks it proper. However, at this late hour of the night I shall not press the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 127:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals
.—(1) Section 44 of the principal Act (Appeals from Police decision under Part II) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in the sidenote to section 44 leave out "Appeals from Police decisions under Part II" and insert "Appeals";

(b) in subsection (1) leave out "an appeal to the Sheriff" and insert

"A person aggrieved by any refusal, variation or imposition of terms or conditions by the Secretary of State or by any chief officer of police under this Act may appeal to the Crown Court and in Scotland in accordance with the Act of Sederunt to the Sheriff." ").
The noble Viscount said: The problem that this amendment addresses is that there are provisions, as we know well, in the principal Act granting a right of appeal. In the Bill there are no provisions for an extension of those powers. A number of clauses are inserted without reference to how they fit into the main Bill, so one does not know whether they will come within the parameter of the 1968 Act or out-with it. At this stage of the life of this future Act we should have liked to know what the scheme of things was or what it was going to be. Sections 26, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38 and Schedule 5 of the 1968 Act deal with rights of appeal. A lot of new powers are given in this Bill to the police and to the Secretary of State which affect—I nearly said interfere with, but I think that affect is a better word—many people with many varied interests.
I have not been through the full extent of the Bill to pick out these different powers which will affect so many people. But I believe that some of those powers

1463
should be justified by means of a right of appeal either through the Crown Court, or in the case of an appeal against the Secretary of State, by means of judicial review in the High Court. That would be a much more expensive procedure. But that should be no deterrent for that course of action to be included in the Bill.
Subsections (1) and 1(a) of my proposed new clause are consequential on the content of (1)(b). The wording of (1)(b) is well known. It is also used in the Town and Country Planning Acts. It states:
"A person aggrieved by any refusal, variation or imposition of terms or conditions by the Secretary of State or by any chief officer of police under this Act may appeal to the Crown Court and in Scotland in accordance with the Act of Sederunt to the Sheriff."
That is a far from perfect wording. It is an initial attempt at an appropriate wording. In the circumstances it was the best that I could do bearing in mind that it was very hard to see how the Bill fitted in. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider before Report exactly what provisions will be subject to appeal so they can be debated more fully on Report before the Bill is enacted. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: A right of appeal against a refusal by a chief officer of police to issue a firearm or shotgun certificate is already enshrined in Section 26 of the Firearms Act 1986. Section 29 of the Act gives a right of appeal against a refusal to vary conditions on a firearm certificate.
As regards firearm and shotgun certificates, therefore, this new clause would add nothing of substance. But the new clause also proposes a right of appeal against refusals and conditions imposed by the Secretary of State. This would apply to the Secretary of State's power to approve rifle and pistol clubs and to grant authority to possess or deal in prohibited weapons. There is, at present, no right of appeal in relation to these powers, and I am not persuaded of the need for such a right.
With regard to the Secretary of State's authority to possess or deal in prohibitive weapons, in view of the kind of weapons involved we think that an authority should not be issued if there is any doubt whatever about an application. Likewise, the imposition of the most stringent conditions will invariably be justified. We need not only to protect the public against the possible misuse of these weapons in this country, but also to ensure that authority is not given to individuals or companies who, because of the profits involved, may be tempted to trade irresponsibly or illegally on the international market.
There are all kinds of checks on the abuse of power by the Home Secretary, including judical review, and I really do not think it is right to provide for appeal to the Crown Court against decisions of the Home Secretary for which he can already be called to account, not least by Parliament.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for his response. I pointed out that there was a right to judicial review against a decision of the Home Secretary, although it is drafted slightly differently. In the circumstances, and in view
1464
of the late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 11, line 21, at end insert—
("(1A) For section 11(5) of that Act (sports, athletics and other approved activities) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(5) A person may, without holding a shotgun or firearm certificate, borrow a shotgun or firearm from the occupier of private premises or from a keeper or stalker employed by such occupier and use it on those premises in the presence of such occupier, keeper or stalker." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises out of what I can only describe as an undertaking to give further and favourable consideration to this particular point. The point at issue is the problem of the estate rifle. That is a rifle which is kept on the firearm certificate of an owner of a piece of land and is also on the firearm certificate of any employee of the owner of the land—a gamekeeper, stalker or anyone who is authorised to go on the land with the owner's Class 1 firearm.
