Sitting of 23 May 1988

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

    County Council Roads
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will consider designating as trunk roads those county council roads which are essential for industrial or tourist development.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Motorways and trunk roads are designated because of their importance for long-distance through traffic. It would not be appropriate to add to the network on the grounds suggested.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of Clwyd county council's diligence in providing proper access roads to important industrial developments such as Kinmell park estate and vital tourist areas such as Rhyl and Prestatyn, will my hon. Friend reconsider whether there should be an extension of the powers of the Welsh Office, which, in this respect, have been satisfactorily carried out?
    Mr. Roberts: I understand that Clwyd county council has plans to improve the A525 between the A55 and Rhyl and Prestatyn. The priority that it gives to the scheme is a matter for the council. We recently wrote to the local
    2
    authority agreeing to the provision of white on brown tourism signs at the A55-A525 junction. A meeting will be held shortly to finalise the wording and symbols to be used.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister reconsider the situation vis-a-vis the A44, which we in mid-Wales would like to see designated as a trunk road? I understand that one of the formulae applied involves the volume of traffic, which inevitably is light. None the less, it is a very important link road. Will the Welsh Office negotiate with the Secretary of State for Transport on that issue?
    Mr. Roberts: We have examined the argument for trunking the A44 between Rhayader and the English border. The hon. Gentleman is quite right about this being related to the volume of traffic. The adjoining length of road in England is not trunked. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer)? To realise the full potential of the A55 and the Government's massive investment of £160 million in dualling it, it is essential that link roads are constructed between the expressway and industrial estates such as the Delyn enterprise zone and Greenfield business park. Contrary to what the Minister has said, Clwyd county council shows no sign of developing such a link road strategy. Will my hon. Friend take a leaf out of the book of the previous Secretary of State for Wales, who was prepared to consider designating short link roads as trunk roads?
    Mr. Roberts: I agree that those roads are important in order to derive the best possible benefit from trunk roads such as the A55. However, I must stress once again that the local highway authority has responsibility for those roads.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will be taking to help Welsh local authorities in defraying the administrative costs of implementing the community charge.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The Government have made it clear that additional resources will be made available to help local authorities with the extra capital and revenue costs of setting up the new system. We are discussing those matters with the associations.
    Mr. Murphy: Is the Minister aware that his Conservative colleague, the chairman of the Association of District Councils in Britain as a whole, recently visited Cardiff and told Welsh local authorities that the cost of implementing the poll tax would be £10 million and that it would cost £17 million to run? That is far in excess of the amount that the Government originally intended. Does he agree that that is yet another example of an unnecessary burden on the Welsh people?
    Mr. Grist: We do not have to go to an English Conservative, because the Committee of Welsh District Councils is looking into the matter, although we do not expect to have its estimates until next month. The Government have commissioned a firm of management consultants to survey a sample of local authorities in England and Wales to report on the cost of implementation and operation to assist us in our considerations. That report is due soon.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Will my hon. Friend make every effort to arrange for the tightest controls lest local councils use the community charge as an excuse for a spending spree? Surely that much simpler and fairer tax will involve less cost per person because it will not involve the complex calculations for which the anachronistic formula for rates presently calls.
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend is right. Costs will be incurred in setting up the system, but once it is running it will not be more expensive than the present one.
    Mr. Flynn: The Minister says that he does not need an English Conservative to make his calculations. It is notable that in Newport, East the Tory party turned to English Conservatives to ride their candidates twice in constituency elections. It is one of those Conservatives who has given us these figures.
    Can the Minister tell the House which local authorities will take part in the Welsh estimate? Does he realise that there will be an enormous increase in the burden of work? It has been estimated that in one county council the number of accounts will increase from 140,000 to 375,000, that the number paying by instalments will increase ninefold, that the number of distress warrants will increase tenfold, and that the number of payments will increase from 500,000 to 3·5 million. Is it not time for Welsh Office Ministers to protect Wales from this Tory tax, which is unfair and unnecessary?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is yet again using guesstimates in an attempt to scare people away from what will be a thoroughly fair and easily understood tax. The Opposition are clearly afraid of it because it will show up the wasteful expenditure for which so many members of the Labour party are guilty in local government.

    Welsh Rivers Authority
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received pressing for a Welsh rivers authority; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ian Grist: The Government's consultation paper proposing a National Rivers Authority was published in July 1987. Nine of the 51 responses received in Wales suggested a separate authority for Wales.
    Mr. Davies: Given that the Secretary of State is a party to the appointment of Lord Crickhowell as chairman of the National Rivers Authority, I am surprised that he did not answer my question. Nevertheless, how can the public have confidence in the integrity and independence of Lord Crickhowell, who is a paid representative of the multinational mining corporation Rio-Tinto-Zinc, in his capacity of chairman of the National Rivers Authority? Given also that the incidence of river pollution is now at a record level of 2,500 cases annually, only one in 28 of which results in prosecution, is not Lord Crickhowell just a Tory ex-politician—a Tory placeman—appointed to preside over the lowering of water quality standards in Wales?
    Mr. Grist: Lowering standards have been well illustrated by the hon. Gentleman's approach this afternoon. I thought that his was a disgraceful contribution.
    My noble Friend Lord Crickhowell has made a notable and extremely beneficent contribution to Welsh affairs. Opposition Members should welcome the fact that a person in his position, with his love and knowledge of Wales, is there to protect our interests.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not a fact that legislation governing the purity of water is still in force and has in no way been altered? Is it not a fact also that where there has been an increase in pollution, it is largely due to new treatments of agricultural land, and that a major step is now being taken to improve matters in that respect?
    Mr. Grist: As is so often the case, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

    Valleys Initiative
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Valleys initiative.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I have had the benefit of consultations with the local authorities, the health authorities, housing associations, enterprise agencies, the Wales Tourist Board, a number of voluntary organisations, the CBI, the TUC, and a range of commercial and industrial firms. A range of constructive and positive proposals have been made, all of which are being fully assessed and considered, I will announce a positive plan of action when those considerations have been completed.
    Mr. Livsey: When does the Secretary of State hope to announce that initiative, which has been under consideration for some time? Can he give an assurance that there will be new money on the table—not money recycled from elsewhere in the Welsh Office budget—for the initiative, which I welcome?
    Mr. Walker: I have always stated that I will make an announcement as soon as the consultation is complete and I have reached conclusions. The programme will affect the Valleys for some years to come, and it is important that the document is carefully constructed. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed with the way in which public expenditure is used to benefit the Valleys.
    Mr. Foot: We hope that the Secretary of State will look fully at all the propositions put to him from the Valley towns, and if he takes a bit longer to consider all the representations, none of us can complain. Will he, however, give us an absolute assurance that when he publishes the scheme he will also publish all the financial details, comparing how much is to be spent in the next three or four years in detail with what has been spent over recent years and also with what we have lost in regional aid over that period—which we trust will be refunded in the next two or three years?
    Mr. Walker: I should be delighted to publish comparisons—particularly in most of the spheres that affect the Valleys—with the record of the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.
    Dr. Thomas: We have been reading carefully the book that the right hon. Gentleman published recently and noting the kind of partnership that he envisages between the public sector and private capital. What amount of commercial capital does he expect to participate in the Valleys initiative? Is he hopeful that the area will be scheduled for an integrated operations programme for the European Community, which will add substantially to the funds made available?
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, plans connected with the European Commission are a matter for discussion and detailed negotiation.
    As for our relationship with the private sector, I have engaged in many consultations because a range of industries are potential investors in the Valleys in major commercial enterprises and capital investment. The results of those negotiations have been very heartwarming.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that at least his initiative will include sufficient money to cover the serious under-funding of the health services in our Valley communities, and to deal with the backlog of applications for repair and improvement grants caused by the fact that a large number of individual home owners have been waiting for up to four years for such grants?
    Mr. Walker: The Health Service will always face great demands. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the amount now being spent on the Health Service is a substantial improvement, by any comparison, on the amount being spent some years ago. Similarly, a Government who have spent more in one year than the previous Labour Government spent in five years are likely to have a good record on house improvements.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Can we at least have some answers from the Secretary of State? Is it not time to end the cruelties, or is it just dither on the right hon. Gentleman's part? Does he realise that he has trailed this so often and for so long that it is in danger of becoming a rather sad parliamentary joke? Will he confirm that the article in the
    6
    Western Mail on 17 March was based on authorised Welsh Office briefing? If not, how does he account for the detailed quotations in it? If it was, does he stand by the figure of £900 million that it quoted?
    Finally—this is an important point—when it is eventually announced—f it is—may we have a guarantee that it will be announced first in this Chamber?
    Mr. Walker: I shall certainly make an announcement in the Chamber, although I shall also be simultaneously making announcements in the Valleys. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that.
    The only publicity of any scale that has built up about the Valleys initiative is the constant neurosis of the right hon. Gentleman, who mentions it in almost every speech. I am sure that he will be delighted if it is a programme of action with substantial results. We look forward to seeing his smiling face rejoicing at such a programme.

    Clywd Structure Plan
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from Clwyd county council on proposed changes in the Clwyd structure plan; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend has received no such representations.
    Mr. Jones: When the Secretary of State receives representations, will he take into account the needs of the west and south of Clwyd? I am afraid that the county council is not taking any account of the needs of the Vale of Clwyd in its structure plan, and is likely to create a dormitory area for Chester and Deeside in the west of the county.
    Mr. Grist: When the structure plan alterations are finally submitted to my right hon. Friend, careful note will be taken of all representations.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend also take note of the representations that he will receive from north-east Wales concerning its place in the Clwyd structure plan and the complete lack of any action by Clwyd county council to help the industrial development of that part of Clwyd? It is causing great concern in Delwyn borough council and also in the borough council in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). We need roads, as was mentioned earlier today. It is not good enough for the Welsh Office to abdicate its responsibilities and transfer them to the county. The Welsh Office is doing nothing.
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend's support for his constituents and for the people of Clwyd is very well known, and he has well exemplified it this afternoon.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Chris Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses and flats have been sold to tenants in Wales since May 1979 under (a) the right to buy and (b) voluntary provisions.
    Mr. Grist: 55,246 council houses and flats have been sold to tenants in Wales under the right to buy. The equivalent figure for voluntary sales is 5,082.
    Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a great contribution to the liberation of the working man? What hope does he have that this liberation will be extended to those who live in hard-to-sell flats?
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the greatest distribution of capital to working people that any hon. Member could have imagined. It was unimaginable by the Labour party, which purports to represent working people. My hon. Friend will be aware of the extra discount for flats that has recently been made available to encourage such sales.
    Mr. Coleman: We note with interest the Minister's answer, but hon. Members with Welsh constituencies will want to know how many people in Wales were registered as homeless in 1979, compared with the present figure. When will the receipts from the sales of council houses in Wales be applied to resolving the problem of homelessness amongst our people?
    Mr. Grist: The number of registered homeless in 1979 was 4,676. In 1987 the number was 5,300. As I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, that does not show great movement.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: As the great majority of those who were interested in buying their council houses under the previous scheme have done so, resulting in immense benefits for them, is the time not coming for another great leap forward in the extension of home ownership?
    Mr. Grist: I think that my hon. Friend may not have noticed the additional impetus of the higher discount that has recently been allowed. Nevertheless, he is quite right. We are looking at further ways of spreading home ownership.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that one of the causes of tension in rural Wales, in areas such as Gwynedd, is the inability of local people to compete on the open market to buy houses and the reduction in the stock of council houses for letting to them? In these circumstances, will he consider whether it is possible to make a much greater financial allocation that would allow district councils to buy houses from the private sector to let to those who cannot afford to buy them? Will he also look at the possibility of giving to those who want to buy council houses, but who are uncertain as to their job prospects in areas of high unemployment, some guarantee that they will be able to revert to renting accommodation from the local council if they have to foreclose on their mortgages?
    Mr. Grist: I take note of the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. On the first part of his question, he may be interested to know that we shall be introducing such a measure in the current Housing Bill, which I think he will find helpful.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: When will the Government recognise that millions of pounds are lying dormant from the sale of council properties? Is it not a fact that under this Government public expenditure on housing has shown a marked decline compared with that under the previous Labour Government? What about our Valley communities, where thousands of houses are now just about beyond repair? Is it not a fact that homelessness is at record levels in Wales? Mortgage repossessions are seven times higher now than they were in 1979. The hon.
    8
    Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) represents an English constituency, so perhaps he is not too conversant with our problems in Wales. Is it not time that the Government realised that Welsh housing has reached crisis point?
    Mr. Grist: It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should talk about the decline of housing in Wales when the Labour party saw that decline but did not lift a finger to do anything about it. I shall remind him of the figures. During the time that the Labour Government were in office expenditure on private housing renovation was £54 million a year. Under this Government it is £414 million. Expenditure on public housing renovation under the Labour Government was £86 million a year. Under this Government it is £339 million a year. We have saved the housing stock, including houses owned in many cases by those who elect Opposition Members.
    The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that Cynon valley council has just produced its housing strategy. In paragraph 29 it encapsulates its new policy, and the first point that it makes is that:
    "New Council houses be built only in exceptional circumstances."
    That is the change.

    Briefing Policy
    Mr. John: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on briefing of outside organisations by officials of his Department.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The response to requests for outside briefing depends upon the nature of the briefing required. The main objective is to provided factual background and to preserve the neutrality of the Civil Service.
    Mr. John: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report—which no doubt is accurate—in the Western Mail of 28 April, in which Mr. John Davies, the under-secretary at the Welsh Office, is purported to have told a farming conference, regarding sheep quotas, "I for one will fight the proposal tooth and nail."? Is that not a gross violation of the political neutrality about which the Minister has spoken and without which the Civil Service cannot properly function? Will he therefore ensure that Mr. Davies understands that he is being undesirably partisan and, if the Government make as abrupt an about face on sheep as they did on milk quotas, undesirably foolish as well?
    Mr. Walker: I shall certainly look at the quotation mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The intention of Mr. Davies was to give factual briefing. If he made a remark of that nature, obviously I shall have words with him.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in his latest bout of petulance, unlike other Ministers and shadows, he has instructed his private office to give no replies to any questions from me, except in answer to parliamentary questions or to letters? In view of that, will he given an assurance that in future he will answer the parliamentary questions that are asked, not those that he wished had been asked, and that he will answer them on time, instead of giving holding answers, which happens all too often, even when the eventual substantive belated reply is the single word "No"?
    Mr. Walker: In the many years in which I have had the privilege of having numerous shadows, including the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and others, I have not previously had the experience of the shadow's researchers telephoning staff in my private office and using quotes from civil servants in future political remarks. As a result, I have said that I would prefer to see the replies to the right hon. Gentleman. That will continue. I shall decide on the replies to parliamentary questions. I realise that quite often the replies are not liked by the right hon. Gentleman.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new initiatives he is planning to reduce hospital waiting lists in (a) Gwent and (b) Wales.
    Mr. Grist: I am pleased to announce that the £1 million of waiting list funding in 1987–88 was associated with additional throughput of some 2,900 in-patients and day cases and 6,600 out-patients on the lists concerned. I congratulate district health authorities on that achievement. In view of that success, I am making available a further £1 million in the current financial year. District health authorities, including Gwent, have now submitted their waiting list action plans and officials of the National Health Service directorate will be monitoring progress towards their implementation.
    Mr. Flynn: The whole House will be glad to know that there was a small general improvement in waiting lists throughout Wales, but the increase was small and will take decades to work through. I remind the Minister of his promise less than a year ago that by now no patient would have to wait longer than a month for an urgent operation or longer than a year for a non-urgent operation. We welcome the Minister's announcement, but remind him that instead of there being no patients waiting, as he promised, 8,940 non-urgent cases are still waiting more than a year, and the number of urgent cases has increased, in spite of the £1 million, to 2,360. Does he agree that the great mountain of pain, suffering, anxiety and misery of the 121,000 on the waiting lists deserves greater effort, and not the same again?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman does not give those who work in the Health Service the credit that he might give them. The number of in-patients treated in Wales has risen by 27 per cent. under this Government, and the number treated in Gwent has risen by 33 per cent. since we came to power. The increase in the number of people treated represents satisfied patients who were not being treated before.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: So that we might have the full picture of Health Service expenditure, can my hon. Friend give us comparative figures showing what was spent on the Health Service in Wales in 1979 and what is being spent this year?
    Mr. Grist: I must have those figures somewhere. About £394 million was being spent when we came to power. The figure is more than £1·2 billion now.
    Dr. Thomas: While the Minister is thinking about those figures, perhaps he might like to reflect on the effect on hospital waiting lists of closures and the rundown of
    10
    facilities by Gwynedd health authority and his Department. I appreciate that the Minister is unable to comment on the matter, but is he aware that I represented the Minister of State at the demonstration at Llandudno last Saturday, where hundreds of people made their views clear? Will he assure us that he will take account of public opinion in Gwynedd before he comes to any decision?
    Mr. Grist: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all representations, whether from him, his friends or the constituents of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, will be taken great notice of.

    Butetown Link Road
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will seek to give the earliest possible decision on South Glamorgan county council's proposed new design for the Butetown link road; and if he will provide the necessary capital allocation for a start to be made as soon as possible, and in any event no later than April 1989.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Our officials received details of the alternative scheme from South Glamorgan on 5 April. Further discussions are taking place with the county council, and I hope to be in a position to give a decision before transport supplementary grant bids for 1989–90 are invited in July.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. Will he assure us that his officials will make every effort to overcome any problems that arise with the timetable? Will he bear in mind the fact that, on the tail of the need to complete access, are longer-term requirements for the improvement of the eastern access to the Cardiff Bay and south Cardiff Bay area?
    Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We shall, of course, do our upmost to keep to this fairly tight schedule. I realise the importance of the Butetown link road in connection with the Grangetown link, the central link and the Cogan spur to Penarth, which it is hoped will be completed by the latter part of this year.

    Blood Transfusion Service
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many operations in National Health Service hospitals will have to be postponed or cancelled in Wales because of staff shortages in the national blood transfusion service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Grist: The blood transfusion service has taken contingency measures to minimise the effect of the difficulties experienced in recruiting clerk/drivers. The Welsh Office recently issued authority for special payments to be made for four new clerk/drivers. In the meantime, the situation is being closely monitored. Emergency surgery will not be affected.
    Mr. Morgan: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the Welsh Office has brought about this crisis in the national blood transfusion service in Wales by stubbornly refusing, for much longer than any of the comparable English authorities, to approve a variation order affecting the basic salary of clerks and other administrative staff in the service? Does he further agree that the time has come to see to it that Health Service

    11
    administrative and clerical support staff are employed on conditions which provide for low turnover and reasonable wage rates so that job satisfaction can be combined with reasonable remuneration? Should we not do that rather than rely on high turnover and low wages, resulting in a constant attempt to recruit new staff to replace the experienced staff, on whom the service depends?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman rightly wants a steady and stable supply of staff to carry out this very responsible duty. However, I reject his charge that the Welsh Office is in some way responsible for the present state of affairs. The difficulty has been finding a proper grading policy for clerk/drivers and others in the Health Service. The staff side did not necessarily approve the proposals that were put to it in the Whitley council. It is now in the joint negotiating committee, and we hope to arrive at a conclusion that will end this problem once and for all.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.
    Mr. Peter Walker: On 14 April 1988 the numbers of unemployed claimants in Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 7,774, 22,728 and 140,073 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparision to be made.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the number of people in employment in East Anglia increased by 18·2 per cent. between 1979 and 1987, whereas in Wales the number fell by 14·9 per cent.? Will he confirm that, despite umpteen changes in compiling the statistics, unemployment in Newport, Gwent and Wales is still significantly above the 1979 figure?
    Mr. Walker: I am very well aware that East Anglia had no coal or steel closures during that period, and that made a considerable difference to the figures. I am glad to say that many more jobs are being created in a diversity of employments and, with our current positive regional policy, that trend is continuing.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not a fact that in East Anglia there has also been a recent improvement in communications, which has resulted in a great improvement in the industrial standing of the region? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been an extremely promising decrease in the number of unemployed in Newport, Gwent and in Wales and a vast increase in the number of notified vacancies?
    Mr. Walker: The best indicators of that increase are the local newspapers throughout Wales, which show a large increase in the number of advertisements of vacancies. There is no doubt that in many parts of Wales that trend is continuing, but there is still a long way to go.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State explain why unemployment in Mid Glamorgan has doubled since 1979, and why, according to the latest figures, there has been a substantial increase in unemployment in that region? In my constituency of Cynon Valley male unemployment is now 28 per cent.—the highest level in Wales. Will he tell
    12
    his Department that we are sick of glossy brochures such as the one I have here from British Coal Enterprise Ltd., which, despite all the hype, has created only 44 jobs in the Cynon Valley, despite the fact that 2,300 men have lost their jobs in the mining industry?
    Mr. Walker: I recognise the problems in the hon. Lady's constituency, but I am sorry if she is suggesting that British Coal Enterprise has not done a good job. Many hon. Members throughout the Principality have expressed their anxiety about what would happen if the activities of that enterprise agency declined. It has helped a lot of new businesses and firms and it has given a lot of advice and money. I hope that that help will continue, and I naturally hope that its activities will continue in the hon. Lady's constituency, and with results.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The fall in unemployment throughout Wales is most welcome, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the problems that are faced by areas such as mine and other more remote rural areas when seeking to attract inward investment? Will he impress upon the Welsh Development Agency the importance of stressing the advantages that exist in rural Wales as well as industrial Wales?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. I believe that the Welsh Development Agency has been active throughout the Principality. My hon. Friend will be aware that considerable developments are currently taking place within his constituency as a result of various aid and regional assistance. Perhaps one of the most exciting developments is that in the port area, which could open up important markets in Portugal and Spain. A great deal of help has been given by the Government in such areas.

    Benefits
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact on individuals and on the provision of services in Wales for which he is responsible of recent changes in housing benefit and other benefit payments in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales in general.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that housing benefit and social security changes will be monitored by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and he will fully confer with the Welsh Office on the results of the changes.
    Mr. Jones: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman of the dismay of one of my constituents, a world war 2 veteran, who fought from the Normandy beaches through to Hamburg and who now finds that he will lose housing benefit of £18 per week because he has a British Rail pension? I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that there are many other similar cases throughout Wales. Will he tell his Cabinet colleagues that the regulations are hurtful to vulnerable people, and will he urge the Prime Minister to think again about the harsh effects the regulations are having throughout Britain?
    Mr. Walker: When one looks at the total changes, allowances as well as housing benefit, there are, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, some people who have benefited as well as some people being put at a disadvantage. Perhaps the people who have obtained additional benefit

    13
    from the changes had considerable need. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a review has already taken place, with a considerable range of changes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has promised that he will examine the effects of the total changes in detail. I am sure that if it is shown that further action may be needed, my right hon. Friend will take such action.

    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications by chronically sick and disabled people in (a) Ogwr, (b) Mid Glamorgan and (c) Wales, were made in 1987 for (i) central heating and (ii) other home adaptations; and how many of these were approved in 1987.
    Mr. Grist: Information on the form of assistance given for home adaptations for the disabled and the number of applications made and approved is not collected by the Department. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is the number of grants that were completed in 1987. For Wales the total was 2,325; of these 333 were in Mid Glamorgan and 96 in the district of Ogwr.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that in the district of Ogwr there are currently 600 chronically sick and disabled people on the waiting list for central heating alone? Will the Minister look at some way of providing more money from the Welsh Office to enable those people to obtain the central heating that is so often essential for the medical conditions from which they are suffering?
    Mr. Grist: I am concerned at what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps he will let me have a few more details on the position in his constituency. In general, Welsh district councils appreciate the needs of the disabled, and I understood that such applications were treated with priority by them.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Meetings
    Mr. Sackville: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, when the Church Commissioners last met; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Michael Alison, Second Church Estates Commissioner (Representing Church Commissioners): The commissioners' board of governors and committees meet frequently to regulate all aspects of the commissioners' work. General meetings of the commissioners are held at least once a year to consider the annual report and accounts and the allocation of money. The last general meeting was held on 17 December last year.
    Mr. Sackville: Is it not time that the commissioners discussed the abuse of Church property by illegal immigrants for so-called sanctuary? Will my right hon. Friend dissociate himself from the British Council of Churches' recent incitement to its members to indulge in that sort of behaviour, or are we to witness the Church setting out a new immigration policy through a sort of Home Office in Heaven?
    Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners are involved only indirectly through their financial support for parish churches and incumbents in the issues raised by my hon. Friend. He will know that the right of sanctuary was abolished by law in the 17th century and the commissioners would strongly deplore any pressure put upon incumbents or church wardens to break the law of the land as duly placed on the statute book by this democratically elected House.
    Mr. Foulkes: If the Church Commissioners had their arms twisted, as did the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to issue an invitation to the Prime Minister to address the Synod of the Church of England, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the offence that was caused to a large number of members of the Church of Scotland when the Prime Minister said that the love of money is the root of all evil, when we see such evil taking place, particularly in the City of London? Before any such invitation is issued to address the Synod of the Church of England, will the right hon. Gentleman, who has a particular long-standing connection with the Prime Minister, ensure that she practises what she preaches?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman does less than justice to his fellow countrymen. There are several hundred members of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. To imagine that those Scottish arms are so weak that they can be twisted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to force them to submit to an address that they did not want is, with due respect, a mockery. My right hon. Friend made a notable contribution to the important topical debate on the interaction of personal faith and civic responsibility and it was well received by the General Assembly.

    Income
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the trends in the commissioners' income during the past five years.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what have been the trends in the Church Commissioners' income over the past 12 months.
    Mr. Alison: The commissioners' investment income has risen from £69·5 million in 1982 to an estimated £116·9 million in 1987, an increase of 68 per cent., compared with inflation of 25 per cent. over the same period. In the 12 months to December 1987 their income rose by about 17 per cent.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, welcome as those trends are, they would have been even better if certain Church leaders had given their flock sound spiritual leadership rather than indulging in partisan politics?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will recall that in her recent address to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
    "Christians will very often genuinely disagree"—
    about aspects of secular politics—
    "though it is a mark of Christian manners that they will do so with courtesy and mutual respect."
    Mr. Banks: May I tell the right hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Question."] Until I heard the Prime Minister give her sermon in Scotland on Saturday I had thought that the Budget was written by St. Nigel, not St. Paul. As the Prime Minister is fond of quoting St. Paul, why did she not use the part of St. Paul's first letter to Timothy, which says that our leaders should be sober, temperate and
    "not greedy of filthy lucre"?
    Why did she miss that?
    Mr. Alison: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken to quoting the Scriptures. We look forward to more of that.
    Mr. Banks: I am a very saintly person.
    Mr. Alison: If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the letter of the law, or the letter of the word, my right hon. Friend has never hitherto—as far as I am aware—been guilty of insobriety, and she certainly was not when she adressed the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Meetings
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission next expects to meet; and what subjects will be discussed.
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission next expects to meet; and what subjects will be discussed.
    Sir Peter Hordern (on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission): Neither the date nor the agenda for the next meeting of the Commission has yet been fixed.
    Mr. Favell: When my hon. Friend next meets the Commission, will he ask it to estimate the savings that could be made by moving the National Audit Office to the regions? If he has any problem, I am sure that Stockport council will be only too pleased to assist.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The costs of the London headquarters building have been carefully considered in the past, both by the Public Accounts Committee and the Commission. My hon. Friend may wish to know that the National Audit Office currently employs 655 staff in the headquarters building, 65 in other London offices and 176 in other parts of the country and abroad. He and the House may be assured that the Commission will continue to examine closely the costs of maintaining major premises in London, particularly if in future more offices of Government Departments are dispersed to other parts of the country.
    Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman place on the next agenda of the Public Accounts Commission a review of the practices of the Audit Commission, to see whether anything can be learnt about them? It appears that when the Audit Commission discovers even 12 paperclips bought by local authorities that are surplus to requirements, that is front page news. Will he therefore
    16
    explain why the Ministry of Defence can overspend at will, sometimes by up to £1 billion a project, without being brought fully to account by the House or the Commission?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Public Accounts Commission carefully examines the estimates and the corporate plan of the National Audit Office, but it does not seek to inquire into its findings. That is the task of the Public Accounts Committee, which is so ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman draws his right hon. Friend's attention to this point?
    Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that the House will probably be relieved to know that the Commission has not yet set a date for a further meeting, in view of the inevitable costs associated with such meetings? Given my hon. Friend's heavy programme of engagements at home and abroad, I am sure that that will be for his convenience as well.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot say that the costs of the Public Accounts Commission are considerable, unlike some other Standing Committees and Select Committees of the House. Unfortunately, the Public Accounts Commission never goes abroad, and I think that the same can be said of the Public Accounts Committee, so, I think that extra costs are unlikely to arise.
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what subjects were discussed.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I have just given.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him notice? Will the Public Accounts Commission reflect on the view of Sir Frank Cooper, the former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, as to whether—he said this in the Suntory lecture—the Prime Minister's press secretary should be paid out of public or party funds?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I do not think that the Prime Minister's press secretary's salary is a matter for the Public Accounts Commission, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise it, it may be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee. In any event, it is scarcely likely that the press secretary would have high on his list of priorities the activities either of the Public Accounts Commission or of the National Audit Office.

    Comptroller and Auditor General (Estimates)
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what account the Public Accounts Commission takes in examining the estimates submitted for its approval by the Comptroller and Auditor General of his broad priorities for the deployment of his staff to monitor overspending by Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I have just given.
    Mr. Cohen: Should not the Public Accounts Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General have as their foremost priority control of defence costs?

    17
    Millions of pounds are overspent or wasted. Such events are commonplace. Will the Public Accounts Commission undertake to insist that the Ministry of Defence publishes all overspends of £1 million and over? It refuses to do so at the moment. Should not public money wasted in that way be subject to public scrutiny?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Public Accounts Commission does not look into defence spending, although we approve the estimates of the National Audit Office as a whole. I advise the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, since I recollect from my experience of the PAC that overspending on defence is a matter that is considered frequently by that Committee.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Members' Facilities
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Lord President of the Council what present plans there are to improve facilities for hon. and right hon. Members within the Palace of Westminster.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I understand that the various Sub-Committees of the Services Committee have considered and are considering a number of suggestions put to them by right hon. and hon. Members for improving facilities within the Palace of Westminster. If the hon. Lady has a particular suggestion to make, I shall of course consider it.
    Mrs. Clwyd: One of my suggestions would not be for more unisex bathrooms, but for more equal facilities for men and women in the Palace of Westminster. The Lord President will know, because I have had long correspondence with the Services Committee on the matter what I am referring to. Also, we should have better accommodation for hon. Members and their staff. The accommodation here is disgraceful. If we were subject to the health and safety regulations, most of the accommodation in the Palace would be shut down. We should also have basic facilities for the large number of staff working in the Palace, for example, a shop, so that hon. Members, instead of limping to the back of a queue late at night to get a bottle of milk and a bit of bread—[Interruption]—can shop for these basic necessities, such as toothpaste, tights and whatever else they may need during the day. Will the Lord President look seriously at the provision of such services, particularly a unisex hairdresser, who can do something for women's hair, rather than simply men's hair?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady should apply for an Adjournment debate.
    Mr. Wakeham: Provision for a shop is included in the plans for phase 1 of the new building, which is expected to be ready for occupation in 1990. With regard to unisex, or ladies', hairdressing services, and other matters, I have read with great interest the correspondence conducted by the hon. Lady and other hon. Members, which goes back to long before I held this position. The point is well made. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee
    18
    is considering all those matters and will continue to do so. It hopes to reach the best conclusions for the benefit of the House.
    Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend consider improving the facilities for tours? Now that the Palace is becoming ever more popular, the difficulty that Members of Parliament or, in practice their staff, nearly always face is in balancing on the tightrope between hiring guides and arranging for visiting parties. That could be much more easily dealt with if there was one central office dealing with all aspects.
    Mr. Wakeham: This was looked at fairly recently, but if my hon. Friend has any suggestions he should in the first instance talk to the Serjeant at Arms.
    Mr. Wallace: Can the Lord President help by telling me whether my eyes deceive me or whether there is a door. in the ministerial corridor labelled "The Solicitor-General for Scotland"? Given that the Solicitor-General for Scotland does not sit in this House or the other place, how could a door so labelled be justified? If there is such a door, does the right hon Gentleman not think that the least that he could do in return is to allow some period at Scottish Question Time for Scottish Members to ask questions related to the responsibilities of the Solicitor-General for Scotland?
    Mr. Wakeham: I would need notice of the first part of that question. I shall go and have a look for myself. I do not know whether there is a door so marked, but the arrangements for answering Scottish questions have been dealt with on a number of occasions from the Dispatch Box and I think that they are perfectly satisfactory.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not so much the facilities of this place that need improving as the conduct of some hon. Members?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am responsible for many things, but not for the way in which hon. Members spend their spare time.

    Cannon Row Police Station
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council when Cannon Row police station was vacated by police and made available to the House authorities.
    Mr. Wakeham: In the summer of 1985.
    Mr. Banks: Will the Lord President of the Council tell us when we shall have access to facilities over there? The Lord President knows that many hon. Members are complaining about the appalling working conditions that we have over here. I speak as a person who has just lifted the parliamentary stakhanovite of the year award. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) would greatly appreciate an office and he could have one at Cannon Row.
    Mr. Wakeham: There have been a great many things to do and there have been some difficulties about getting on with that work. Refurbishment is due for completion in the summer of 1989. The allocation of a desk for the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is a matter for the Opposition Whip's office, and I think that there should be a desk available for him somewhere.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that by and large the office facilities in the Palace of Westminster are perfectly adequate and compare quite favourably with those in the private sector? Will he urge caution on those who would waste taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Wakeham: It is nice to hear from a satisfied customer. If there were more of them life would be easier for me. I recognise that there are some legitimate demands for better accommodation, and all those responsible are doing their best to improve matters. We cannot work miracles.

    Cancer Screening
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects a cancer screening programme to begin for females working in the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Wakeham: The House of Commons Commission has recently accepted in principle the recommendation of the Services Committee that on-site cancer screening should be provided for all women working in the House, and has made appropriate budgetary provision for this purpose. I hope that it will be possible to provide the service in the autumn.
    Mr. Rooker: Many of the women who have asked for this matter to be dealt with will be truly grateful for that reply. So that there is no misunderstanding outside, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is aware of the take-up on the pilot programme in the other place, and can he confirm that treatment was required as a result of that programme?
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes. I cannot give exact figures for the take-up, but I know that it was high. The percentage of those who had to be referred to doctors for further investigation and treatment was also high. I think that that was part of the reason for the Services Committee recommending that this service should be brought into the House of Commons.
    Mr. Dickens: Is the Lord President of the Council aware that the facilities for women Members are quite disgraceful? Would he be surprised to learn that it is within my knowledge, though certainly not within my sight, that one lady Member has to surreptitiously——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about cancer screening. Was that within the hon. Gentleman's sight?
    Mr. Dickens: Added to the lack of these facilities are other facilities for women——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that this question is about cancer screening.
    Mr. Dobson: I take this opportunity to thank the Lord President for his contribution towards getting this cancer screening programme going. I also pay tribute to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford,
    20
    East (Mr. Orme) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley). Can the Lord President confirm that arrangements will be made to ensure that testing done here is properly logged, and that the women concerned are taken on board by their local call and recall schemes?
    Mr. Wakeham: The exact details of how the facility will be organised are matters for negotiation with the women's national cancer control campaign, which is likely to provide the service, together with the local health authorities. In answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), 78 women took advantage of the programme in the other place, and the tests of 19 showed that they had problems, so they were referred for further examination. I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said and I echo the thanks to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who chaired the Sub-Committee that considered this matter, and to all those who supported it.
    Mr. Shersby: What is the cost to public funds of providing these additional facilities?
    Mr. Wakeham: I cannot say exactly at this stage, and we shall not know for sure until the scheme has been worked out, but the budgetary provision is £10,000.

    Prime Minister's Question Time
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to extend the time available for Prime Minister's Question Time; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have no such proposals.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on average about 200 or more hon. Members table questions to the Prime Minister, and of those at the most five are reached? Bearing in mind that 20 or 25 years ago only about 20 or 25 questions were tabled, is there not a need to extend Prime Minister's Question Time to ensure that Back Benchers have more opportunity to question the Head of Government, especially as the Leader of the Opposition has always used this parliamentary slot as well?
    Mr. Wakeham: I would welcome a longer appearance by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has put his question in that way. I know that he has a long record of trying to improve, as he sees it, the way in which Prime Minister's questions are dealt with in the House. We have looked at this a number of times over the years and we always find that the present system is better than all others, although it is a matter that we keep under review.

Points of Order
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave notice that I wished to raise, under Standing Order No. 20——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did not give me notice. I received a telephone call from him. The hon. Gentleman obviously did not get my message.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear it. The hon. Gentleman sent me a telephone message, but I have received no written notification of an application under Standing Order No. 20. My Office sent a message to the hon. Gentleman, but he obviously did not receive it. Mr. Madden.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No; I have called Mr. Madden.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you an issue of importance that concerns all hon. Members. It is the refusal of the DHSS to answer, by way of parliamentary questions, questions that we would wish to ask about the operation of the social fund, which is now established for every DHSS office. The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled, in a magazine article in April, made it clear that the DHSS is receiving, through a new computer network, a wide range of information about the operation of the social fund. Therefore, I was disturbed, when I tabled a number of questions on 12 May, to be told that the information was not available. I was further disturbed to be told, in reply to other questions, that the DHSS does not intend to answer any questions about the operation of the social fund and will instead put information in the Library on a monthly basis.
I was told on Friday that the information about the first month's operation would not be available for two weeks. I ask you to reflect on that situation and to consider asking the Department of Health and Social Security to reconsider its policy decision. It is important that all hon. Members should have an opportunity to ask questions about the operation of social funds in their constituencies and should have the right to have those questions answered by the DHSS.
Mr. Speaker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter, but I am not responsible for Government policy. It is not for me to ask the Government to change their policy. That is a question that the hon. Gentleman should put to the Leader of the House at the appropriate moment, possibly on Thursday.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Campbell-Savours.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can I ask you to reflect on the ruling that you have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in light of the fact that I have an agreement with your Office—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not normally state this in the House, but, for the benefit of the House, may I say that Standing Order No. 20 applications must be raised on the day in question. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) sent me a telephone message about an article that appeared last Friday. Today is Monday. No point of order arises.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have not made my point of order yet.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asked me to reflect upon the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I have done that.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can I make my point of order?
Mrs. Dunwoody: Further to the ruling that you have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), the problem facing hon. Members is that we have been told that information that we know is available to the Government is not to be made public to the House of Commons. I understand that you cannot be held responsible for Government policy, but, when we are told that, for example, information about housing benefit cannot be given to hon. Members when we know it exists, it makes it impossible for us as Members of Parliament to carry out our duties. I ask you to reconsider your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot add anything to what I have already said on this matter, but the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip are here and I am sure that the two points that have been raised, which are matters of concern to the House, have been noted by those responsible. I am not responsible for such matters.
Mr. George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a point of genuine concern about the matter. This is not the only example, although it is a bad example, of information which is essential for any hon. Member to carry out his duty being available to Ministers, but not being provided through parliamentary questions. There is another example in the case of poll tax registration in Scotland. I understand that the Government have information about the slowness of registration in the Strathclyde region, but will not give that information to hon. Members. There is a point of principle for you in relation——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to his point of order. I do not think that I can be held responsible for matters of principle, although I am responsible for points of order in the House.
Mr. Foulkes: The point of order is that the Government are responsible to the House and, therefore, you have a responsibility to ensure that questions which are properly tabled and in order are accepted by the Table Office and answered by the Government. You have a duty to protect the interests of Back Benchers. That is the question of order.
Mr. Speaker: Undoubtedly, I have a responsibility for questions that are tabled, but I am not responsible for the answers that are given.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. I shall take no further points of order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that there are 22 hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. He is not one of them today. Hon. Members are anxious to proceed and, in the interests of the House, we should do that.
The House should understand that applications under Standing Order No. 20 must be received on the day in question and not refer to something that has happened previously.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You are changing your ruling.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that it is not possible to raise a Standing Order No. 20 application on a Friday, and consequently my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not have an opportunity to make his application then. He and other hon. Members who represent constituencies that are vast distances from this place find it difficult to submit a written application on a Monday. I should be grateful if you would reconsider your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I apologise to both the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Matters that arise on a Friday can be raised again on a Monday by means of the Standing Order No. 20 procedure. It is clear that, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman did not receive the message that I sent to him on this matter. He conveyed a telephone message to my Office but in that message he did not specify the subject that he wished to raise. Instead, he drew attention to an article that appeared in the press last Friday.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we should move on.