We wish to continue what is an accepted general practice, particularly in Scotland. If someone who does not own a firearm is asked to come and stalk, that person is allowed to borrow the estate rifle and use it in company with a stalker or keeper on whose firearm certificate it appears. In the case of someone who is under the age of 18, the practice would be perfectly legal because that person would be under supervision.
The practice does not increase the number of firearms in circulation and it includes a strict territorial condition so that the firearm will only be used on the piece of land for which permission has been granted. Unless we can find a way of meeting the problem we shall have a situation in which, if I ask my noble friend to stalk with me and he does not own a rifle, he will have to apply for a firearm certificate for a weapon that he does not own and pay a full fee.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers has found a way round the problem. I wrote to him originally and said that I thought most Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber would be satisfied if the matter could be covered by an instruction to chief constables. However, I think that the advice which he has received is the same advice as I have been given by various lawyers which is to the effect that we must write a provision into the Bill. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend can tell the Committee what further consultations he has had on the matter and whether he will be able to solve the problem. I admit that my amendment probably does not solve it correctly. However, I hope that the Committee will accept it in the spirit in which it is moved—an attempt to legalise a practice which is fairly widespread. I beg to move.
Viscount Dilhorne: I entirely support the amendment. My Amendment No. 101 was couched in much the same form. That is why I did not move

1465
it. I should like to add one small comment to the thorough dissertation which my noble friend Lord Kimball has just given us. He said that the amendment would not increase the number of firearms in circulation. I should put the matter differently. An estate rifle will cut down on the necessity for those who stalk infrequently to own rifles.
Viscount Mountgarret: I support the amendment 99 per cent. The remaining 1 per cent. is the area where I am concerned about allowing an employee to lend weapons to whoever he chooses. That is dangerous. I believe that I am right in saying that in law an employer is responsible for the actions of his employee where he performs them as part of his job. Therefore, it must follow that if a keeper or stalker were to allow someone to use a firearm on his employer's property and with his employer's knowledge and consent, that matter would be covered by the law. The amendment as moved by my noble friend Lord Kimball is absolutely essential. However, we must be careful about extending lending permission to employees.
Lord Burton: I agree with my noble friend Lord Mountgarret. I should like my noble friend Lord Ferrers to consider a slight variation as regards the amendment. A situation may arise where someone who is stalking is not very fit, and his stalker may be allowed to carry a rifle but not allowed to use it. If the person wounds a stag it is a matter of humanity that the stalker should be allowed to take the weapon and kill the animal. As the Bill currently stands, he can take the weapon but he cannot use it. I hope that when my noble friend looks at this question he will also look at that point.
Lord John-Mackie: We should like to support this amendment. It is very awkward if one has a guest who says that he would like to have a shot and one asks whether he has a gun licence and he says no. It is on your land and you can see no harm in it. However, I must admit that I once had a guest whom I took out on a shoot and discovered he had never held a gun in his hands before. I was glad when the lesson was over. Nevertheless, I think that it is something that we could safely allow. I hope that the noble Earl will agree to the amendment, with some of the reservations of some of his noble friends sitting behind him.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support the amendment very strongly. It may be that it is not perfect in its drafting. My noble friend on the Front Bench may wish to accept the principle of the amendment and perhaps, let us hope, produce a further amendment at a later stage of the Bill. This is a problem of very long standing. Most of us have been aware for years that the law is often technically broken in this respect. A blind eye is turned to it, but it is high time that the law took cognisance of this point and the matter was put right for good.
Earl Ferrers: I quite see the problem which my noble friend Lord Kimball seeks to resolve with this amendment; but I think that my noble friend Lord
1466
Swansea is quite right that the drafting is not perfect. The amendment would allow the use of someone's gun without a certificate in the kind of circumstances which I think my noble friend Lord Kimball may not have envisaged and might not have wished for. For example, the owner of a full-bore rifle or pistol, even if his certificate restricted his use of the gun to approved ranges, would be able to lend the gun to his friends for target shooting in his front garden. I cannot believe that my noble friend would wish for that.
The amendment would also weaken the proposed club approval system, since any certificate holder would be able to set up a club by lending or hiring out his own firearms. The use of such weapons would not be restricted to ranges with a Ministry of Defence safety certificate, as it is under the club approval system. In other words, an exemption along the lines suggested by my noble friend would be open to substantial abuse.
However, I should like to consider this matter further and see whether we can find a way of resolving my noble friend's problem.