Points of Order

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Antarctic Treaty (Agreed Measures) (No. 2) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &c.—[Mr. Durant.]

Opposition Day
[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Housing
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and others. No fewer than 22 hon. Members have sought so far to participate in the debate and I appeal for brief contributions so that as many as possible of them may be called.
  3.41 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the housing policies of Her Majesty's Government which have created record levels of homelessness, a dramatic decline in the supply of low cost rented housing, house price inflation and increasing urbanisation of the South East; and therefore calls upon the Government to introduce policies which will end dependence on bed and breakfast accommodation at the earliest possible time and restore a planned programme of house building, repair and renovation, and to introduce a reformed system of housing finance designed to create a genuine and fair choice between renting and buying for people at all levels of income, and an effective system of regulation of development to enhance the rural and urban environment of this country.
  One of the hallmarks of a civilised and affluent society is that it finds it possible to provide good, high-standard housing for a large majority of its citizens, if not for all. There is no reason why we in the United Kingdom should not achieve that aim. Housing is vital to the welfare of the nation, for we know that people in poor housing suffer poor health and that some people in inadequate housing achieve less than others in education. We know that families are more likely to disintegrate if housing is inadequate or inappropriate. We know also that the supply of good housing affects the general level of community welfare.
  I have pointed out to the Government many times that they will not be able to deal wholly and properly with crime prevention until they deal with homeless young people. Home Office research demonstrates a close and strong link between young people being homeless, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and crime generally. I see the previous Minister with responsibilities for housing wearing his new hat as a Government spokesman on crime prevention. I know that he is out of touch with the problem and he does not understand the nature and extent of crime, especially casual street violence and the rise in alcohol abuse among young people, and crime generally.
  The Government have had the blessing of North sea oil to prime the pump of the economy. They have not used it in the way in which we, the Opposition, or many others would have recommended. Instead they have used North sea oil revenues to finance mass unemployment. We have seen the housing crisis growing at an alarming pace.
  House price inflation is running at 20 per cent. this year. The Halifax building society states that in the first few months of 1988 the house price inflation rate has been at that level. In real terms, that is greater than the rate which prevailed in the 1970s. The rate in East Anglia is 40 per cent., which is the highest in the country. East Anglia has overtaken both London and the south-east.

  25
  The Government would like to raise interest rates to dampen the house boom, but they cannot do so. We saw the trap in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister placed themselves, and we are aware also that there is a danger that borrowers will overstretch themselves and that the various financial institutions that are lending them money—many others apart from the building societies and banks—will demand that borrowers repay their debts. If they do not, they will become homeless or get into arrears.
  The evidence is clear. In 1985, mortgage defaults were 16,490 for building societies and 570 for local authorities. By 1987, local authorities had been able to reduce the number of defaulters to 490 as a result of good management. In the private sector, the number of mortgage defaults had increased from 16,490 to 22,630. There are now 10,080 families who are homeless because they have defaulted on their mortgages. Many of the people in accommodation for the homeless in places such as the new town of Telford are there because they have not been able to pay their mortgages. The Government blame local authorities for using emergency accommodation. It is significant that the Government are happy to use taxpayers' money to subsidise mortgages, yet somehow when mortgage companies cannot come to an arrangement with those who fall into difficulty—perhaps because of unemployment or ill-health—the ratepayer is expected to provide. There are 64,000 people who are more than six months in arrears on their mortgages, and the numbers are increasing.
  This is not the end of the crisis. The repairs bill is frightening. In the public sector, it is estimated to be £19 billion. In the private sector, the repairs bill to maintain housing standards—let alone improve them—is £27·5 billion.
  The Government tell us that, although they are willing to subsidise purchase, they must not, in their terms, "over-subsidise" rents. They talk of fair rents and market rents. Between 1979 and 1982, fair rents on unfurnished accommodation increased by 47 per cent. Between 1982 and 1984, they increased by another 18 per cent. and between 1984 and 1986 by another 17 per cent. As everyone recognises, people cannot sensibly afford to choose renting over buying. They are forced into buying, even if they want to rent. A person who cannot afford to get a mortgage has no option but to pay rent, which is often equivalent to mortgage repayments.
  Housing benefit has been cut eight times. Despite the £100 million concessions wrung out of the Government, there is still the £500 million cut which was made last April. It is time that we put the meat on the bones of that argument. A 64-year-old pensioner lady suffering from diabetes came to my advice surgery to tell me that she had lost £10·81 per week in housing benefit. Because of the concessions that we wrung out of the Government, that will be reduced—temporarily—to £2·50, unless rates and rents increase, when it will probably be more. The most for which she can hope is that that £2·50 will be held for about a year. After that, she still stands to lose the rest of that money. A 75-year-old couple—the man was disabled in the war—who will lose £7·40 a week heat their home with paraffin. What are we supposed to be doing to such people? How can the Government possibly justify that?
  Housing subsidies tell us a lot. Last Thursday, during Environment questions, the Secretary of State made a desperate attempt to evade answering a question about the
  26
  different forms of subsidy for different tenures. In 1987–88, a local authority tenure attracted a subsidy of £271, compared with £265 in 1981–82. As I pointed out, those figures were misleading. Even on the right hon. Gentleman's figures, that was an increase in subsidy of £6. For the owner-occupier, the increase was £62. The subsidy increased from £514 in 1981–82 to £576 in 1987–88.
  But those were not the real figures. These are the real figures. in 1980–81, local authority tenants received subsidy worth £1·393 billion. By 1987–88, that had been cut to its present level of £500 million. That is a cut of nearly two thirds in the subsidy available to public sector tenants—while mortgage income tax relief for owner-occupiers for the same two years started at £2,190 million—about £700 million more in the first instance—and has now rocketed to a massive £5,000 million per annum compared with the £500 million available to local authorities.
  It might be instructive now to look at the Government's White Paper issued towards the end of last year. Paragraph 1.10 states:
  "These problems have often been compounded by indiscriminate subsidies from the rates to hold down rents."
  At the moment, many Conservative-controlled local authorities are increasing rents in the public sector to keep the rates down. It is almost as if they were using an owner-occupier's income to keep taxes down. That would be the alternative if the practice was operated in the owner-occupied sector. The White Paper went on to state that that created dependency among those people. If it creates dependency, the Government had better tell us why dependency is not also created when subsidy is given to owner-occupiers. That is why the Government's housing policy is so fundamentally flawed.
  A cut in the subsidy to rent and an increase in the subsidy to buy means that the rented sector will dry up. I have explained that to Conservative Members time and again, and to be fair to some of them, including the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), they acknowledged that I was correct about the figures. In Dorset, the price of the average family house is about £90,000 and a manual labourer will receive £80 to £90 a week. If that house becomes vacant, the owner can sell it and put the money in a building society and he will receive nearly £200 a week in interest. Therefore, it is obvious that the market rent will be close to £200 at the very least. How can we expect that manual worker in Dorset to pay £200 a week rent out of his wages of £80 to £90 a week or to buy that house if it costs £90,000? He cannot do that. That is why the Government's housing policy is fundamentally wrong.
  In England in 1975, 55 per cent. of people were owner-occupiers, 29 per cent. were local authority tenants and 16 per cent. were in the private rented sector. The Government have long boasted of their intention since they were elected in 1979—and before that—to increase the supply of private rented accommodation. In 1984—these figures have decreased more since then—63 per cent. were owner-occupiers, and that is an increase of 8 per cent. over the 1975 figure; 26 per cent. were local authority tenants, representing a drop of 3 per cent., and 11 per cent. were in the private rented sector, a drop of 5 per cent
  We have told the Government time and time again that the private rented sector will continue to decline unless they do something about housing finance. The Rent Acts are only marginal in that respect. When the Rent Acts were abolished by an equally foolish Conservative Government

  27
  in 1957, we saw the advent of Rachmanism and a dramatic collapse of the private rented sector. More houses were removed from the private rented sector then at any other time. In 1980, the Government tried to get rid of most of the Rent Acts then in force. As the figures that I have referred to show, there was another decline in the private rented sector.
  I predict without any hesitation that unless the Government do something about housing finance, they can remove all the Rent Acts, but they will only increase harassment and the activities of some of the worst aspects of landlordism—although that does not involve all the private landlord sector by any means—and a significant minority of private landlords will behave extremely badly. As there will be no adequate supply, there will be no real choice for people who want to go to the public or private sector. They will not have any choice, because people will be keeping their houses empty for sale.
  A survey undertaken by the Department of the Environment showed that only about 2·5 per cent. of properties were kept empty because of the Rent Acts. The vast majority of them were kept empty either for repairs or for sale.
  I can pray in aid one newspaper that is becoming increasingly supportive to me. I quote none other than The Daily Telegraph, which on 17 May commented:
  "A prudential restraint on the ratio of home loans to property values is called for: and notice should be served on mortgage interest tax relief before the credit boom turns, as these things do if unattended, into bust. This way too, the need for higher interest rates would be diminished, and the present tensions between Prime Minister and Chancellor resolved."
  I am grateful to The Daily Telegraph for that supportive evidence.
  I make again the offer we have made to the Government several times. We are willing to talk about housing finance reform, but any such reform must be fairer both within and between the rented and purchase sectors. It must also be capable of being introduced in a way that does not cause either mortgage or rent payers economic distress. The last mentioned is particularly important, bearing in mind the increasing number of people being put into accommodation for the homeless because they cannot cope with their mortgages due to unemployment or rising interest rates, or because of the dramatic increase in rents in both local authority and private sector housing brought about by the present Government.
  The most shameful and telling figure of all relates to homelessness. In 1978, 53,000 people were registered as homeless in Britain. Despite all the assets of North sea oil and the Government's boasts about an improving economy—although if one examines manufacturing industry, one sees no evidence of that; we must take the Government's word for it—the homeless figure has doubled to 100,000. That is the tip of the iceberg, because many homeless do not register. The youngsters sleeping under bridges in cardboard boxes do not register.
  No one has made an accurate assessment of the number of homeless. We only know that the figure has dramatically increased. I emphasise again the enormous consequences of that trend for future generations and for safety on our streets. Young homeless on the streets at night will be exploited, and they will drift into drink, drugs and crime. Although some of them may survive that
  28
  experience, it is inevitable that a larger number of youngsters are falling into such difficulties than need be the case.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend refers to the fact that the number of homeless has doubled since 1979 to 100,000. What does he think of the sermon recently given by the Prime Minister when she preached about love of money and said that it was what one did with money that was important? There are an extra 50,000 homeless people. With all the money that this wealthy country of ours has, it is time that the Prime Minister preached about something else.
  Mr. Soley: One of the reasons why the Prime Minister gets into so much trouble with the churches is that they have a different perception of what this country's priorities ought to be today: my hon. Friend makes that point very well.
  It would be £4,000 per annum cheaper to build more council houses than to keep the homeless in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—yet it appears that the Government are willing to use taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to keep people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation when it would be cheaper to allow local authorities to build houses for them.
  The Government try to blame local authorities for homelessness and the numbers in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They accuse local authorities of owning all the void properties. However, if one examines the figures, something quite frightening emerges concerning the Government's responsibility in this matter. It is not just that they are cutting the money available to local authorities or that they have deliberately attempted to undermine and destroy this country's local authorities. The Government also have a responsibility for the level of voids.
  The average level of voids among local authority properties is 2·5 per cent. The figure for housing associations is 3·1 per cent.—slightly higher, but still good. In the private sector, the figure is 4·2 per cent. The worst offender of all, at 6·9 per cent, is Government properties. Last Wednesday, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment stated that Government properties were sometimes kept empty for "operational reasons". Operational reasons? Is one in five Metropolitan police houses kept empty for operational reasons? Forty-odd flats and houses being knocked down outside Wormwood Scrubs prison for landscaping and car parking and kept empty for nine years in some cases—is that really for operational reasons?
  When the Under-Secretary visited Southend, a Conservative borough, its members tried to impress on her that, although they had tried all the initiatives that she had urged them to try, they still could not cope with the basic needs of homeless people without using bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Despite all the initiatives that the Government have urged on local authorities, even their own supporters—the Conservative councils—cannot deliver.
  The underlying cause comes down to two figures. In 1977, the figure for building starts for local authority houses was 140,000. By 1979, it had been reduced to about 92,000—a good figure to have maintained at that stage. By 1985, the figure had dropped to 33,000. There has been a dramatic cut in the supply of housing. A Government who

  29
  are selling their economic philosophy on the basis of supply and demand do not seem to understand that if supply is deliberately and wantonly cut it will produce an acute crisis in demand. They do not understand their own lectures about the economy.
  There is no way in which the private sector can or will ever he able to make up the difference, and the Government know it. Even if they pumped money into the private sector with tax handouts such as the business expansion scheme and the Chancellor's new approach of Rachmanism paid for by the taxpayer, they still would not be able to get the supply back to anywhere near the level of the late 1970s.
  Mr. Robin Squire: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman moved quickly from the figures on council housing to the totality. Would he care to confirm the most recent annual figures for private construction? Are they not the highest for 14 years?
  Mr. Soley: As I said, they have gone up, but nowhere near enough. We are talking about a cut from 140,000 to 33,000. The increase in the private sector makes up only a few thousand of that.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I think that the hon. Gentleman would wish to have the complete story, as he referred only to the public sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) tried to get the total figures from him. Perhaps he knows that last year completions totalled just over 201,000, and that in the current year the figure is expected to be 223,000. Those are very large figures. I grant that the majority are in the private sector, but the hon. Gentleman must tell the House the whole story.
  Mr. Soley: I have told it, but I will tell it to the hon. Gentleman again. He can add up. He has referred to an increase of 20,000; I mentioned a cut from 140,000 to 33,000. Let the hon. Gentleman work it out. The figure of 20,000 goes into that figure about four times.
  Let me quote what was said by the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine):
  "I am far from persuaded that building more and more houses—that fewer and fewer of our children can afford—actually addresses the problem".
  The right hon. Member for Henley knows full well that—[Interruption.] I shall return to the subject in a moment, so hon. Members need not get excited about it just yet. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the number of new houses being built to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) referred are not for first-time buyers or for low-cost renting. They are being sold for £150,000 and £200,000 in the south-east of England.
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): So that we can have the complete picture, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that more than half the new houses built in the last quarter—these are the latest figures that we have—went to first-time buyers?
  Mr. Soley: The problem with that is that the amount being borrowed in mortgages is now well over 80 per cent. The Minister knows the message from The Daily Telegraph on that. He also knows that it is profoundly dangerous. There need he only a slight decline in the present boom in house prices, and the consequences will be catastrophic for those who have overreached themselves.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware of any occasion on which a homeless family in a bed-and-breakfast hotel in London have been able to go to an estate agent and buy one of the new houses which have been built since the Tory Government came to office, and which they have encouraged in the private sector?
  Mr. Soley: Precisely. I shall return to the subject of house prices in the south-east in a few moments.
  The other figure that adds to my argument is this. Residential construction Investment in the United Kingdom has fallen to an all-time low of about 2·1 per cent. For almost all our competitors, it is over 3 per cent., and in places such as West Germany and many other parts of Europe it is about 6 per cent. We are investing less in housing than almost any comparable country in North America or Europe.
  The Government say that the answer lies in the Housing Bill, as we see in their rather pathetic amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it?"] It is a long-running farce, but we have not seen it yet.
  The Association of District Councils, a Conservative-controlled body, does not agree that the answer lies in the Housing Bill. The association thinks that the Bill is a disaster. Nor does that answer please the Conservative-controlled council of Barnet, in the Prime Minister's constituency, which had this to say:
  "the Government's White Pa per"—
  that is, the White Paper that led to the Bill—
  "confirms the belief that the legislation is clearly aimed at breaking up the housing stocks of local authorities, rather than to give a clear 'tenant's choice'".
  In Southend, a representative of another Conservative council—this time in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Transport-said:
  "I have been asked to register with you strongly that the Committee believes that the proposals would without safeguards be likely to reduce the Council's already grossly inadequate ability to meet its minimum statutory obligations to provide accommodation for priority applicants".
  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said:
  "it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the pick-a-landlord idea has more to do with political ideology than good management",
  and the Royal Institute of British Architects said:
  "the general tenor of the proposals is weighted against the local authority, even when it has a good record of housing management".
  The Government's answer did not please any of those organisations. Nor did it please the most senior Tory on Gloucester city council, who resigned after 16 years as chair of the housing committee. In his retirement speech, he said:
  "I took my decision riot to seek re-election while convalescing from a heart operation last year. I am concerned about the future of public housing in this country and especially with the legislation that is going through Parliament at the present time. I do not want to be part of it."
  He said that
  "on housing the Government had simply got it wrong."
  So we know what Conservative councillors think up and down the country. The response to the White Paper from a Conservative-controlled local authority was either neutral or sympathetic; the rest tended to be critical. So much for Conservative support for the White Paper.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo rose——
  Mr. Soley: I will not give way. I would be impinging on other Members' time.