Lord Kimball: In view of that reply and the undertaking from my noble friend that he will give further consideration to the point that a weapon can only be used on land to which the territorial restriction on the firearm certificate applies—which would meet the point that he made about somebody else being allowed to use a gun in his front garden—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 11, line 36, at end insert—
("(2A) In section 26 (3) of that Act for the words "three years" wherever they occur there shall he substituted the words "six years".").
The noble Lord said: At present firearm and shotgun certificates run for some three years. It has long been argued that much money and bureacracy would be saved if their life was extended to six years. That move has been strongly advocated by Government Ministers over the year. Indeed, in 1982, the then Home Secretary said:
"I support the suggestion that the period of validity of shotgun certificates should be extended from three years to six years, coupled with a requirement to notify changes of address, and I welcome this proposal which would relieve the police of an administrative burden, without impairing the effectiveness of the controls".
Again, in 1986, the Minister of State at the Home Office at the time said that the Home Office would consider such a reform in any future major review of the law, indicating that the main obstacle was the lack of plans at that time to amend the Act. Now that we are amending the Act "for the next twenty years" there is no excuse for not implementing that undertaking.
In this Bill it is suggested that only 80 additional staff, mainly civilian, will be required, yet in a Written Answer on 18th January this year, it was admitted after consulting the police that this was a rough assessment. It represents 60 in England and Wales and 20 in Scotland. I believe that that is a gross underestimate.
At present there are fewer than 200,000 firearm certificates. The Bill will increase that number and add further checks to nearly another 1 million holders of shotguns. Using the Home Office's own figures from the working party report of 1984, the Bill will increase police work by 1½ million man-hours. That is estimated to require 220 policemen and 50 more civilians. There are various calculations to support those figures.
The police are concerned about the manpower implications. Kent County Constabulary has already issued a questionnaire with renewal reminders to shotgun certificate holders in an effort to assess the likely increase in their workload when the Bill is enacted. The amendment provides a straightforward means of cutting down on bureaucracy without jeopardising public safety.
There is no reason to suppose that, if someone is given a certificate and judged to be responsible, he will become irresponsible over a six-year period. But should that happen, there is nothing to stop that certificate being taken away. It is quite easy by using computers to keep a check on where people are and, indeed, changes of address of certificate holders would have to be notified. Losses of guns would have to be notified so there should be no reason for having to control them every three years.
The cost of £33—I think that it is £12 for a gun licence—will simply put off many enthusiasts and confine the holding of weapons to those who can afford them. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I should like very strongly to support this amendment. Again it covers a point that shooting interests have discussed with the Home Office for a good many years past. I can see no reason why this provision should not be put into effect and work perfectly well. With improvements in computer record-keeping and communications between different police forces, it should be perfectly easy for the police to keep tabs on certificate holders over a period of six instead of three years.
As my noble friend Lord Gisborough said, it would also relieve the police of some of the office work necessary in processing applications for firearm and shotgun certificates. If they were renewable every six years instead of every three years, the workload of the police would be much lighter. The cost to the individual would also be less if the fee for a certificate was spread over a longer period. I strongly support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: We have provided for the expiry dates of firearm and shotgun certificates to be brought into line so that both can he issued simultaneously thereafter, together with a reduced fee of £5 for the issue of the shotgun certificate. I believe that there is considerable value for both parties in continuing contact between the police and certificate holders. I think that any lengthening of the period of validity of certificates would result in an insufficiently frequent review of the circumstances pertaining at the time of granting or renewing the certificate.
1468
My noble friend Lord Gisborough referred to some comments that had been made previously by Ministers. He is quite correct of course, but we are now responding to a certain lack of confidence in the existing controls and I think that it would be wrong to relax them. Six years is a long time to allow someone to hold a weapon in circumstances which can change drastically. I think that we should be careful, after the events at Hungerford and other recent incidents, that Parliament does not appear in this way to be relaxing controls.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Burton: I think that the enormous amount of extra work that will be involved in the initial stages has not been appreciated, covering as it will 1 million shotgun certificates and a great many more weapons. I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Gisborough confirm the figures that I gave the other night, which were queried by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and not approved by the Front Bench, I think, in view of the muttering that I noted. The figures given by my noble friend Lord Gisborough of the amount of extra labour required in the initial stages are far in excess of the Home Office estimate.
Lord Gisborough: I am very disappointed. There have been statements from previous, Ministers advocating what is now proposed. Even with the £5 renewal for the gun, the amount involved every three years will he £38 and there will be delay in acquiring the licence. Because of that one incident relating to a firearm held incorrectly, which was the result of poor supervision by the police, a great deal of damage will be done to all those who genuinely have guns and look after them properly.
Only a few Members of the Committee have supported the amendment. I therefore have no option but to beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 11, line 49, at end insert—
("After section 50 of the principal Act, insert—
"(50A) Within his area, the chief officer of police shall ensure that the enforcement of this Act is under the control of an officer of police not below the rank of Superintendent who has successfully completed a course of training in matters relating to firearms law approved by the Secretary of State." ").
The noble Earl said: Throughout the course of the Bill, not only in this House but in another place, much reference has been made to the unfortunate incident at Hungerford—and indeed in other places—and much speculation has gone on as to how such an incident could have occurred. Many have suggested that the police on that occasion were not as expedient as they might have been.
The intention of the amendment is to ensure that the firearms law will be carried out as efficiently as possible. In addition to the police having technical knowledge of firearms, I mentioned in the discussion of other amendments the importance that I place on their having a knowledge of field use. This point is recommended in the working party report on the

1469
administration of the 1968 Act. Under the amendment, a course of training in matters relating to firearms and firearms law would be approved by the Secretary of State. This would go a long way to ensure that the provisions of the 1968 Act and indeed of this Bill would be carried out as effectively as possible.
I do not wish to open a can of worms at this late hour. Once we start speaking of Hungerford and other emotive subjects, the discussion could become heated. The main point of the amendment is that, no matter how effective or well-drafted the legislation is, unless the police are able to ensure that it is carried out properly it will not work. On each force there has to be a qualified officer who is a specialist in these matters and who has undertaken a course of training as suggested in the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Operational matters, including the deployment of officers and the grading of specific posts, are, quite properly, the responsibility of individual chief police officers who must take account of the priorities in their own areas. Given the cost of retraining senior officers, the chief police officer may wish to appoint as the head of his firearms department a less senior officer who has experience of firearms legislation.
I am not convinced of the need for a special training course in firearms which is to be approved by the Secretary of State. A revised version of the comprehensive Home Office memorandum of guidance to chief police officers on the administration of the Firearms Act is in preparation and will be circulated to all police forces. Special training courses would I believe probably cover the same ground at considerably greater expense. I believe that it is right to leave these matters to the good sense of chief officers.
Earl Peel: I received the answer that I expected from my noble friend. I still make the point that I believe it is very important that there are experts on each force to deal with these matters. I am sure that my noble friend will take that point on board, particularly when the guidance memorandum is circulated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Expenses and receipts]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 131 and 132:
Page 12, line 7, after ("14") insert ("or 20").
Page 12, line 8, after ("19") insert ("or 20").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 are consequential upon Amendment No. 125 which the Committee agreed to earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Interpretation and supplementary provisions]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 12, line 38, at end insert—
1470
("(5A) The power to make rules under section 53 of the principal Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such rules shall be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The present rule-making power of the Home Secretary enables him to make rules without parliamentary approval. Only if someone lays a prayer against a statutory instrument would it ever be debated by Parliament. The Home Secretary will have power to make rules under the Bill, and it is very important that those rules should be right and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. If the amendment is agreed to, it will make those rules subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses so that there shall be no mistake about the rules not coming under proper scrutiny. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Section 53 of the 1968 Act enables the Secretary of State by statutory instrument to make rules prescribing a number of matters. These include the form of firearm and shotgun certificates—including the general conditions to be attached to them; the form of dealers' registers and other statutory documents and:
"any other thing which under this Act is to be prescribed".
The power is not at present subject to any parliamentary scrutiny; but my noble friend wishes, by means of Amendment No. 133, to apply the affirmative resolution procedure to any statutory instrument made under this clause.
I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to do that. The overwhelming bulk of the rules will relate simply to the prescribed form of certificates, permits and application forms. To apply the affirmative resolution procedure to routine administrative matters of this kind, requiring a debate in both Houses of Parliament on any new rules, seems to me an inappropriate use of parliamentary time for this level of matter.
Lord Swansea: My noble friend evidently does not like the amendment. I shall not take up the time of the Committee at this very late hour; but it is a point which we are somewhat concerned about because more and more problems arise from time to time where firearms and shotguns are concerned. We are approaching a state where we have government by decree. I should have thought that Parliament ought to have a say in the rules when they are made; also, although not covered by the amendment, a say on the level of fees charged for a certificate. However, that is another question. I shall not take up the Committee's time and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 13, line 23, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 24 and insert ("and any such order may appoint different days for different provisions or different purposes and contain such transitional

1471
provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with any provision brought into force.").