  31
  Telford and Milton Keynes tell us something very interesting. When tenants in Peterborough new town were asked whether they would prefer a housing association or a council landlord, they voted by 94 per cent. to stay with the council. What are the Government doing? In Telford and Milton Keynes, they have decided to do away with elections for two years. They will transfer them first; then, after a couple of years, they will let the people have a vote—by which time they will have done all that they can to sabotage the ability of the local authority to offer an alternative management. That is why the so-called "tenants' choice" is in fact the landlords' choice. It is the opportunity to pick a tenant. If there were any real choice, it would apply to non-resident landlords in the private sector, so that tenants could genuinely make a choice in either the private or public sector. They are not allowed to do that.
  The crisis hurts most for those who are homeless or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. An article in The Guardian last week by Michelle Beauchamp put it very well. She wrote about one individual:
  "For three pounds, he got a bed in a room with six other people (three bunk beds and a single bed), a few blankets and a cooked breakfast the next morning."
  I assume that that was to escape the provisions of the Rent Acts.
  "There was also a television room with 12 beds in it and, at a guess, seven other rooms with between six and 12 people each. In all, there must have been close to 100 people staying there—all young and all homeless."
  That would mean a rent of about £300 a week, and that is probably what the landlord would charge. The alternative would be for the landlord to sell the property and put the money into a building society. Without any of the hassle of being a landlord, he would get more money. That is why in my area, a few months ago, I found four people sharing a room, each of whom was paying £70 a week.
  The Housing Bill will push up market rents to such a level that either landlords will go to the rich end of the market—to the companies and overseas businesses in London—or they will pack in as many people as possible. If they are really sharp, they will use the business expansion scheme that was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, get a tax return after five years and then evict under the much easier to evict procedure of the Housing Bill in order to sell the property with vacant possession. They will enjoy both a vacant possession sale and a tax handout—all from the Government.
  The Centre Point organisation that caters for many homeless people in London points out that it is very difficult for young people to return home. Conservative Members say from time to time that that is what they ought to do, and in her lecture to the Church of Scotland the Prime Minister seemed to think that it is a good idea, too. One quarter of the young people who stay at Centre Point have been in care. A number of them have been sexually abused at home. Are we really saying that they ought to return home? Is that the answer to the housing crisis?
  What is happening is desperately serious, and in a funny sort of way it is now coming home to roost among the Conservatives in the south-east of England. The Government have divided the north from the south by using the proceeds from North sea oil to fund the south. They are also building the Channel tunnel. Incidentally
  32
  and significantly, engineering companies are now advertising that they will pay the mortgages of the engineers that they are recruiting from overseas and in Britain because they will not move to the south-east unless their mortgages are paid. The M25 has also pushed up values. One may argue that all this should happen, but if it happens without sensible planning and without a sensible system for spreading economic wealth throughout the country, the result is a crisis in the south-east.
  Last Monday, I said that it was all about boundaries and votes in the south-east. Some Tory Members said that it was not about that at all, but now we have written evidence from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). He wrote a letter to a Conservative councillor but a copy was also sent to another councillor. In his letter the hon. and learned Member for Burton said:
  "Burton's structure Plan.
  I note that 4,500 new homes are proposed. This means an increase in the number of electors of about 11,000 bringing the overall total to 83,000—some 15,000 above the figure we were warned at the last redistribution (when Burton was saved from fragmentation) would be likely to be acceptable at the next redistribution.
  It follows that the building of any more houses on this scale is likely to lead to the dismemberment of the Burton constituency which is likely to reduce"—
  this is it—
  "my Parliamentary majority—and ensure a Labour majority on the East Staffordshire District Council for most if not all of the time."
  I am pleased to see that in the Burton Mail the Conservative councillor concerned said:
  "I have no wish to be associated with the contents of this letter."
  Full marks to him. I note that the hon. and learned Member for Burton said in the Burton Mail that this letter was intended only for a Conservative colleague. [HON. MEMBERS: "Surprise, surprise."] If so, I wonder why it is written on House of Commons notepaper. You, Mr. Speaker, will have a view about using House of Commons notepaper for party political purposes.
  The truth of the matter, as the right hon. Member for Henley said, is that the introduction of so-called rural villages will change the structure of Conservative voting in the south-east and lead to boundary changes. I said last Monday that I was one of the Labour party Members who suffered last time from boundary changes. This time it will affect the Tory party. That is one of the small morsels of pleasure that I get out of what is otherwise an appalling scene.
  Many people in the south-east, as well as some Conservative Back Benchers, are right to be concerned about the unplanned building of houses and housing estates in the south-east. I referred last week to Old Basing, near Basingstoke. The new houses at Old Basing are not for first-time buyers. They are not low-cost accommodation for rent. Those houses will cost a minimum of £150,000. Nobody on low or average incomes will be able to afford them.
  The Secretary of State's problem is that he has twigged that the Government will have to do something fast about housing. That led to the introduction of the business expansion scheme. The Government tried to let it rip in the south-east, in the hope that, somehow, the market would meet demand. The Government then found that a number of Conservative Members oppose their plans because they find that their nice, comfortable, cosy little areas will begin

  33
  to look like urban parkland. Without sensible planning in Greater London, in the south-east and nationally, we shall not get this right.
  Conservative Members believe that the answer lies in more and more home ownership. I accept that home ownership has increased by about 10 per cent., but if they believe that home ownership will solve the problem, I remind them that Switzerland, with one of the best housing records in Europe, has a very low level of home ownership. On the other hand, in Bangladesh, there is about 99 per cent. home ownership. The idea that tenure is the deciding factor is irrelevant.
  If the Government are serious about solving the housing crisis, they must give money to local authorities, housing associations and other organisations. They must reform housing finance in such a way that people can choose between renting and buying their homes. They should not feel that they must buy because if they do not they will never be able to afford a decent home. There is no flexibility between renting and buying.
  In other countries, one can switch from the rented sector to owner-occupation, and then switch back again without economic hardship. That cannot be done in the United Kingdom. It is impossible for elderly people to rent accommodation because they can no longer look after their own property. The young, those on low incomes and the unemployed cannot become owner-occupiers. They have to rely on rented accommodation. That is what is wrong with this Government's housing policies. What they have done is criminal. They have destroyed what was once an improving housing market, and thereby they have destroyed the lives of many people, particularly the lives of young people who are out there with their cardboard boxes looking for somewhere to live. It is time that this House gave them somewhere to live.
  4.17 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'congratulates the Government on the success of its home ownership policies, enabling more people than ever before to own their own homes; notes with satisfaction the Government's proposals in the Housing Bill to encourage private renting, to expand the role of housing associations, to give council tenants the right to seek a new landlord of their choice, and to establish Housing Action Trusts to improve conditions for tenants in some of the worst council estates; deplores the incompetence displayed by some Labour housing authorities who have on the one hand condemned homeless people to bed and breakfast while they have empty council property, and on the other failed to deal with delays for existing tenants who seek to exercise their right to buy; urges the Government to press ahead with its radical reforms of the rented sector of housing in the interests both of present tenants and the homeless, and to continue to maintain a proper balance between the needs of development and the protection of the environment; and congratulates it on extending and maintaining the protection afforded by green belts round major cities.'.
  There is always a ritualistic quality about these debates. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) says that everything that is happening is the fault of this Government. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) were here, he would include a wide range of subjects: the black death and other matters. If the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) were here, the three-day week would be put down to Thatcherite Britain.
  34
  That kind of approach is sad. The hon. Member for Hammersmith said nothing that went to the root of the problem.
  We know where the Opposition's priorities lie. We were to have this debate last week but, much to my disappointment, it was swept aside so that Opposition Members could support the picketing in a particular industrial dispute; but, their having gone to the aid of those people, the strike rapidly collapsed, as one might have expected.
  It is easy enough to apply the ritual in reverse and to show the answer to Opposition Members. A number of my hon. Friends have already pointed to the weaknesses in the arguments of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. The hon. Gentleman ended his speech with a rhetorical flourish about the worsening situation. Let him wait until the English house condition survey comes out. The Welsh house condition survey was published recently and revealed a very encouraging position, with the standard of housing improving. The difficulty for Opposition Members is that any good news is by definition bad news for them. Let us wait and see.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: No. I shall develop my argument a little further and then I shall give way to the bon. Gentleman.
  It would be wise for Opposition Members to wait for the results of the English house condition survey. Its preliminary results are reasonably encouraging so they should not attach their flag too firmly to that mast. Since the Opposition left office we have managed to double in real terms improvement grants to the private sector, and investment in the public sector has been increased in the past three years. It will not be surprising if we find that there has been steady improvement in the underlying condition of the housing stock.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, there has been a major increase in home ownership in this country. He belittled that and likened it to Bangladesh. I do not see the logic of his argument. It is clear—and every poll has always shown it—that the majority of people wish to own their own homes. I should have thought that hon. Members would agree that it was a good thing that 2·5 million more people own homes now than under the Labour Government. The proportion has gone up from 47 per cent. to 66 per cent. and includes 1 million council tenants. That is no matter for apology.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith talked about first-time buyers. He said that people are building houses and no one will buy them. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. People will buy them. As I have said, in the first quarter of this year more than half the houses sold—285,000—were bought by first-time buyers. Last year, there was a record number of new, first-time buyers. The hon. Member for Hammersmith was quite wrong to say that first-time buyers are excluded from those markets.
  Mr. Heffer: The Minister said that surveys and polls show that the majority of people would like to own their

  35
  own houses. I do not disagree with that one bit. Ordinary people in this country always like to own their own houses, but thousands, if not millions, of people are in no position to buy their own homes. Although some people are getting the opportunity to buy their own homes—incidentally at tremendous cost and with astronomical mortgage repayments—basically, it is the yuppies who are buying new homes, particularly in London and along Canary Wharf which is about to be developed. What about those who cannot buy their own homes? The Government are putting local authorities in such a position that, increasingly, they cannot provide houses for such people. That is the real sadness.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is a good thing that many more people are able to own their own homes under this Government than under the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported. Some 2·5 million more people are now able to own their own homes and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
  There is a variety of ownership. Recently, I had the privilege of visiting the Eldonian co-operative in Liverpool, which the hon. Gentleman will know very well. It was delighted to have escaped from being a tenant of the Liverpool council. It urged us to transfer the freehold of its property to the urban development corporation so that the co-operative could go ahead. We are supporting a variety of different types of ownership.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) reminded the hon. Member for Hammersmith that total starts are running at a very good rate. In the first quarter of this year there were 215,000 new starts. The hon. Member for Hammersmith does not realise that when a house is built and sold into the market another house somewhere else is released. Without those 215,000 houses being built, prices would be even higher and first-time buyers would be in real difficulties.
  The hon. Gentleman made a moving plea for speeding the planning and building of more houses. I am with him in that so long as he is with us in maintaining our commitment to the green belt, which has doubled, in encouraging and further developing the process which has led to 55 per cent. of all building in the south-east being on recycled land, and in slowing down the rate of the loss of agricultural land from what it was under the Labour Government. It is now running at about a third of what it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Of course we can and will do more in that respect. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the direction of policy and therefore the establishment of the urban development corporations, which are helping to bring forward recycled land.
  Mr. Morgan: The Minister said that, although houses costing £150,000 may seem out of reach to the first-time buyer, they create a vacancy lower down the system as a well-off person buys a house for £150,000. Does he agree that during a period of intense shortages of carpenters, bricklayers and plasterers, houses built predominantly in the £150,000 to £250,000 price range use the scarce supply of bricklayers and carpenters who might otherwise be building houses for social need? That would be a balanced approach to housing, for which we aim, and for which the Government do not.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman sings a different tune from that which his party normally sings, which is that we should greatly expand the amount of construction to cut unemployment in the construction industry. Perhaps he should get his act together. Houses costing £150,000 are not being sold to first-time buyers. Houses costing between £30,000 and £40,000 are now being built for first-time buyers and are within their reach.
  Mr. Soley rose——
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Paul Boateng rose——
  Mr. Waldegrave: I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Hammersmith first.
  Mr. Soley: The Minister is skating around the problem. I shall give him credit for knowing that the problem in the south-east is the lack of low-cost rented accommodation. He has to address himself to my comments about house prices in Dorset, and to the problem of some villages in north Cornwall, as censuses have revealed that 70 per cent. of those villages are empty for most of the year due to the second homes issue. The Minister talked about rhetoric. I have offered him the opportunity to talk about reforming housing finance, which will go a long way to resolving that problem. Will he accept that offer?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman must sort out his own ideas. In the past few weeks I have seen a number of corrections by him in newspapers as to what he is proposing. Is he proposing simply an additional £4·5 billion, which is the amount of mortgage interest relief? If he is, the problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will become still more acute.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Boateng rose——
  Mr. Waldegrave: I cannot fail to give way to that duo.
  Mr. Banks: Both together?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It must be one at a time, but which one?
  Mr. Waldegrave: It is a judgment of Solomon. I give way to the ex-Whip.
  Mr. Banks: Will the Minister tell me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) exactly where in the south-east, and London in particular, a new house can be purchased for £30,000 to £40,000?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I am well aware that in London such a house would be extremely difficult to find, if it could be found at all. I refer to the average prices nationally. Of course they are very much higher in London.
  Mr. Boateng: Will the Minister tell us what proposals he or his Department have to assist local authorities in London with the problems of first-time buyers and to restore the assistance that they were able to provide to first-time buyers prior to 1979 so that people can afford low-cost housing in London, especially at the current high rates of that so-called low-cost housing?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall come in a moment to the improvements that we might seek in the use of the huge local authority stock in London to bring help to the people

  37
  about whom the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is concerned. I am delighted that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) large areas of land are now being brought forward for development by the local authorities and the London Docklands development corporation, on whose land considerable numbers of cheaper and subsidised rented houses are being offered. I shall return to the use of the stock in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith and I disagree not about whether a minority of our people are being failed by the system but about the right response to that problem. Broadly speaking, the Opposition say that we should deal with the failures of the system—which means that too many people are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, or homeless—simply by going on with the system as it always was. I do not believe that that is the right response. It is a scandal that we have 10,000 families in bed and breakfast. That is why I have announced today the allocation of the latest tranche of money—I hope that there will be more—to help get some of them out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  Are we saying that, although we have 4·5 million council properties, we cannot run the system flexibly and efficiently enough to find those 10,000 families proper homes? I simply do not believe it. There is £9·5 billion-worth of support for poor people's housing. That is more than twice as much as mortgage interest relief. It behoves the House to examine how we use such enormous sums of money.
  The London borough of Southwark takes about 24 weeks to let a flat or house. If it reduced that length of time just to the average—if it were no better than the average—the equivalent of another 1,800 properties to let would be produced. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will disagree with me about this. That figure just happens to be a little more than Southwark's bed-and-breakfast list. If, therefore, it could manage its property properly, it could solve the problem now. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about repairs?"]. If it collected its rents, Southwark would have plenty of money for repairs.
  The Audit Commission recently calculated that if we could achieve a little improvement in the re-let period—not anything dramatic—we would have the equivalent of another 20,000 re-lets annually. There are 100,000 empty council properties, 20,000 of them in London. There is complete chaos in the management of many local authorities, which have the task of helping some of the most vulnerable people.
  A puzzled Councillor King—he sounds a reasonable fellow—who is the successor to the hon. Member for Tottenham in Haringey, said recently that, although the housing department there was
  "stuffed to the gunwales with party members and sympathetic workers it has proved incapable of tackling the basic problems of 1000s of tenants."
  Some of my hon. Friends might think that Councillor King's views show cause and effect.
  Tenants' leaders in Lambeth recently looked at that borough's accounts, and said:
  "What we have seen from a brief glimpse of the books is akin to lifting the lid on a Pandora's Box of gross inefficiency and mismanagement."
  A major survey, which nobody has challenged, has shown that more than half the people who are alleged to he in need of council housing are not.
  Mr. Peter Shore: What has the Minister to say about a council such as Tower Hamlets, which has several hundred homeless families, many of them in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and which has recently decided that some 50 or more families are intentionally homeless because they came from Bangladesh, leaving property which they had previously occupied there? Does he accept Tower Hamlets council's excuse that it is following this admittedly savage policy in relation to homeless people on the grounds that it is not getting sufficient Government money to convert property and make it available to those families, or does he think that the council is behaving irresponsibly and without regard to its duties as a housing authority?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that. The right hon. Gentleman and I have followed this matter and we have discussed it with people who are interested in the problem. Tower Hamlets borough council has tried to clarify the law through the courts. By chance, my officials are meeting officials of Tower Hamlets this afternoon to discuss what happens next. I am not sure that I think it fair to describe the officers and elected members of that borough as the right hon. Gentleman has described them, although I could detail plenty of improvements that I would like the council to make in its housing management.
  Mr. John Battle: Before the Minister gave way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), he claimed that waiting lists are grossly overestimated. He made the same claim some months ago. In Leeds, the figures are collected quarterly and registered daily. How was the evidence behind the Minister's claim put together, or is he simply suggesting that a statistical exercise in his Department is now getting rid of the reality of homelessness in our cities?
  Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman has another look at the press notice, he will see that it directs him to a major piece of research, which is in the Library, and which is the first in-depth survey of how waiting lists are managed. It was carried out by people quite independent of my Department, under contract. It was found that a huge range of methods are employed to keep waiting lists. People involved in housing, as the hon. Member has been, will be aware of that fact. The survey found incontrovertible evidence to suggest that the figures do not mean what they seem to mean.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I sat for eight years on a London borough housing committee. The Labour-controlled council refused during that time to review the waiting list although anybody could put their name on it. At the end of that time, it was reckoned that about 60 per cent. of those who had put their name down did not live in the borough.
  Mr. Waldegrave: One thing that the research discovered was that, if a council offered a house or flat to people on the waiting list, some of those people could not be contacted.
  All the indicators show that, to the despair of the Opposition, there is a slow but steady improvement in housing and that the great majority of the nation is well housed. The argument between us is whether it is best to deal with those whom the present system has let down

  39
  simply by providing more resources for the organisations that I have just mentioned, or whether we have to develop some new policies.
  Conservative Members have been waiting with excitement for the new Labour policies. We are aware that a major operation is going on in terms of reforming Labour policies. Nothing is more convenient for a Government than to have an Opposition which is producing good clothes that we can steal. That is how Governments have always proceeded. We await the work of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) attentively. I am afraid that our hopes will be set at naught. I am trying as best I can to keep up with the work of the Labour party, and I read recently in the New Statesman that its view of the work is that:
  "Vacuity, if not a political philosophy, is certainly espoused as a neo-political style".
  Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seems, after labouring for a year, to have produced a mouse. It seems that we cannot look for much help there.
  There is simply no point in piling money into the Councillor Kings and the Lambeth councils of the world, because they could not spend it effectively. We are therefore trying, by agreement with local authorities that will co-operate—through Estate Action and the priority estate programme, for example—to target resources that work well. We are setting in train a range of improvements on some of the worst council estates. I am aware, however, that that type of activity and targeting money on those in crisis most urgently—for whom I have announced money today—will not solve the failures of the system that produces those symptoms. The underlying problem is that we have managed, almost uniquely in Europe, to drive investment out of the private rented sector. That is why we are bringing forward measures in the Housing Bill——
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: No. I have given way a great deal. Hon. Members will no doubt have an opportunity to make their own speeches.
  We are bringing forward reforms to the Rent Acts which will bring back a reasonable private rented sector. With the business expansion scheme, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done exactly what the hon. Member for Hammersmith argued for—provided some fiscal equality in these matters. That is why we are bringing land back into use via the urban development corporations and why we will direct considerable resources to the housing action trusts to improve some of the worst estates. Often those estates are full of empty properties, even though some of them may be a few hundred yards from the House. Some of those estates have much empty property and that demonstrates a failure in their management and original design to produce tolerable conditions. That is why we shall be directing a large amount of our resources to getting those properties back into use.
  The tenants in the subsidised rented sector need far closer involvement in the management, and preferably ownership, of their properties. Otherwise any money that is made available may well go straight down the drain.
  Mr. Tony Banks: What about the private sector?
  Mr. Waldegrave: There are more voids in the private sector than in the public sector and that is largely as a result of the Rent Acts and their effect on property letting.
  We want an expansion in the number of housing associations because we believe that their traditions will make subsidised housing better managed. I am happy to announce today that housing association schemes, supported by local authority loans, will still be eligible for Exchequer grant under the Housing Bill.
  Another article in the New Statesman—I just happened to be leafing through the copy—said that when it came to management of the countryside
  "Notably absent from the play of forces is the Labour Party."
  On the basis of the contribution from the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I believe that there is no Opposition thinking in that respect. I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Hammersmith that he should not have to wait too long because, shortly, we shall bring before the House a Housing Bill that goes to the heart of many of the underlying problems——
  Mr. Tony Banks: Where is it?
  Mr. Boateng: Where is it?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Members on the very Back Benches will have the pleasure of carrying that Bill through its next stage shortly. I am pleased that they are impatient to get on with their proper work. Part of the joy will have gone because the Whip who carried the matter through so efficiently in Committee has unfortunately been compelled to resign.
  We recognise the weakness in many of the present systems which are intended to bring help to those who are most vulnerable within the housing sector. We recognise that failure, but the Labour party has learnt nothing and that is why it has little to offer to this debate.
  4.41 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: I shall be brief because I am aware that a number of hon. Members wish to participate in this debate.
  I found it odd that the Minister should make jibes about the delay in holding this debate because, yet again, no date has been fixed for bringing back the Housing Bill. Is it true that the confusion that the Government have got into regarding concessions made in Committee has meant that they are unable to bring it back? Are there problems between the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment? When are we going to have that Bill back? We would have been pleased if he had announced that today, but we heard nothing.
  I spent three and a half months in Committee on the Housing Bill and I am not surprised at the delay because we witnessed the Government's utter confusion regarding housing. The proposals within that Bill have nothing to do with housing need or housing conditions.
  I should like to describe the conditions in Manchester. It is a case study of the Government's record on housing people, the conditions that they must live in, and homelessness. It was an absolute surprise, if not shock, to discover in the Housing Bill—it may come back in a different form—that there was no chapter, paragraph or sentence on homelessness. The word "homelessness" did not appear in the Bill. There has been no reference to