The noble Earl said: Subsection (3) of Clause 25 provides that the provisions of the Bill may be brought into force at different times for different purposes. The purpose of Amendment No. 134 is to enable transitional provision to be made in respect of these provisions where necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
In the Schedule:
Lord Eden of Winton Lord Eden of Winton moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 14, line 26, at end insert ("provided that such conditions shall not require the firearms in question to be altered in any way from their original form.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. It proposes that certain words be added to paragraph 1(4) of the schedule. The schedule deals with museum firearms licences. The museums to which the schedule applies are listed in paragraph 5. They include the Imperial War Museum and a number of distinguished service museums and service-related museums. They also include the armouries, known as the Royal Armouries, of which I have the honour to be chairman of the board of trustees.
Paragraph 1(4) defines the circumstances in which the licence to be granted to the museum shall be issued and provides for the possibility of conditions to be specified by the Secretary of State. The preceding sub-paragraph refers to the fact that the Secretary of State shall not grant a licence unless he is satisfied that the arrangements for exhibiting and keeping the firearms and ammunition in question are such as not to endanger public safety or the peace.
I know that there have been debates on these matters in another place as a result of which the wording in sub-paragraph (4) was changed. The Minister in the other place introduced the words which are now at the end of that sub-paragraph—
"for securing the safe custody of the firearms and ammunition in question"—
in order to meet concerns expressed on behalf of museums. As has already been mentioned during the course of earlier proceedings in this Chamber, owing to the fact that a timetable Motion applied, the matter was not properly debated in the other place. Since it is not wholly clear that the point of concern is fully met I have tabled this amendment in the hope that the reply from the Minister will give complete satisfaction on the points which have worried the museums.
The points are these. The firearms and ammunition in the collection of these museums are of artistic, historic and scientific interest. Many are the subject of international study and research. Their value as such would be badly affected if there were any requirement that they be altered or changed in any way. I ask my noble friend to make it absolutely clear that the words,
"for securing the safe custody of the firearms and ammunition"
ensure that there will be no question of the museums
1472
being required to alter them in any way. I press the point because the Bill says that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied with the arrangements for exhibiting them as well as keeping them.
I understand that the reference to "the safe custody" is to their housing, care and guardianship and to the general environment in which they are kept. However, I should like to be certain that those words also cover the state in which the weapons concerned are kept.
I should also add, although I accept it is not covered in my amendment that it needs to be borne in mind, certainly in the case of the Royal Armouries, that there is a very substantial collection of sporting weapons. These weapons are not solely of an historic nature. We are adding to the collection and making sure that it is maintained up to date. Therefore, there are shotguns of recent origin in the collection. Indeed, the board of trustees of the Royal Armouries very recently commissioned a most superbly made shotgun which is now on exhibition in the White Tower in the Tower of London. These are points which need to be borne in mind.
I ask my noble friend to confirm that the reference to the firearms licence to be granted—and indeed the title of the schedule refers to museum firearms licences—also embraces shotguns. I suspect that it does and I am sure that that is the intention but I should like the Minister to answer that so that I could have complete clarification. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the museums will be able to maintain their collection of these weapons, be they shotguns or firearms, and the ammunition related to them or other forms of ammunition and, indeed, in our case other weapons which comprise the collection in such a manner as they will not be required to be altered in any way at all. With that, I hope my noble friend will be able to give me the assurances which I seek.
1 a.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Eden of Winton is a stalwart to have stayed this length of time in order to move his only amendment to the Bill and I hope that I can give him the satisfaction which he seeks.
Concern was expressed in another place at the original wording of the relevant paragraph because it could be interpreted to empower the Secretary of State to attach conditions requiring the physical alteration or deactivation of firearms which are held as exhibits.
It has never been the Government's intention to use this power in that way. In recognising that such alterations might conflict directly with the statutory duties of certain museums to preserve and keep exhibits in their original form, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State tabled an amendment in another place to ensure that such conditions relate solely to the custody of firearms and ammunition. I am bound to tell my noble friend that "firearms" includes shotguns. That, proposal supported, and paragraph 1(4) which grants the power to attach conditions to the licence now clearly relates to conditions which affect safe custody. That

1473
means conditions concerning suitable display or storage arrangements such as cabinets, locks, alarms and the like, but not the physical condition of the exhibits themselves. I hope that my noble friend will find that to be the reassurance that he seeks.