  41
  homelessness in the Government's second flagship of housing policy. That is a mark of their commitment to housing.
  A few facts and figures give a clear picture of the situation in Manchester. In 1987–88, as a result of the fine efforts of the housing department and its management in Manchester—contrary to the Minister's jibes about the efficiency of housing departments—it managed to rehouse 12,694 people compared with 10,882 in 1984–85. It has managed to reduce the waiting list from 38,266 to 32,839 in the same period. Despite the limited resources it receives, that department is trying to make an effort to manage the stock at its disposal efficiently.
  The Minister has tried to cook the statistics on waiting lists, and it is important to look behind the rehousing statistics to discover what is happening in Manchester. It is clear that, between 1984 and 1988, the number of homeless families in temporary accommodation has risen from 181 to 433. The number of homeless people who have been rehoused has risen from 907 to 1,341. Other factors that have affected people in temporary accommodation have meant that the number who have been rehoused by the housing department has increased from 379 in 1985 to 1,096 in 1988.
  Those rehousing statistics show that the trend is that more and more homeless families are reliant on the local authority to rehouse them. Coupled with the increase in the number of people being rehoused, a massive extra demand for housing has been placed upon the local authorities by homeless families. Manchester is successfully tackling that problem.
  In Manchester, however, there are other indicators of unmet social need. The number of households now requiring accommodation has increased, as has the number of second-generation families requiring to be rehoused locally. The number of elderly people requiring decent units of accommodation locally has also increased and that would free their current houses for the second-generation families and others. What has been the Government's response? In this context it is important to consider the private rented sector. A survey undertaken last year by the research section of the Manchester housing department gives a clear picture of the situation. It shows that in the private sector there are 3,150 unfit dwellings, 3,620 dwellings that lack basic amenities and 8,740 properties in urgent need of renovation.
  I was absolutely amazed to hear the Minister say that improvement grants have been increased. In Manchester, those grants have been squeezed. The survey showed that there are 3,000 applicants waiting for improvement grant—3,000 families are waiting to do up their properties. They are already aware that the chances of receiving an improvement grant have been minimised.
  I am reminded of a public meeting that I attended about the Housing Bill. The leader of the Tories, Councillor Joyce Hill, said that the Housing Bill was about three important issues. First, she said, it intended to ensure that all families had security of tenure. That is wrong; it is about insecurity and about doing away with security of tenure. She said that it would ensure that fair rents would continue in the public and private sectors. That is wrong; fair rents are being abandoned for market rents. She also said that the important thing about the Housing Bill was that it ensured that everyone would have an improvement grant when they needed it. That is wrong; improvement grants are not even mentioned in the Bill. That is what the
  42
  leader of the Tories in Manchester had to say—she could not even read a brief from Tory Central Office when she was standing on a public platform.
  What has been the Government's response to housing need in Manchester? Let us consider the housing investment programme. I was staggered when I thought I heard the Minister say—he can correct me if I am wrong—that housing investment programmes for cities such as Manchester have increased. Let us consider the figures. In 1979, when the Government came to office, the H IP allocation for Manchester was £65 million. Today, that allocation is a miserly £28·8 million.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has abused a Conservative councillor for not reading out something right. Would he care to comment on the fact that Manchester city council has spent a lot of ratepayers' money on a leaflet that says that if tenants transfer under the right to transfer, they will lose their right to buy? If those tenants read the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman has done, they will see that that claim is false.
  Mr. Bradley: It is rich for a Minister to talk about leaflets being sent out by a city council when the Government are not prepared to answer the question about how much they are spending on political propaganda and on supporting private developers going around cities such as Manchester to try to fiddle people out of their home in advance of the Housing Bill.
  In real terms in Manchester, since the Government came into office, the housing investment programme has been cut by a staggering 350 per cent. If in real terms we had the same amount of money available as we had under the previous Labour Government, we should be receiving £129·65 million. Instead, as I have said, we are receiving a paltry £28·8 million and that has to be used to try to bolster the conditions in which people live in Manchester.
  Manchester undertook a massive survey of its own stock and produced its housing defects report. It found that it needed a minimum of £600 million to be spent on housing stock just to repair the defects that already exist. If we had a five-year programme in Manchester and the Government committed themselves to properly funding the housing in a city such as Manchester, we would be able to repair the 46,000 traditional dwellings needing improvement and we would be able to spend money on the 12,500 non-traditional dwellings in urgent need of repair.
  If we had such a programme, we would be able to spend money on the 118 tower blocks needing re-cladding, re-roofing, heating improvements and security systems. In my constituency of Withington we would be able to undertake a modernisation programme on the 9,000 inter-war houses that desperately need to be modernised so that people can live in decent conditions.
  We have estimated that, if the Government would put public money, as they should, into our housing stock, it would not only improve the conditions in which people live, but would create jobs. If we had a five-year rolling programme in Manchester, thousands of jobs would be created not only on building sites and in the construction industry but in related industries. Our survey entitled "Jobs, Homes and a Future" emphasises the need to bring employment into cities such as Manchester and public sector investment would bring that about.
  The Government's response has been to cut housing benefit, so reducing the amount of money people can

  43
  spend on their housing. We estimate that in Manchester over £15 million will be lost in housing benefit to people in desperate need. As a result of the Government's Housing Bill, housing is high on the political agenda. I do not think that it is any coincidence in Manchester that we had sweeping victories in the local elections and for once housing was an issue on people's lips as they went into the polling stations. They see that there is no answer to the housing needs of people in Manchester by selling off their houses to private developers; selling off their needs and their children's needs.
  It is no coincidence that, over the period of the Housing Bill, the number of people who have put in right-to-buy applications has increased massively. When we talk to those people about their applications, we find that they have put them in not because they want to become owner-occupiers but because it is the only way they can see of securing a future for their families. They are scared that their rights will be taken away by the Bill and they feel that the only way to protect those rights is to put in a right-to-buy application before that draconian Bill becomes law.
  Mr. Squire: Will the hon. Gentleman assure me that, when he meets constituents who express that fear, he points out that as long as each and every one of those people wants to remain a tenant, nothing in the Housing Bill can deprive them of that?
  Mr. Bradley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do everything possible to tell applicants exactly what the current position is under the Housing Bill. However, because the Bill has not come back to the House, we do not know exactly what the legislation will be. When the Bill comes back, we will be able to tell them exactly what the facts are.
  I should like to give an example of what is happening in Manchester as a result of the Housing Bill. As I have said, people are scared into taking out right-to-buy applications and are being pressurised by unscrupulous property developers who are going around the estates with glossy magazines about what they can offer. Manchester may be trying to counteract that with its leaflet, but that is nothing compared with the millions of pounds that will be invested by private developers.
  There is a firm in Manchester called Home Owners which we have caught on video going round offering deals to prospective buyers. It is offering central heating, double glazing and new kitchens and it is offering to consolidate rent arrears. It is offering all that with mortgage tax relief. In order to obtain the package in advance of the Housing Bill, it is offering endowment insurance schemes and giving applicants seven days to make a decision. Those people sign the forms for seven days and, even if they do not go ahead with the purchase of their property, they still have to have the insurance scheme. That is what is happening as a result of the Government's policy. The Government should be looking at the needs of local people.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The solution to the problem that the hon. Gentleman has indentified lies in his own hands. It has been created by Manchester city council saying that people would lose their right to buy if their property was transferred under tenants' choice. That is not the case.
  Mr. Bradley: Clearly, the Minister has no understanding of what is going on in council estates. I am surprised at that because he went to Manchester—although he did not offer to meet the local Members of Parliament—to discuss housing action trusts with the tenants. I should have thought that he would understand the needs of Manchester a little better now that he has been to see what a tenant looks like and what a council estate in Manchester looks like.
  The purpose of our motion is to place some emphasis on the needs of low earners and the needs and rights of people to have a decent home. That is what the Labour party is about.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House of Mr. Speaker's appeal for brief speeches.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I have listened with interest to the speeches. I was always taught not to criticise unless I could do better. If Labour Members used the same criterion, today's short debate would have been even shorter.
  The criticisms and condemnations of Government policies made by Labour Members will be greeted with some disbelief in my constituency, where housing is still one of our most serious problems. However, there is recognition of what the Government have achieved. My constituents are aware that in 1978, under a Labour Government, the borough council was able to spend £228,000 per year on improvement grants. Under this Government, we have spent £1,800,000 per year. In an area with 80 per cent. owner-occupation, I would be the first to say that that is still not enough, but it is clearly a vast improvement on the record of the previous Government.
  The neighbourhood revitalisation scheme to be launched in Accrington next week is another initiative supported by the Government. It will be of immense help in tackling the housing problems we have faced for so long. We have also seen a welcome increase in the involvement of housing associations, with splendid new developments for old people in Accrington, Oswaldtwistle and Great Harwood. There is also good news for our council estates. We have seen estates such as Huncoat and Fern Gore, neglected and virtually abandoned by Labour Governments and Labour councils, undergo a £1·5 million transformation thanks to a Conservative housing chairman and the Government's priority estates programme and Estate Action projects.
  I am well aware that in Hyndburn there is still much to do in private sector housing and on council estates, not least the Fields Bottom estate at Clayton-le-Moors, where there are problems similar to those tackled at Huncoat and Fern Gore. However, I am optimistic that the problems will be dealt with. On two visits to north-east Lancashire, the Minister has impressed even his political opponents with his enthusiasm, knowledge and understanding of all that needs to be done.
  Even the editorial in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph,which is not usually over-enthusiastic about most aspects of Government policy or about the Ministers involved, felt able to pay a glowing tribute to the Minister

  45
  after his recent visit to Blackburn. In Hyndburn, maintaining our 80 per cent. owner-occupation is the major task. I hope that it will be possible to reform and improve the home improvement grant system so that a positive contribution is made to improving our private sector stock. Provision of financial aid is required, not only where it is needed, but where it can most effectively be used. The lessons of the pre-1979 period need to be fully considered before introducing new legislation.
  It is pleasing that the Government's policy to extend owner-occupation has been so successful, but that in itself does not improve the condition of housing. With the increase of owner-occupation, it is now more important than ever that information about the repair and maintenance needs of housing should be available and promoted. The National Home Improvement Council has made a significant contribution, but much more needs to be done to get the message across to every householder.
  Many home owners cannot afford to keep their houses in good condition, and need assistance. Home improvement grants need to be made available to selected home owners in such a way as to assist householders in need and improve housing stock at the same time.
  I welcome the Government's support for the care and repair schemes and the neighbourhood revitalisation services scheme, but those need to be extended, and encouragement must be given to building societies and other financial institutions to develop lending packages to assist owners with repairs, maintenance and improvement.
  Although I am concerned about improvement grants for home owners, I am equally concerned about people who do not have a home to improve. In England alone, there are, as we have heard, more than 100,000 families who do not have a home. On 30 March, I introduced the Empty Property and Community Aid Bill, which would require local authorities to take steps to identify empty properties and put them to use. We must act to end the scandal of empty properties in public and private sectors.
  To have so many properties empty, often for many years, when so many families are living in bed-and-break-fast accommodation in which family life is impossible is not acceptable. My Bill has the support of hon. Members of all parties and it would make a real contribution to improving the availability of houses for homeless people I hope that the Government will feel able to support it as an extension of their own proposals to deal with empty local authority properties.
  St. Augustine once prayed that God would make him pure—but not just yet. I wish the Minister well, and hope that he will move on to higher office—but not just yet; not until he has put into full operation the policies for which he sees a clear need——
  Mr. Corbyn rose——
  Mr. Hargreaves:—to deal with the problems that need tackling in north-east Lancashire. I hope that he will not go until he has introduced policies that will build on the successes that have already been achieved—successes which are self-evident to all who live in my area and which make nonsense of so many of the Opposition's arguments this afternoon.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) spoke
  46
  about a great Churchman. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, the Churches seem to be in conflict with the Government these days. He rightly said that they, perhaps, know more about the social problems of the country than the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  I note that all Scottish hon. Members have been sent a letter by the secretary of the Committee on Church and Nation of the Church of Scotland, telling us that the committee has completed an independent inquiry into Scottish housing. I hope that the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will take note of that inquiry.
  The Minister spoke of the great success of the sale of council houses. His right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland goes on television to tell us that he was right because everyone is now buying council houses. I know of people in Glasgow who go around selling cut-price whisky and no questions are asked about where they got it from. Just because everyone buys that cut-price whisky does not mean that they are right to sell it. The same goes for the deal upon which the Tories are embarking with the sale of council houses. They have dishonestly given people the chance to buy those houses without a thought for the people who are falling behind. A woman came to my surgery and told me that it was ridiculous, but her daughter could not get a council house, and asked me what the Glasgow district council was playing at. I told her that she had bought her council house, as had her sister two doors down—not to mention the neighbour in between. So, I asked, what chance was there for her daughter to obtain a council house if everyone in the area in which she wanted a house had bought one——
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo rose——
  Mr. Martin: I shall not give way; the hon. Gentleman has intervened on several occasions.
  It is all very well for the Minister to say that there are empty houses in Glasgow that the young girl I have mentioned could get. But the Minister knows well that that is misleading, because people in Glasgow and other parts of the country rightly want to stay in the communities in which they were brought up—they do not want to move to other parts of the city. I am not against the sale of council houses but the Government policy of not replenishing the housing stock is breaking up communities, and I am against that. The party of law and order should know that law and order was maintained when granny stayed up the next close and auntie was there to watch the child if the mother had to go on a message or was out at work.
  I pay tribute to what the voluntary associations are doing for the homeless. I have a brother who works down here in London with the Simon Community and who takes a great deal of interest in the homeless of London. It saddens me every time I go north on the sleeper from Euston to see the many down-and-outs—a sad name—hanging around that station. Many of them are Scots men and women and people from the north who came to this city looking for work. Every time I speak to voluntary associations—the Salvation Army, the Churches and many other organisations that do commendable work which is appreciated by Ministers and Back Benchers alike—their representatives say that they could do with more help from the Government. I hope the Government bear

  47
  that in mind. Every week, every year, that the divide between the wealthy south and the ever-poorer north grows wider, more people will come to the city and live——
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whereas the English Housing Bill is apparently in suspended animation and has been out of sight between Committee and Report for some months now, the Housing (Scotland) Bill is through its Report stage and in the House of Lords? We have been given to understand that there is to be some special deal for housing associations in England. Would it not be outrageous if the English housing association movement got concessions from the Government but its Scottish counterpart were deprived of such benefits?
  Mr. Martin: I know the work of the Scottish housing associations far better than that of the associations south of the border, and I think that that would be sad.
  With a few other hon. Members, I went on a trip down the River Thames last week. The aim of the trip was not to look at housing, but we had an opportunity to see the work being done and the development in the London docklands on both sides of the river. Anyone interested in housing must say that it is a pleasant and impressive development, but it highlights what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said about the problems of affluence in this city. Perhaps London Members will mention this. I know, looking at the property and the advertisements in The Times, that no young couple, even those on the average skilled wage, could afford a flat in that development, which stretches for miles. If the Minister does not address himself to that problem in London——
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a matter of concern. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the fact that about one fifth of all housing in the docklands area is broadly social, subsidised housing, which is helpful.
  Mr. Martin: I am glad to hear the Minister say that. The test of whether that will help the communities in those areas will be if, in four or five years' time, the Minister and I can go back and see the properties still in the hands of the young couples who acquired them through those subsidies.
  I have only two other points to make, because I know that colleagues wish to speak. First, I see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for housing, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is on the Government Front Bench. I should like to address my remarks to him. I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the rent and rate rebate system. I am appalled at the stories that I am hearing at my surgeries. An elderly gentleman came to see me. Two months ago, with the rebate system, he was paying a total of £9 a month. He has now received a bill for £119 a month. That is related to the fact that he gets a small pension for industrial deafness. It is small wonder that, faced with a bill of £119 a month, he took a shock and had to be taken to hospital.
  The average tenant whom I see has to find another £30 a month this month in rent and rates. There is something
  48
  Wrong. I hope that the Minister will examine that. I remember that when the famous Rent Act 1974 was introduced the Tory Government's argument was that anyone in difficult circumstances did not need to worry because there was a rent and rebate system to protect the weak and the poor in our society. I want to see that protection for my constituents.
  Finally, I refer to the voluntary housing associations. On Friday I looked at an impressive scheme in my constituency, known as Thomson street school, in the east end of the city. The school was closed down because of a shortage of pupils and now there is a beautiful housing complex for disabled people on the ground floor and families above. The associations are worried. After all the work that they put in, in four or five years' time, those houses could be in private hands and the associations could have no control or input.
  I hope that the Minister will look at the points that I have raised.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Ian Gow: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) seemed to be in a state of some confusion about the right-to-buy policy introduced by the Government in the Housing Act 1980. He started his speech by complaining about three houses in his constituency which were previously owned by the council, and which, as a result of the right-to-buy policy, had been bought by the former tenants, yet the hon. Gentleman, who criticised the purchase of those three houses by his constituents, went on to affirm his belief in the right to buy. He said almost in the same sentence that it was the fact that those three houses had been bought that had denied another of his constituents the right to be a tenant. There is still much confusion within and without the House about the consequences of the right to buy.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I should like to make one thing clear. The point that I was trying to make is that there should be the right to buy, provided that the Government assist in replenishing the stock.
  Mr. Gow: But those three houses that were bought by the former tenants, all of them the hon. Gentleman's constituents, are still there. If those former tenants had not bought those houses, the chances are that the tenants would have remained there and the prospects of the hon. Gentleman's other constituents finding a tenancy would have been neither improved nor impeded whether or not that sale had taken place.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on selecting the subject of housing for today's debate. He will not misunderstand me when I say that I wished that he had been able to secure not a three-hour but a six-hour debate for the subject. It is common knowledge—this at least unites both sides of the House—that many hon. Members would like to take part, but time will not allow.
  I want to address myself to one aspect only of the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Minister. I think that it is a common view that, although in Britain today the overwhelming majority of our people are better housed than ever before, nevertheless, both the motion and the amendment refer to homelessness and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I believe, and I make my own

  49
  confession of error, that those at the very bottom of the pile to whom the hon. Gentleman refers in his motion and to whom my hon. Friend refers in the amendment—the homeless and those who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—represent a continuing scandal. I say this to my hon. Friend: the paradox of a greater supply of houses than of households, even though the empty houses are not always in the places where the homeless are, should be a continuing source of concern for the House.
  I should like to talk particularly about London because it is in London that the problem is most acute. When I held the office now held by my hon. Friend the Minister, I made a journey in the company of Mr. Reginald Freeson, the predecessor of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), to look at some of the bed-and-breakfast hotels. Some of those so-called hotels are a rip-off of the taxpayer and the ratepayer and provide appalling accommodation for those who live there. I underline the word "some".
  It is wholly unsatisfactory that in London houses and flats owned by local authorities stand empty while people have to live in wholly unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast accommodation. If almost all the people living in the worst type of bed-and-breakfast accommodation—sometimes mum and dad and two or three or even four kids living in a single room—were offered the choice between remaining there or moving to a house or flat, they would prefer to move. They would exercise that choice even if the house or flat were not in good repair. It is a continuing indictment of some local authorities in London that that truth has not been understood.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith and other Opposition Members have understandably said that part of the reason for 20,000 empty houses and flats in London is bad repair. Even if I accepted that argument, I would still assert that many people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation would infinitely prefer to live in houses and flats that are not in good repair. The cost of keeping individuals or families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is in many cases outrageous. I repeat that that is a rip-off of taxpayers and ratepayers. In addition, void properties accelerate the opportunity for vandalism and mean that no rent or rates are being paid.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Would the hon. Gentleman apply the same strictures to empty private sector houses?
  Mr. Gow: Among the evils that the Housing Bill seeks to address is the scandal of empty private sector houses and flats. It may not be morally right, but it is legitimate for any man to do what he will with his own. We are trustees in the public sector and have a different obligation. I am not talking about morality.
  I shall give the hon. Gentleman an illustration. It is legitimate for him to leave the electric light in his house on all day if he wishes. By doing that, he is wasting his own money. In the case of public assets, whether in the sphere of central or local government, we are the trustees. I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's central point.
  Mr. Soley rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps some Front Bench interventions could be held back until we come to the winding-up speeches.
  Mr. Soley: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would the hon. Gentleman direct his comments to the
  50
  Government sector, which has 6·9 per cent. of empties? Before he moves from this important point, will he bear in mind the fact that, before the Labour Government left office, there were hardly any families in bed and breakfast but that now in Labour, Tory and Liberal boroughs there are literally hundreds of people in such accommodation? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why that should be so?
  Mr. Gow: I do not defend, nor could anyone honourably defend, a situation in which houses and flats owned by the Government are empty. There have never been so many empty local authority houses and flats in London. It is to that matter that I am directing my speech.
  A long time is elapsing between the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Housing Bill and its return to the House on Report. The Minister's officials or the heroes who toil away drafting legislation could utilise that time to include two, three or four clauses in my hon. Friend's excellent Housing Bill that would apply pressure upon local authorities—especially, but not exclusively, in London—to bring unused. accommodation into use. That would do much to diminish the number of families living in totally unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Such clauses would command the enthusiastic approval of all hon. Members.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: While listening to the Minister, I was reminded of a quote by no less a person than Zsa Zsa Gabor. She was asked for her comments about the condom and said that she was inclined to say that it all depended on what was in it for her. That seems to be the case with housing policy. No matter from what angle it is viewed, everybody seems to be concerned about what is in it for him.
  We all seem to be missing the point about housing; the Government are certainly missing it. In Britain, probably more than in any country in the Western world. the access to decent quality housing depends almost entirely on one's wealth, income and social class. It is worth spending some time looking at the results of that. Some people who are lucky enough to be housed in rented accommodation are forced to live in almost ghetto conditions. Perhaps the standard and size of the property is an improvement on what a family had before, but in some ways it may he compared to a house in a ghetto of the 19th century.
  Hon. Members have talked about homelessness steadily rising over a substantial part of this decade. I welcome the Minister's announcement of some new initiatives and resources; I am sure that we all welcome that. The Government have now been in power for almost a decade and all the problems of homelessness cannot be laid at the door of Labour or Liberal councils or anybody else. The problem of homelessness has increased under the Government and they have taken only small and insignificant steps to resolve it.
  There has been a great deal of talk, especially by the Minister, about the use of resources and about who will benefit from the Housing Bill. Let us spend a little time examining the Government's recent record. We support owner-occupiers as much as anybody else does. About £5 million is currently spent subsidising people who are very often the people who least need that subsidy. At the same time, housing benefit to the least well-off or to people just above that level has been cut. That is a paradox, yet the Government and their supporters somehow seem to

  51
  square that circle. Hon. Members must have had sackloads of letters from constituents explaining the difficulties that they have had as a result of the loss of housing benefit since April. These two factors co-exist—mortgage tax relief seems to grow without check, while the Government are happy to reduce the subsidy available to the least well-off.
  The Housing Bill will shortly return to the House. I felt that some of the measures in it were worthy of discussion, and I spent three and a half months in Committee being willing to discuss them. However, on reflection, I feel that there is something inherently dishonest about that Bill. It is that the Government know, the Minister knows—although I suspect that the Secretary of State is so cocooned in an ideological straitjacket that he probably is not aware of it—all the officials who advise the Minister know, most serious commentators in the press know, and all the experts in the academic world and the great institutions involved in housing know that the Housing Bill will not make much difference at all. Areas such as my constituency, others in the north and all areas with severe urban deprivation, which is reflected in housing, will not be affected by the Housing Bill.
  Mr. Corbyn: It will make matters worse.
  Mr. Howarth: I do not know that that is so. Sensible tenants may say they do not want to get involved in any pick-a-landlord scheme, so it will make no difference to them. Unless resources are directed through the local authorities, those estates will continue to decline, and the tenants will know that without more resources, going to a private landlord will make no difference.
  Mr. Corbyn: When a group of tenants on an estate near the City of London or an area of housing crisis are hoodwinked into allowing tenancies to be transferred, will that not be a setback in the long run, because it will take housing from the working-class people for whom it was built in the first place?
  Mr. Howarth: I could not disagree with that.
  The Minister and his colleagues have made great play of the use of housing action trusts, of which it is proposed that there will be 10. The Minister will be aware that I have the forerunner of a HAT in my constituency—the Stockbridge village trust. I have taken a great deal of care not to criticise the trust. I hope that it will work, because for many people the prospect of decent housing depends upon it. However, as Ministers may be aware, it has not been a great success. Part of the reasoning behind the building of Stockbridge village and the setting up of HATs is that they will uplift areas and ensure a greater mix. For example, if some spare land is left over, private developers can build houses for owner-occupation. However, Barratt built some houses three or four years ago in Blackthorne crescent in Stockbridge village, with a purchase price of £22,500. I understand that a developer is now offering the Abbey National building society, which owns them, £5,000 a unit, so that cannot be said to be a great success.
  The Stockbridge village trust has not succeeded in making owner-occupation attractive. I suspect that if areas of the greatest deprivation are chosen for HATs, that will ensure they are not a success. We are dealing with a
  52
  phenomenon that is not entirely the responsibility of councils or to do with rented houses—it is to do with the local economy.
  In the Committee that considered the Housing Bill, I tried to promote a consensus of support, from hon. Members on both sides of Committee, for housing co-operatives. One product of the Bill is the use of private finance in a system of flexible housing association grants. I know that the intention is to increase the supply of houses in the housing association sector, but when that is applied in an area with low values and high costs—and one or both of those problems applies in most areas—the net effect is that the housing co-operatives and housing associations will have to do package deals with construction companies, cutting out the architect. Those package deals lead to system building, a problem on many housing estates. It is ironic that housing co-operatives, which the Minister and others support, may be killed off by the application of private finance.
  The Housing Bill will not work, and the Minister knows it. He knows too that the Government's housing policies are not working. The civil servants know it, the academics and housing experts know it. I suspect that the Secretary of State does not know it, and that the Minister, who is a nice chap who tries to build up his role as the acceptable face of the Department of the Environment, will not escape criticism, because there is a housing crisis. It is an intellectual crisis for the Secretary of State, but a human crisis for thousands of people.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I hope that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) will forgive me if I do not pursue most of the points that he made. However, I was disappointed, as I am sure that the House was, that he did not pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who announced last week an additional £20 million for the housing investment programme, to go specifically to those local authorities that have within their housing stock Airey houses, Smith houses, Wates houses and other system-built houses. I place on record my gratitude and that of my constituents in the Pear Tree estate in Rugeley in the Cannock Chase district council who, through that announcement, have received a substantial sum of increased resources, which will relieve the hardship of owners and tenants on those estates. In the west midlands area in general, the Department of the Environment has announced an increase in its housing investment programme for this purpose of £4·6 million. For that, my constituents are extremely grateful.
  Another form of hardship could be alleviated if only local authorities behaved more prudently and responsibly in the way that they manage their properties. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) touched specifically and in an enlightened way in his reply to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on the difference between the ethic of private ownership and the way that a private individual spends his or her money, and public ownership, and the fact that local authorities, elected councillors, and Members of Parliament are custodians and trustees of the public purse. It is a scandal that local authorities have failed to collect £2·5 million in rent arrears. That is "squandermania" on an increasingly

  53
  horrible scale. Had that money been collected, it could have been recycled and spent on improving hard-to-let houses and blocks of flats.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heddle: I shall not give way because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if hon. Members follow your strictures to be brief, as I intend to do.
  One form of hardship which has not yet been mentioned but is referred to in both the Opposition motion and the Government's amendment to it is the question of the ever-escalating cost of homes, particularly as it affects the first-time buyer. My hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that we said in our manifesto:
  "Some people are still deterred by the costs and complications of house purchase. That is why we must look for new ways to make house-buying simpler and easier."
  I wish to declare a non-pecuniary interest. I have the honour to be a vice-president of the Building Societies Association. All financial institutions involved in providing money for house purchase, whether they be local, regional, national and, increasingly, international, building societies, banks and other lending institutions, have a duty to regulate the amount of money that the public can borrow and to educate them about that. Most building society posters show that the societies are prepared to lend up to four times the applicant's income. I wonder whether that is prudent and sensible in the long run and whether it is perhaps fuelling house price inflation and encouraging some people, particularly first-time buyers who have no alternative but to get on to the first rung of the ladder of home ownership, to spend more than they can afford.
  In the context of the manifesto commitment to which I have just referred, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, if not on his occasion, then on a future occasion before the next Session of Parliament will bring forward legislation to reduce, if not outlaw, the dishonourable practice embodied in the horrible word gazumping—the practice of people's word no longer being their bond. I should like to put to the House four practical ways in which that practice can be reduced, if not eliminated.
  First, it can be done simply by reducing the time beween the acceptance of an offer and exchange of contracts. It can be done by improving the recommendations of the Law Commission's conveyancing sub-committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Julian Farrand who suggested, in his report of January last year, that the vendor and purchaser, on agreeing a price and the terms of the transaction, should be voluntarily obliged to place half or a three quarters deposit so that, if either party withdrew from the transaction unreasonably, that deposit would be forfeited. Professor's Farrand's recommendations amount to no more than a toothless tiger, because, no vendor, while there is a buoyant housing market and, indeed, the majority of first-time buyers, because they cannot afford to do so, will want to put down such a preliminary deposit. That deposit should be made mandatory and enshrined in an Act of Parliament.
  Secondly, on the acceptance of the purchaser's offer, the vendor should be obliged to produce local searches for the purchaser, thereby eliminating the necessity for solicitors to spend time and the purchaser's fees on obtaining local searches.
  54
  Thirdly, if that is not possible, I hope that my hon. Friend can be persuaded to impose upon local authorities the duty to respond to local searches within a reasonable time. In that context, the Law Commission's conveyancing sub-committee has suggested that 10 days is a reasonable time. It is, therefore, scandalous that some local authorities, such as Hackney, Islington and Tower Hamlets, take up to five or six months to respond. When I introduced an Adjournment debate on that subject two months ago, I produced heart-rending, tear-jerking letters from nurses and schoolteachers wanting to buy but who had been frustrated in their wishes because of the bureaucratic log-jam and the inability and insensitivity of some local authorities.
  Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend, without having to come before the House with a Bill, will be able to impose upon a local authority the duty to computerise its search procedures. If local authorities are incapable, unable or unwilling to do so, he should encourage them to put that function and that responsibility out to the private sector. By adopting those positive, simple and straightforward proposals, the majority of first-time buyers, who at present are either being gazumped, or frustrated by local authority bureaucracy in their attempts to get on the vital first rung of home ownership, will realise their ambition and achieve their dream much sooner.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This Opposition debate is welcome and, as hon. Members will have noticed, my colleagues and I have added our names to the motion without amendment. We did that specifically to show, first, that the two main Opposition parties agree in large measure that the Government have gone wrong and, secondly, that we agree what the priorities should be. The majority of people in this country share those priorities and, together, we, the two largest Opposition parties, represent the majority of the electorate of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, we need to confirm those areas that are at the root of the housing problem, for example, the need to change the housing finance system. I am glad to see that the Labour parry now joins us in, for example, advocating a change in housing finance and recommends equal subsidy for those who rent and those who buy, as we have long advocated.
  The word "homelessness" has been heard often in this debate, and rightly so. The figures give the lie to the argument that homelessness is the fault of specific local authorities. For example, in 1979 in Southwark 651 families presented themselves as homeless, but last year that figure was 1,700. In inner London in 1979 the figure was 9,610, but last year it had risen to 19,000. The figure for Greater London in 1979 was 16,650, but last year it had risen to 30,000. In 1979 the figure for England was over 50,000, but last year it had risen to over 110,000. Those figures show that it is not local authorities that have failed, but rather that the nation has failed and homelessness has increased, whoever runs the local councils.
  Although I agree that by putting our empty property back into use we would go a long way towards solving the problem—I have sponsored Bills on that subject—it is not possible for Ministers to blame local authorities entirely, because the problem has grown, whichever local authorities have been responsible. The country knows that for the past nine years the Government have squeezed

  55
  local authorities in all sorts of ways, above all in the resources available to them. Of course, management by local councils must improve. My local council in Southwark has an appalling record, as have many others, but increasing homelessness is not only the responsibility or fault of local councils. Increasing unemployment over the past decade has meant that more people have been unable to keep up mortgage payments, let alone rent payments, and the drive towards home ownership has driven many people too far, such that they have had their homes repossessed.
  Additional resources to help the homeless are now the priority. The Government's announcements, both last year and this year, have been welcome, but the amounts announced are a tiny proportion of what is needed and by no means make up for the 70 per cent. cut in housing investment over that time. Much of the additional cash apparently given is in fact cash which the Government announced they were giving a week or two earlier. The Government announced £25 million extra for the homeless in the Autumn Statement, but the same announcement was made in a different press release on 30 November. Another announcement was made on 3 December, but it again referred to the same money. We are not fooled by that, and nor are the homeless, because substantial numbers of them were still homeless after all those announcements.
  There has been a massive increase in the number of families, including women who are expecting children and others in priority categories, who are accepted as homeless by local authorities, and there are many more single people and young people, both men and women, who are homeless on the streets. Homelessness is visibly the major housing problem of 1988. The homeless do not come only from the poor parts of Britain. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) cited Centre Point, which deals in London with some of the young homeless. The young homeless there do not come only from Ireland, Scotland and northern towns. Increasingly people from the home counties homeless in London because they cannot find housing.
  It is right for criticism to be made when local authorities do not do a good job. I contend that it is entirely unacceptable that anyone should be homeless on the streets of London, including members of foreign communities such as the Bangladeshi community who come to Britain and who cannot return home without losing the immigration rights that enable them to stay here. They must be housed whether they are in Tower Hamlets or any other borough. If the responsibility for housing that group and others does not lie with the local authority, it must be a shared one with the Government.
  On this subject, this is a crucial week for the Government and all local authorities, and I say that with friendship and courtesy to all those who represent the various parties in London. Now is the time when the issue of homelessness, as it especially affects members of immigrant communities, must be addressed across London and elsewhere and by all London boroughs. It is unacceptable that any group within our community should not be housed. If local authorities cannot independently of Government house the members of these
  56
  communities, the Government must find the necessary resources at the end of the day independently of local authorities, or with their support.
  Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is a continuing scandal, but the responsibility for this too must not entirely be attributed to any local authority. We all have responsibility. For example, Camden's homeless persons unit was closed for several months while the unit in Tower Hamlets, was open. The way in which Lambeth dealt with homeless persons has been criticised by the ombudsman. Brent's homeless persons unit was closed for months. The use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London over the past year increased by 22 per cent. while in Tower Hamlets it decreased by 11 per cent.
  As I have said, all families should be housed. We must concentrate our efforts on housing families and not on making party-political points against our colleagues in this place.
  Mr. Shore: I think that the House, especially those Members who have followed the saga of the intentionally homeless, as it is alleged, of Bengali families in Tower Hamlets, will welcome the hon. Gentleman's forthright and courageous statement. Some of his colleagues in Tower Hamlets are this very week pitching out 11 families on to the streets—they are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—who are in Britain lawfully under our immigration rules. I hope that they will heed his words carefully. I accept entirely that the problem is too large to be handled by any one council in London. The Government must provide adequate resources to deal with what is a national disgrace.
  Mr. Hughes: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has specifically said that the Government must help local authorities to deal with this aspect of homelessness. I have been in consultation with my colleagues in Tower Hamlets and I believe they understand that a collaborative effort is needed. I believe, too, that they are willing to participate in that approach along with the representatives of other parties, if that is possible; so that once and for all there is no group in Britain that does not have secure accommodation because of its immigration status. I look forward to discussing the issue further later tonight with other colleagues.
  The Government's response to the crisis has been to increase home ownership. The Minister referred to the great increase in first-time buyers. There has been such an increase, and many have responded to the Government's right-to-buy policy. Many of those who have taken advantage of that scheme have not been in the south-east, where many of those who wish to become first-time buyers cannot afford to buy. The right to buy has also come at a time when greenfield sites have been under pressure. It was not a shortcoming in presentation that led to the homeless not being mentioned in the Housing Bill, which we are waiting to consider again on the Floor of the House. It is a fact that developers are causing pressure to be put on land use in the south-east, at the same time as cheap rented or for sale accommodation is not being provided.
  The Housing Bill is flawed in many fundamental respects. It perverts the system under which people will have a choice of remaining council tenants, by rigging the voting system. It does not come to the rescue by providing affordable rents in the social housing sector. Unless the