Lord Eden of Winton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. With that assurance from him I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 16, line 33, at end insert—
("Any private collection which is open to public inspection which includes or is to include firearms.").
The noble Lord said: I take some encouragement from my noble friend's reply to the previous amendment. Will some consideration be given to the many private collections of weapons, often of considerable historic and artistic value? I had hoped for some information on how great would be the mutilation of weapons to de-activate them. I asked for that on Monday and my noble friend may not yet be able to give me that information. If not, perhaps he will write to me.
There is considerable concern about what will happen to these historic weapons which are often of considerable national interest. It would be wicked vandalism if they have to be destroyed.
Lord Eden of Winton: I support the intention of the amendment. As the Minister will know, museums are now being strongly encouraged to ensure that as much as possible of their collections is on view to the public. With that in mind, they are being encouraged to make loans of parts of their collections. Some of those loans may well find their way to houses owned by institutions or even by private individuals which are open to the public. Some of those weapons therefore may be on display in places other than the actual premises of the museum. In so far as they satisfy the requirements of safe custody and guardianship, I hope that they meet the requirements of this schedule. Perhaps the Minister can give an assurance on that point.
Lord Swansea: There is one question that I wish to put to my noble friend. He may not be able to give an immediate answer. I refer to what I believe to be the finest collection of modern weapons in the country—the Pattern Room at the Royal Ordnance Factory, Enfield Dock, which is not specifically mentioned in the schedule to the Bill. It is a highly important collection, especially to students of design of military firearms.
Possibly that collection is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, but I am not sure of its position as the ROF has been privatised. Can my noble friend give the Committee some information on that collection?
Earl Ferrers: The schedule is intended to regularise the position of those major national museums whose status was affected by the National Heritage Act which was enacted in 1983. We have taken the view
1474
that it would be impracticable for museums which house large firearms collections to comply with the normal certification requirements of the 1968 Act. The schedule therefore provides for those museums to apply for a single museum firearms licence.
We do not believe it is right to extend this measure to those private museums whose position, let us remember, has not changed. Private museums generally have smaller collections and it is likely to be just as convenient for them to obtain a firearms certificate as at present. It would also be difficult to distinguish between genuine private museums, and keen private collectors who may wish to avoid the usual controls.
As regards the question from my noble friend Lord Swansea concerning the Royal Ordnance factory, I will find out about it and write to him. My noble friend Lord Burton asked me about de-activation. Weapons of any category, if de-activated in accordance with Clause 8, may be held by a private individual without a certificate. A mark on the gun made by one of the proof houses will be regarded as evidence that the gun has been properly de-activated. The precise work that is needed to be done in order to de-activate a gun will depend upon its type and design. The detailed guidance on the standards of de-activation will be drawn up in consultation with the Home Office forensic science service, the gun trade and other shooting interests.
We are aware of the need to keep to the absolute minimum the alterations that are done to potentially valuable guns, consistent, nevertheless, with the need for irreversible de-activation in order to ensure public safety.
Lord Burton: I hope that we shall get the details of the de-activation before too long, and certainly before the Report stage. The other point that was raised was whether these weapons would be allowed to stay on firearms certificates. There was a case very recently when the judge upheld the police case and a man was restricted to merely six weapons. I hope that this will not be the case as regards antique weapons. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Education Reform Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to; with certain other amendments agreed to with amendments; and with the remaining amendments disagreed to, but with amendments proposed in lieu thereafter and amendments to the words so restored to the Bill; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past one o'clock.

  INTERNATIONAL ARCTIC SCIENCES: PROPOSED COMMITTEE
  INTERNATIONAL ARCTIC SCIENCES: PROPOSED COMMITTEE
  COMMUNITY CARE FOLLOWING DISCHARGE FROM HOSPITAL
  COMMUNITY CARE FOLLOWING DISCHARGE FROM HOSPITAL
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BOARD MEMBERS
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BOARD MEMBERS
  CROWN ESTATE PAVING COMMISSIONERS
  CROWN ESTATE PAVING COMMISSIONERS
  YOUNG PRISONERS IN COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUNTRIES
  YOUNG PRISONERS IN COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUNTRIES
  PILOT BAIL INFORMATION SCHEMES
  PILOT BAIL INFORMATION SCHEMES