  57
  Government reintroduce the Housing Bill in an amended form, which includes a fair voting system for tenants and a finance system that will ensure affordable rents, they will be failing in their duty. Tenants in the area which I represent and in many others are entirely critical of these and other fundamental flaws that are to be found in the Bill.
  Those in special need and the vulnerable, need housing. They do not need speeches about housing. Last weekend the Prime Minister bared her soul and revealed her personal theology in Scotland. I reflected that Christ, followed by the Salvation Army and many others ever since, thought that the best way of preaching the gospel was to act it out. The best way of dealing with the needs of Britain must be to provide practical help and support rather than preaching about self-reliance and the acquisition of more money. If the housing of the homeless and those who are in bad housing has not been a priority of the Government for the past eight years—the figures testify to this and show that there is a crisis of unparalleled proportions—that is a more powerful fact than any that can be made in a speech by a Minister, no matter how mighty she or he might be.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate briefly in the debate, especially as matters concerning both public and private housing are of great importance to my constituents. Housing is one of the major issues in Norwich.
  I did not agree with every word that was uttered by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), but I accept that the party-political approach is not the best one for housing. There is a great need for constructive ideas to be advanced for the future instead of continually returning to the old party-political battle-ground. I was surprised when the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) implied that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that would be found if a Labour Government were elected. Heaven forbid!
  It is clear that the hon. Member for Hammersmith has a short memory. During the period to 1979, when the Labour Government were still in power, we read of the lowest ever number of housing starts. We read also that 400,000 houses which were available to rent were lost, as it were, during the time that that Government were in office. There was a major decrease in housing improvement grants, and mortgage interest rates rose as high as 11·75 per cent. There was a fall in gross expenditure on public sector housing. To suggest that the Labour Government presided over an improvement in housing is a travesty of the truth, and every hon. Member knows that.
  It is difficult to learn from the terms of the motion what the Opposition's housing policy is. That being so, I shall not refer to it. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey attached his name to it. After all, the Social and Liberal Democrats chose to ignore housing in their policy document, which was entitled "A Democracy of Conscience." It was cobbled together in about 24 hours. It appears that the hon. Gentleman was reading the Bible during the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). At least he has been searching for some inspiration for a housing policy.
  58
  The important difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Labour party still believes that the answer to the housing problem lies in massive public housing programmes. That means a vast increase in the number of council houses. That is Labour's view, fair enough, but I disagree with it.
  In Norwich there is 42 per cent. public housing and 54 per cent. private housing, which means that there is a 'high proportion of council houses. The proportion is changing slowly. The amount of private housing is steadily increasing, partly because of house building by private house builders and partly because of the right to buy council houses—a policy which has an increasing influence in Norwich. In the past few months the number of council houses sold has increased remarkably. I think that I am right in saying that 3,500 council houses have been sold.
  I should like to talk about the problems rather than debate the differences in philosophy between the two sides of the House. My constituency case load in Norwich, North is made up almost entirely of housing problems—for example, waiting lists, transfers and damp, which some officials would have us believe is condensation, delays to repairs, empty houses and delays and errors in dealing with right-to-buy applications. The list is endless. Housing is a major problem for my constituents. I do not approach this matter in a partisan spirit. My constituents want these problems solved. They do not particularly mind how they are solved, so long as there is some way out of their unhappy circumstances.
  I believe, although the Opposition will not agree, that there are overlarge council estates. There are 22,500 council houses in Norwich——
  Mr. Boateng: Not enough.
  Mr. Thompson: My point is made for me. Time does not permit me to launch into a great criticism of Norwich city council, but even the most efficient housing authority would find it difficult to run a council estate operation of that size efficiently. That is why the Housing Bill is a major step forward.
  Unlike the Opposition parties, which merely hark back to the past, we say that things cannot go on as they are and that we must have a change for the benefit of those who need or live in this housing. I welcome the Government's intention to take powers to compel local authorities to dispose of empty properties. Even in Norwich, which has quite a good record, more than 100 properties have been empty for more than six months. This is a major problem to which hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), have referred It is right that the Housing Bill should address that point.
  There are 75,000 more houses than households in Britain. The question is how we can best match the houses that already exist with those who, we all agree, need them. Contrary to the criticisms of Labour authorities, the measures in the Housing Bill—I hope that we shall debate them soon—will help the homeless and young people, will give young people and council tenants more rights and choice and will give local residents more opportunities to be involved in decision making.
  Mr. George Howarth: In what way will the Housing Bill give all these additional powers to people on council estates?
  Mr. Thompson: I could speak at great length—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why give those powers?"] I shall talk at great length on why the Housing Bill will help tenants on council estates. Many of them look forward to the opportunities——
  Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackey, North and Stoke Newington): Name one.
  Mr. Thompson: We have been asked to make brief speeches, so I shall say only that Labour authorities, including Norwich, have been circulating leaflets which put across the kind of rubbish that we have heard from the Opposition and have been totally misleading people about the Bill's contents. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall confine myself to that comment.
  Labour has claimed that the tenants' chance to opt out will offer a bonanza to property speculators, but Labour does not explain properly the role of the Housing Corporation. Every landlord will have to be approved by the corporation. Labour's leaflets do not explain the role of the Housing Corporation in supervising discussions and consultations between tenants and landlords, even during the period of the ballot. It is important to remind the House that under the Housing Bill any tenant who wishes to remain with a local authority can do so.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Has the hon. Gentleman heard of estate management? If he goes to Barnsley, he will find the best estate management in the business. That was said by the Minister, who came to examine what was happening. The hon. Gentleman has talked about private landlords. I hope that he will take care to look at the position of former National Coal Board tenants who now have private landlords.
  Mr. Thompson: I am interested in that remark. I am in favour of good estate management, whatever the authority.
  It is unlikely that housing action trusts will be set up in Norwich in the near future, but I think that my point about them still applies. People in my constituency and Norwich city council feel that it would be a good idea if the meetings of the housing action trusts were held in public, and I agree. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of that point, which I have discussed with him, and hope that he can find time to respond as soon as possible.
  There is another problem in Norwich that needs to be addressed. It is generally agreed that there is a problem with the deterioration of many houses in the private sector. Labour-controlled Norwich city council and the Government must work together to find a solution. Many of these houses are let to tenants and the condition of many is deteriorating. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that an amendment to the Housing Bill may be introduced to insist on higher standards from private landlords. I think that both sides of the House agree on this point. Anyone who drives around Norwich or any of our other great cities will be worried about the deterioration of parts of these cities and the housing stock. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address this point.
  Under this Government, 2·9 million more people own their homes, including an increasing number of young people. We have improved the right-to-buy provisions. Since 1979, improvement grants have increased by 46 per
  60
  cent. We have provided more rights for council tenants. The Opposition offer only policies of more public spending, which would lead to high interest rates, which would destroy any chance of a good housing policy. We should welcome the Housing Bill as a constructive step forward. We should reject Labour's motion and support the Government's amendment.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be helpful if I say that I understand that the first of the Front Bench speakers will seek to rise at 6.30 pm. A large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and five-minute speeches would be helpful.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) will understand why I will not follow his points.
  The Opposition motion calls for
  "a planned programme of house building, repair and renovation."
  There is a definite need in Wales for a housing strategy and a major injection of funds to sustain that strategy. There is a problem in north-west Wales in the county of Gwynydd where many houses are in a state of disrepair. There is also a totally unacceptable position in the south-eastern valleys. That has arisen because in that area there is the highest percentage of pre-1919 houses occupied by owners who frequently are the least well-off in our society.
  The biggest problem in Wales involves council houses built between the two world wars, which now require the highest investment where modernisation has not been carried out. I appeal for a boost for housing expenditure in Wales. I warn the House that if the problems are not tackled and if the money is not forthcoming, slum clearance will be required at the turn of the century at the latest.
  In calling for fair play, I must state that unemployment is highest and dereliction and environmental blight are at their worst in those areas with severe housing problems. The people living in those areas gave Britain great economic service delivering coal and steel when the nation needed it during the first and second world wars. In the time remaining to me, I, like other hon. Members, want to emphasise the predicaments in which my constituents find themselves with regard to housing benefit cuts.
  A constituent of mine from Llay, an old mining village, has lost an estimated £18 a week as a result of the new regulations. He is a world war 2 veteran and he has a British Rail pension. I believe that he is a brave man. He served in the 4th battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers and he fought from the Normandy beaches right through to Hamburg. His family and I believe that he has been shabbily treated. The whole family are worried sick—financially—at the consequences of the proposed cut.
  Another constituent has written to me as follows:
  "We are writing as a family to express our abhorrence of the effects of the new 'Housing Benefit' rules on our widowed mother. On a total income of £63 per week with no savings remaining, she is expected to pay £18·73 in rent, previously this was £15·73 per week … If a 72 year old widow on low income who has had two operations for cancer is not part of a priority group, we wonder who is."
  Less than a fortnight ago I interviewed Mr. Tarren from Buckley who is aged 76. He has defeated cancer after a

  61
  major operation and is now in good health. However, the new regulations will deprive that cheerful battler of £80 a year in housing benefit cuts. At my constituency surgery on Saturday a 74-year-old widow told me that her income would drop by £2·44 a week as a result of the cut in housing benefit. She now lives on an income of only £44·05 a week. At the same surgery a 68-year-old man with a defective knee and a severely arthritic spine reported that he would lose £80 a year in housing benefit.
  Another constituent of mine on Deeside has a mild mental handicap,. He was given a tenancy by the local housing authority under the all-Wales strategy for services to people with mental handicap. Before his tenancy, he conscientiously went on a course for two and a half years. Under the old regulations he had rent and rate rebates of £16·30 a week. Despite his mental handicap, he is now not entitled to rebate. Despite his low income, the 65 per cent. rent taper disqualifies him.
  Another constituent showed me his rent book at my surgery on Saturday. His fortnightly rent and rates is now £50 instead of £6—the figure during the previous financial year. He told me that the family's diet has fallen away. They live on chipped potatoes because they are so hard-pressed.
  The background to the cases that I have described is considerable unemployment, near poverty, social isolation, ill health, hopelessness, bewilderment and immobility. I report the concerns of the most vulnerable people in the fine community that I represent.
  I remind the House that the Prime Minister addressed the Church of Scotland on Saturday. She adopted a high moral tone and she quoted the Bible to the assembled clerics. She held forth about money in her homily. I believe that the Prime Minister's stance is an affront to my vulnerable and honourable and respectable constituents. They have very little ready money and they suffer real hardship.
  If the Prime Minister had been beside me for the four hours that my surgery lasted on Saturday, she would have felt ashamed. She might even have felt some humiliation about the predicament in which her hard policies had placed my constituents.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Robin Squire: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), who may have sacrificed his chance of speaking in this debate by allowing me to speak now.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on the wording of the Government amendment to the Opposition motion. I support the amendment and its priorities. We are coping with the self-evident consequences of a success in home ownership and it is right that accordingly we are concentrating on the rented sector. I want to refer to quality, quantity and choice in that rented sector.
  Mr. Gow: Would my hon. Friend care to send a message to his noble Friend the Captain of the Gentleman-at-Arms, because over the past few moments in another place—this is most relevant to the subject of housing which occupies us today—the amendment tabled by the noble and gallant Lord Chelwood has been defeated by 317 votes for the Government to 183 votes against?
  Mr. Squire: I can assume only that Opposition peers stayed away.
  I want to refer to quality in the rented sector. It is a sad fact that the quality in much of the rented sector today is very bad. In referring to the rented sector I include the private rented sector and much of the council sector.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke at some length on matters about which we share common views. He would be hard put to suggest—and indeed he did not—that future investment in the rented sector should be aimed exclusively at council property. If he were to say that, he would be going against his experience in the London borough of Southwark, which experience is all too often repeated up and down the country by other local authorities and has been highlighted by the Audit Commission. It is not good enough for Opposition Members to talk as though, uniquely, the private rented sector is all bad. The fact that there is bad property in the private sector is willingly conceded by Conservative Members. We seek in return a concession that the service given to and the quality of property enjoyed by many council tenants is equally bad and requires attention.
  My second point, which is about quantity, follows from the thrust of the Housing Bill. The Government expect an increase in the volume of housing that will in future be privately rented. I fully support them in that aim. It is essential that there should be some increase, on mobility grounds alone. Representing as I do an outer London constituency, I can see that there is an appalling shortage of rented property, and that view is surely shared by hon. Members for London, wherever they sit in the Chamber. One of the ways in which that shortage can be tackled is by enhancing the private rented sector, including housing associations. That is essential if we are to have normal and free movement of labour.
  It is over the question of choice that the biggest divide arises between the two sides of the House. Until now there has been little argument between us about council housing. However, my hon. Friends believe that there is an advantage in offering a genuine choice to would-be tenants rather than having, as there is in most parts of the country, a near-monopoly of tenanted property owned by the local authority. Where there is a good local authority, such a monopoly will be in the interests of tenants. Sadly, in too many instances the local authority is not good and there are few alternatives, if any, from which would-be tenants may chose. Those who are looking for rented property—apart from those at the luxury end of the market—are, by definition, people who have an average or below-average income and have few, if any, alternatives. it is not open to such people to buy their way into house ownership.
  London and the home counties in particular face appalling problems in staff recruitment over a wide range of employment in both the public and private sector. I refer to the public transport system, to the National Health Service, and to the catering and entertainment industries. The central reason for that is insufficient housing at an affordable price. My hon Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is aware of the problem. I have made the point to him on a number of occasions and he knows that it remains a concern of mine. Provided that we get the balance right on the very important question of housing benefit—and we await the

  63
  details of the scheme, along with others relating to the Housing Bill—the Government will be able to tackle that problem.
  We must use the planning system more to achieve a proportion of social housing in most, if not all, local authority areas around London and in our other major cities. Otherwise, it will not be possible for essential workers——
  Mr. Dennis Turner rose——
  Mr. Squire: In fairness, I must continue speaking because I know that there are other hon. Members wishing to contribute.
  If the housing benefit scheme is unable to be of assistance, we shall need areas zoned for social housing, otherwise the people who are essential to making a big city tick will not be able to find accommodation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) mentioned the importance of using empty property. As a supporter of his original Bill, and as someone who attempted to have his proposals passed in Committee on the Housing Bill, I am a firm supporter of greater use being made of empty property.
  I have made clear my support for the Government's priorities. I conclude with a comment on homelessness, because ultimately it is that which we are seeking to tackle through many of the provisions of the Housing Bill. If we can succeed in our efforts to overcome that problem, we shall ensure in a number of ways that the majority of the population, who are well housed or adequately housed, will be so aroused that they will keep up pressure on both local and national politicians to provide more housing opportunities—particularly in the rented sector.
  It is in the interests of all hon. Members to press my hon. Friends the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Under-Secretary of State so that in their discussions with the Treasury—which they will undoubtedly have at regular intervals—they are both persuaded that housing is of the highest priority in our nation's affairs. If we can persuade my hon. Friends of that and can strengthen their hands in their discussions with the Treasury, the reforms, which already look encouraging, will be followed by further reforms. Above all, the conscience of that part of the nation that is well housed will be extended to the minority who are homeless or badly housed.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The Minister of State has had the bare-faced gall to come to the House and accuse Opposition Members of a so-called dearth of housing policy. That is obviously nonsense. I can tell the Minister that we shall restore the level of public spending on housing which, under the present Government, has been cut from £6·7 billion to £2·7 billion. That cut lies at the heart of the Government's failure to tackle the housing crisis.
  The means by which the Minister chooses to attack this side of the House is by reference to a magazine, which he produced and showed us all, called the New Statesman—an organ that makes an intellectual contribution to the Labour party, and a very welcome one. I shall tell the Minister of a magazine that was recently drawn to my
  64
  attention. It is a glossy publication which is surprisingly well written. It deals with the fads, the fancies and the foibles of the parvenus and parasites who make up the core of the Conservative party. Lo and behold—what did I see as I sifted through that publication, between the adverts for houses which are a snip at £375,000, and for bijou flats in Wandsworth for £160,000? I saw an article about the golden boy of the Thatcherite housing policy—none other than the Minister of State himself.
  When I heard the line the Minister was taking in this debate, I asked those working with me to obtain a copy of that magazine. I even provided them with a plain brown envelope so that they could do so. However, my secretary has written me a note saying, "Sorry, couldn't get one." They are sold out. So interested is the world in the Minister of State's utterances that my assistant could not obtain a single copy of that publication, which I can now name as the Tatler, within one square mile of this Palace of Westminster.
  At the heart of that article, the Minister of State comments on the need for community and how housing must serve the community. Anyone hearing what he and other Conservative Members said during the course of this debate, and anyone who had to sit through hour after hour of the Housing Bill, as we had to do, knows only too well that the Government's housing policy has destroyed the sense of community in all of the constituencies we represent, and that the bed-and-breakfast population have had any possibility of a community life removed from them. In my constituency, more than 900 families are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and mine is a constituency that has been praised by the Minister of State and his chief acolyte for the advances it has made in coping with its housing crisis. The other day the Minister of State talked about us in glowing terms. That is unusual for my borough.
  Despite all the work that we have done for those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, however, our housing allocation has been viciously cut by some 20 per cent. in real terms in the space of a year. Having asked for £82 million, we were given £19·25 million. That is the priority that the present Government give to housing. The result is a destruction of the community and a grouping in our society of people who have no opportunity to obtain public housing, and no opportunity to buy houses either.
  We have heard cheers of delight from Conservative Members about the defeat of the Lords' amendment in the other place. They should reflect that that in itself will cause a massive spiral of inflation in house prices, particularly in the south-east, as a direct result of the poll tax. It will do nothing to help the housing crisis, any more than the measures so far proposed by the Government will dent that crisis.
  We have heard talk today about the Bangladeshis. It is as if they, through no fault of their own, had contributed to the housing crisis in some parts of our country. That is not the case; the crisis was there long before they came. I can, however, name one person from the Indian sub-continent who has made a contribution to solving the housing crisis, Mother Teresa. That the day should ever come when she should have to leave the streets of Calcutta to point the finger of reproach at us in our capital city, and when Members of Parliament making their way home at night see people sleeping in boxes, is a reproach that Conservative Members must face.

  65
  The odour of sanctity clings to Mother Teresa as it has never clung to the Prime Minister, and we need to listen to what she says to us about housing. She says that we should care more, that we should devote more resources to housing and that we should put strategy in the place of rhetoric. That is the challenge that Mother Teresa presents to the House, and I only wish that Conservative Members were up to it.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Allan Roberts: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. It is also a welcome debate, and far too short for the right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate. But one never knows. Eventually—perhaps before the summer recess, perhaps after it—we can have a major debate on housing if the Housing Bill goes through Report stage and receives its Third Reading. The Bill is now lost in the limbo of the Department of the Environment and the disputes between the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Planning as they desperately try to define a "social landlord" in the private sector.
  Last night I met a Mr. Roy Murphy. People in the north-west will know that he is Shelter's representative in the region. He said that he had just been to a Shelter meeting on "social housing". It used to be council housing; then it was public housing; now it is social housing. If I went on to the streets of Bootle and offered someone a social house, they would wonder what I was talking about. They would understand what a public house was, but that is not what the Minister is talking about. They want to be offered council housing. They do not want houses with private landlords.
  Meetings all over the country during the run-up to the elections on 5 May were packed with people who made it clear, on council estate after council estate, that they did not want to go back to private landlords—especially the elderly and middle-aged, who started life as private tenants and waited and fought to get their council houses. They know what private landlordism means, and there is no going back to it for them.
  The Housing Bill—an amazing feat on the part of the Secretary of State and the Minister—has made the Government's right-to-buy policy a vote-winner for the Labour party. People on council estates, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) pointed out, are dying to escape the consequences of this legislation. It was one thing for the Government to destroy the public rented sector to sell council housing to sitting tenants by means of discounts or other incentives—to sell to people who wanted to become owner-occupiers. It is another to start selling council houses over the heads of the sitting tenants, which is what they are now proposing—and, in some cases, selling off the sitting tenants as well, against their wishes.
  Nearly 30 per cent. of people who live in council houses have bought them. That is not simply a tribute to the right to buy; it is a tribute to public sector housing. The tenants would not have bought the houses if they were not attractive low-rise houses. The Conservatives may be proud of selling them, but Labour is proud of building them. They would not have been there to sell if we had not built them in the first place. It is a myth perpetrated by the Tories that all council housing is bad and badly managed, but they are beginning to believe it themselves. Most
  66
  council housing is low-rise and attractive. Of course there have been mistakes, the mistakes of the late 1950s and early 1960s: the high-rise flats for families and the deck-access flats. But those mistakes represent a minority of the council houses in which nearly 30 per cent. of the population live.
  What does the Minister think of council housing and council tenants? In a speech in August 1987, he said:
  "My belief is, there should not be much of it at all. It is an oddity confined largely to Britain amongst European countries that the state goes landlording on this scale."
  So now we have it: council housing and council tenants are an oddity. That is the view of the Tories, and that is why for doctrinaire reasons they are setting about destroying public sector housing against the wishes of the tenants. As I have said, it is one thing to sell to sitting tenants; it is another to force people to give up their tenancies and be handed over to the private sector.
  The Government say that the pick-a-landlord scheme gives council tenants a choice. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) mentioned that. Any council tenant is free to choose now: he can give up his council house and rent from a private landlord. I do not notice many of them doing that. However, I notice many people coming to my advice bureau and saying, "I rent from a private landlord. The property is infested with cockroaches; it is damp; he is fiddling the meter; he is overcharging; I cannot get the repairs done. Please will you get me a council house?" That has been the history of our advice bureaux for the past nine years of Tory rule, and it is the history of Conservative Members' advice bureaux as well, if they would only tell the truth.
  The Government know that council tenants do not want to pick a private landlord. That is why they are rigging the voting system so that 51 per cent. of the people living on an estate picked out by a private landlord who wishes to take it over—not one that the tenants have asked to be taken over—must vote against the takeover; otherwise it will go ahead. It will not be 51 per cent. of those who vote, but 51 per cent. of those living on the estate. If someone dies while the vote is taking place, he will be counted as having voted yes because all abstentions will be counted votes. A tenant cannot go on holiday if he does not want to be taken over, because if he does not vote he will be counted as having voted yes.
  Those who have exercised the right to buy—the owner-occupiers on the estate—will have a vote as well. They can vote for their neighbours to be taken over. It is a voting system worthy of Stalin or Franco. It gives the lie to the Tories' claim that people want to opt out of the council sector. They know full well that that is not true.
  Mr. Michael J Martin: This applies not only to council housing, but to the Scottish Special Housing Association, which is a Government agency. All the tenants are happy with the organisation, yet the Government are forcing new landlords on them.
  Mr. Roberts: We talk about the voting system for the pick-a-landlord scheme, but housing action trusts will not even get a vote. The Minister promised to tell us their position when the Bill received its Second Reading, but we still do not know. He said that he was going to announce six trusts. But there will be no choice whatever for them.
  This is a con trick that the Conservatives always operate: "Starve the public sector of resources; do not give

  67
  the Health Service the money that it needs; that will cause waiting lists." Then they say, "It does not work; go private."
  The Government are doing exactly the same in public sector housing. They are starving local authorities of the resources that they need to maintain and manage housing. They are also starving local authorities of the housing allocations that they need to build houses and offer transfers. They are making it difficult for local authorities to run public sector housing effectively. Then they say, "It does not work; go private." But people on the council estates know what the Government are up to. They have rumbled them.
  The Government have tried to obfuscate and hide the facts. When the Secretary of State for the Environment answered a question about subsidies he said:
  "The total figures for Exchequer contributions to council housing in 1981–2 was £1·3 billion and in 1987–88 £0·8 billion."—[Official Report, 18 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 940]
  That is a massive drop. However, the Secretary of State said that that does not matter because there were fewer houses in 1987–88.
  I have the figures for 1978–79. The subsidy was £1·457 billion, an even bigger amount. It is not that there is less subsidy because there are fewer houses: there are fewer houses because there is less subsidy. The cut in subsidy has resulted in fewer houses. There are I million fewer houses for rent. The decline in subsidy over the last nine years of Tory rule is because the 1980 Act got rid of the Labour Government's direct subsidies to local authorities for the building of new council houses and the modernisation of older council houses.
  Subsidies bear no relationship to the number of new council houses that are built or to the number of older houses that are modernised and improved. Central Government told local authorities to increase rents every year by a set amount—the local contribution—until the housing revenue account was in surplus. Central Government subsidies were reduced and it was hoped that eventually they would disappear. In many areas, they have disappeared. The housing revenue accounts of many local authorities are now in surplus. That is a direct consequence of this Government's attempt to cut subsidies to local authorities so that they build no more council houses, thereby ensuring that the public rented sector declines even further.
  There are fewer houses and, we must assume, fewer tenants. However, as rents have increased during the last nine years, housing benefit payments, despite the seven cuts that this Tory Government have introduced, have increased from £1·7 billion in 1981–82 to £3·5 billion in 1987–88. There have been massive cuts in public expenditure subsidies to build council houses and improve older ones, but there has been an increase in public expenditure to help those who have to face the massive rent increases imposed by this Government.
  There have also been massive cuts in the housing improvement programme allocations. In today's prices, South Bedfordshire spent £13·6 million in 1978–79. Now it has been given £809,000, a cut of 94·1 per cent. Manchester was spending £108,329,000 on its housing investment programme. That has been reduced to £23 million, a cut of 78·8 per cent. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) did not refer to the housing problems that
  68
  have been caused by the cut of 80·9 per cent. in the housing investment programme between 1979 and now. Norwich regularly returns a Labour council. At Beauthorpe it was building houses for sale, houses to rent from housing associations and houses to rent from the local authority. That has been stopped because of the Government's cuts in the housing investment programme.
  What do this Government offer? They claim that the way to solve homelessness is to make sure that councils fill their empty houses, but they have ignored the huge number of empty houses in the private sector. In 1987, 511,000 private sector houses were standing empty, but only 108,600 public sector houses were standing empty.
  The Government's answer to the problem has been to hand over housing to the private housing market. They want to destroy the public rented sector completely. They have introduced the concept of assured tenancies, which destroys security of tenure for most tenants in the private sector. They have also handed over council housing to the private rented sector.
  The Government believe in only one kind of free market in housing—a shortage of housing. Market rents and house prices would fall if there were a surplus of housing. As the Government believe only in their own free market—a shortage—they will not build houses in the public rented sector. That would destroy the shortages that provide the profits in private rents and house prices. A house is not worth what it costs to build or what it costs to replace. A house is worth what people can get for it on the open market. That also determines rent levels. There is profit in the private rented sector and in the free market only if there is a housing crisis, a housing shortage and waiting lists.
  Aneurin Bevan said that the best kind of rent control is nine families chasing 10 decent houses. That is why I make no apology for restating Labour's answer to homelessness and the housing crisis. It is to build more low-rise council houses in the public rented sector that people want so that we can eat up the waiting lists, rehouse homeless families and get people out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Public expenditure will be needed. The Government say, "We agree, but where is the money coming from?" But they cannot say that after the last Budget. There is plenty of money, "loadsa" money, and we are going to spend it on building council houses.
  6.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): As the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has said, this has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. Hon. Members have made many points, to which I shall respond. First, however, may I put the debate in the context of the changes that have been taking place in housing.
  After the war our housing problems were on a large scale but they were relatively simple. What was needed was a massive programme of slum clearance and a massive programme of new building. It was arguable that, because of the uniform nature and scale of the problem, the house building programme had to be centrally planned and directed both nationally and at local level.
  Today circumstances are very different. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has already said, nationally there are more houses than households. At regional level it is quite clear that the problems of each

  69
  region are very different from one another; that within each region the inner city, the suburbs, the small towns and the rural areas each have different needs. Even within a single locality there is a range of different specialist needs—for example, for the elderly or for single parents.
  People's wants have changed, too. Most people want to own their own home. Even if they cannot afford ownership they want a choice. They are fed up with being on the receiving end of a distant and sometimes downright inefficient bureaucracy.
  The difference between the Government and the Opposition is perhaps not so much one of ideology but that the Government have recognised that different circumstances require different solutions, while the Opposition, stuck in the groove like some cracked 78 record, keep repeating their worn-out formulae, unwilling to admit that the world has left them behind.
  The Opposition motion invites us to "restore a planned programme" and
  "to create… an effective system of regulation."
  The language is revealing. Plans, programmes, regulations are apparently the panacea. But what are plans, programmes or regulations if they are not decisions that affect our lives taken by someone else: by Whitehall, or by the town hall?
  People would never accept for a moment that the quantity or type of food they eat or the clothes that they wear should be planned or programmed by their town hall, and they do not want to be dependent on them for their homes. Even more important, perhaps, the centralised approach to meeting housing needs can never work when those needs vary so much. Especially it will not work when our people are—and rightly so—so independent minded. It is no accident that many local authorities face severe housing management problems. These are the inevitable consequences of an approach that is no longer fitted to today's circumstances.
  Mr. Boateng rose——
  Mrs. Roe: The Government's policy is based on offering people choice: letting them decide what they want. What most people want is to buy their own homes.
  Mr. Boateng rose——
  Mrs. Roe: Since 1979, 4 million people have bought a home for the first time, including 1·1 million who were formerly council tenants. The number of home owners has risen by a quarter, and private sector house building has reached the highest level for 14 years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) asked about proposals for improvement grants. As I am sure he knows, a consultation paper was issued on 5 November. We shall bring forward legislation as soon as we can.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) spoke about the rise in house prices. However, more people are able to buy their own homes. In 1979 there were 390,000 first-time buyers; last year there were 620,000. Total housing output continued to rise by 8 per cent. in 1987 to a total which is higher than in 1979. I was most interested by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire for speeding up house purchase and reducing gazumping. I shall certainly examine his suggestion.
  70
  There is of course a minority who do not want, or who cannot afford, owner-occupation. It is tenants who in the long run have suffered most from decades of excessive regulation and a centralised, programmed approach to housing provision. In practice, the tenant has had to accept whatever accommodation and whatever level of service his monopolist local authority landlord offers.
  We want tenants to have a real choice. We need to break down the local authority monopoly and encourage private investment in the rented sector, creating competition between landlords so that landlords have to respond to tenants' needs rather than the other way round. To those who are already tenants of local authorities, and who cannot buy their home under the right to buy, we want to offer the possibility of choosing a new landlord.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) suggested that tenants might want to stay with local authority landlords. That is their choice, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that a National Consumer Council survey has shown that more than one fifth of tenants would prefer a new social landlord. Even if they decide not to make that choice, we are putting in tenants' hands a power which they can use to persuade their local authority to improve their level of service, a power that will even up the unequal contest between the tenant and a distant or uncaring management.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the private rented sector. Excessive regulation of the private rented sector has stifled investment. In 1938 the private rented sector accounted for 57 per cent. of the stock; now it accounts for only 8 per cent. In 1981 17 per cent. of the private rented stock was in serious disrepair.
  Mr. George Howarth rose——
  Mrs. Roe: We must encourage new investment. The business expansion scheme will stimulate investment by offering tax relief. Local authorities are being given a power to give subsidy where it is needed. Those measures will provide a major incentive to the investment that is needed to improve the housing conditions of those who rent.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Hammersmith welcomes our policy of supporting housing associations. Housing associations have a record of flexibility and responsiveness to tenants' needs. They are much better adapted to cope with the enormous variety of housing needs that we now face. The Government intend to build on that success. We are bringing in more private investment and increasing public sector support through the Housing Corporation.
  Mr. George Howarth rose——
  Mrs. Roe: The Housing Corporation's investment programme has been increased to £737 million in the current year and will increase further to £850 million by 1990–91. The private investment which is already coming in will be over and above that.
  The increase in the Housing Corporation programme was part of a general increase in the resources made available for housing investment. The housing capital programme this year was increased to £3,827 million; up 10 per cent. on earlier plans and £140 million above outturn for 1987–88.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Unless the hon. Lady gives way—[Interruption.] She does not have to give way.
  Mrs. Roe: I agreed to curb my comments to 15 minutes so that I could respond to hon. Members' points without giving way.
  Local authorities continue to account for the bulk of expenditure. They continue to account for a very significant proportion of tenancies. It is vital, therefore, that local authorities offer a good service to their tenants.
  The first priority is to improve the state of the stock and to bring back into use vacant dwellings. There is no lack of resources for repair and improvement of the local authority stock. Plans for the current year allow for capital expenditure of £1,770 million, an increase of II per cent. over last year's outturn. Total expenditure on repair and maintenance is nearly £3 billion—more in real terms than in 1979–80 even though the stock is smaller. More important perhaps is the fact that the money is used effectively, and that improvements to the fabric are matched by improvements in management.
  Run-down estates get special attention and extra resources through the Estate Action schemes. Projects involve renovation of the fabric, the bringing in of private investment, and the establishment of responsive locally based management. Since 1985 schemes have been supported with £120 million of allocations, benefiting 110,000 homes and 300,000 tenants. Expenditure this year will almost double to £140 million.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and other hon. Members referred to the numbers of homeless, and to local authorities' use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It really is extraordinary that some authorities cannot manage without extensive use of bed-and-breakfast—even though they have properties empty and idle—particularly as other authorities with just as many homeless to care for do manage without bed-and-breakfast.
  Local authorities have more than 112,000 empty properties; 28,000, or 25 per cent., have been empty for more than a year. That is nearly three times the number of families in bed-and-breakfast. In London, which accounts for over 80 per cent. of those in bed-and-breakfast, local authorities have nearly five times as many empty properties as there are families in bed-and-breakfast.
  Local authorities have unlimited access to their capital receipts to bring empties back into use. But not every authority uses its receipts. For example, Labour-controlled Camden and Hammersmith and Fulham had at 1 April 1987 over £60 million in accumulated receipts and 600 households in bed-and-breakfast while 150 and 250 council dwellings respectively awaited major repairs. Some authorities that could raise more receipts through right to buy and use them to bring empties back into use have been dragging their feet.
  There are 20 authorities with 4 per cent. or more of their stock empty. Twenty authorities with the most vacancies have more than 50,000 empty dwellings between them. In London, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Southwark, Islington and Lewisham have between them some 13,800 empty homes. Some authorities re-let their dwellings in three to four weeks, but it takes Southwark an average of 24 weeks. That reduces the number of dwellings available by 1,800—enough to house all its homeless. I repeat that the Audit Commission estimated that if the national
  72
  average re-let preiod could be reduced by just two and a half weeks an additional 20,000 empty dwellings could be occupied.
  The Opposition motion protests at the numbers of homeless and the number in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and calls for an increasing supply of low-cost housing. I share their concerns. The difference between us is this. The Opposition talk of their concern while their own authorities keep houses empty for months or even years and fail to collect the rents, fail to use receipts to carry our repairs and fail to deliver a decent service to those whom they claim to represent. Faced with the challenge of the changing pattern of housing needs, the Opposition can think of little better than to return to the formulae of the 1950s.
  The Government have faced up to the challenge of the 1980s and the 1990s. We have come forward with a programme of radical reform. Our approach is based on giving people greater freedom to make their own choice, on creating diversity in the housing market and competition between landlords and on breaking down remote, insensitive, and inefficient local authority monopolies.
  The Opposition used to condemn the idea of giving tenants the right to buy their own homes. They do not do so now. It is far too popular. Perhaps in time they will come to realise that those tenants who cannot afford to buy still want a choice and a better service. They want less politicking and more efficiency. They do not want to be dependent on a municipal monopoly. The Opposition's approach is based on the town hall deciding what housing people should have. The Government's approach is based on giving people the freedom to make their own choice.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 331.

  Division No. 316]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Allen, Graham

  Clay, Bob

  Anderson, Donald

  Clelland, David

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Coleman, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cox, Tom

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cryer, Bob

  Bell, Stuart

  Cummings, John

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

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Blair, Tony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boateng, Paul

  Darling, Alistair

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dixon, Don

  Buchan, Norman

  Dobson, Frank

  Buckley, George J.

  Douglas, Dick

  Caborn, Richard

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Canavan, Dennis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Cartwright, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  73

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

  Meale, Alan

  Fisher, Mark

  Michael, Alun

  Flannery, Martin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foster, Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foulkes, George

  Morley, Elliott

  Galbraith, Sam

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  George, Bruce

  Mullin, Chris

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Murphy, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Nellist, Dave

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gordon, Mildred

  O'Brien, William

  Gould, Bryan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Graham, Thomas

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Parry, Robert

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Patchett, Terry

  Grocott, Bruce

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hardy, Peter

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Prescott, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Radice, Giles

  Henderson, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Reid, Dr John

  Holland, Stuart

  Richardson, Jo

  Home Robertson, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Robertson, George

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Illsley, Eric

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ingram, Adam

  Sheerman, Barry

  Janner, Greville

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  John, Brynmor

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kennedy, Charles

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Snape, Peter

  Lambie, David

  Soley, Clive

  Lamond, James

  Spearing, Nigel

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Leighton, Ron

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Stott, Roger

  Lewis, Terry

  Straw, Jack

  Litherland, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Livsey, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Turner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Vaz, Keith

  McAllion, John

  Wall, Pat

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Wallace, James

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Walley, Joan

  McFall, John

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McKelvey, William

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  McLeish, Henry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  McTaggart, Bob

  Wilson, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Winnick, David

  Madden, Max

  Worthington, Tony

  Marek, Dr John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Martlew. Eric

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Amos, Alan

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Allason, Rupert

  Ashby, David

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Amess, David

  Atkinson, David

  74

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Baldry, Tony

  Forman, Nigel

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forth, Eric

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bendall, Vivian

  Franks, Cecil

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Freeman, Roger

  Benyon, W.

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gardiner, George

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gill, Christopher

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  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, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Grist, Ian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ground, Patrick

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

  Grylls, Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hannam, John

  Burns, Simon

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

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Butcher, John

  Harris, David

  Butler, Chris

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayward, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Heddle, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

  Hill, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Holt, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Michael

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cope, John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Couchman, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Curry, David

  Irvine, Michael

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

  Jack, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jackson, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Dicks, Terry

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Tony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fallon, Michael

  Knowles, Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Knox, David

  Favell, Tony

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Latham, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  75

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lilley, Peter

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shersby, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Madel, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Keith

  Malins, Humfrey

  Speller, Tony

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marland, Paul

  Squire, Robin

  Marlow, Tony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Mellor, David

  Stokes, John

  Miller, Hal

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mills, lain

  Sumberg, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Thorne, Neil

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mudd, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tredinnick, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trippier, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Page, Richard

  Walden, George

  Paice, James

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Walters, Dennis

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Ward, John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wheeler, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Price, Sir David

  Wilkinson, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Wilshire, David

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rathbone, Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Redwood, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Renton, Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Woodcock, Mike

  Riddick, Graham

  Yeo, Tim

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Rost, Peter

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 202.

  Division No. 317]

  [7.13 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cran, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Critchley, Julian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Allason, Rupert

  Curry, David

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amos, Alan

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ashby, David

  Dover, Den

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, David

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evennett, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fallon, Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Farr, Sir John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Favell, Tony

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Benyon, W.

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forth, Eric

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Franks, Cecil

  Boswell, Tim

  Freeman, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gardiner, George

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bright, Graham

  Gorst, John

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Gow, Ian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gower, Sir Raymond

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

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gregory, Conal

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Burns, Simon

  Grist, Ian

  Burt, Alistair

  Ground, Patrick

  Butcher, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam, John

  Cash, William

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

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Harris, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Haselhurst, Alan

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

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hayward, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Conway, Derek

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cope, John

  Hill, James

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hind, Kenneth

  77

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Neubert, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howard, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Paice, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Irvine, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Jack, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jackson, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Janman, Tim

  Portillo, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Price, Sir David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Raffan, Keith

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rathbone, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Redwood, John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Renton, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Riddick, Graham

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knowles, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knox, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Latham, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rost, Peter

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lilley, Peter

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shersby, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Madel, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Keith

  Malins, Humfrey

  Speller, Tony

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marland, Paul

  Squire, Robin

  Marlow, Tony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Mellor, David

  Stokes, John

  Miller, Hal

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mills, lain

  Sumberg, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Thorne, Neil

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mudd, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tredinnick, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trippier, David

  78

  Trotter, Neville

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wilkinson, John

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Wilshire, David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Wood, Timothy

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Walters, Dennis

  Yeo, Tim

  Ward, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wheeler, John

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

  Whitney, Ray

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Allen, Graham

  Faulds, Andrew

  Anderson, Donald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fisher, Mark

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Flannery, Martin

  Ashton, Joe

  Flynn, Paul

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Foster, Derek

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Foulkes, George

  Barron, Kevin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Battle, John

  George, Bruce

  Beckett, Margaret

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bell, Stuart

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

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

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gordon, Mildred

  Blair, Tony

  Gould, Bryan

  Boateng, Paul

  Graham, Thomas

  Boyes, Roland

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hardy, Peter

  Buchan, Norman

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Buckley, George J.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Caborn, Richard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Holland, Stuart

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Home Robertson, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cartwright, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cohen, Harry

  Illsley, Eric

  Coleman, Donald

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  John, Brynmor

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cox, Tom

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cryer, Bob

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cummings, John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lambie, David

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leighton, Ron

  Darling, Alistair

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Livsey, Richard

  Dewar, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dixon, Don

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dobson, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Douglas, Dick

  McAllion, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Eadie, Alexander

  McFall, John

  79

  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

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Short, Clare

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michael, Alun

  Snape, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Soley, Clive

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliott

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Straw, Jack

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Paul

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Nellist, Dave

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Brien, William

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wall, Pat

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wallace, James

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Walley, Joan

  Parry, Robert

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wilson, Brian

  Radice, Giles

  Winnick, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Worthington, Tony

  Reid, Dr John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Richardson, Jo

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, George

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  'That this House congratulates the Government on the success of its home ownership policies, enabling more people than ever before to own their own homes; notes with satisfaction the Government's proposals in the Housing Bill to encourage private renting, to expand the role of housing associations, to give council tenants the right to seek a new landlord of their choice, and to establish Housing Action Trusts to improve conditions for tenants in some of the worst council estates; deplores the incompetence displayed by some Labour housing authorities who have on the one hand condemned homeless people to bed and breakfast while they have empty council property, and on the other failed to deal with delays for existing tenants who seek to exercise their right to buy; urges the Government to press ahead with its radical reforms of the rented sector of housing in the interests both of present tenants and the homeless, and to continue to maintain a proper balance between the needs of development and the protection of the environment; and congratulates it on extending and maintaining the protection afforded by green belts round major cities.'.

Orders of the Day

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the recommittal motion in the name of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I remind the House that it is subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 72, by which the proposer of the motion may speak for 10 minutes with a similar limit for the reply.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move,
  That the Bill be recommitted to the former committee.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this motion in somewhat unusual circumstances and I appreciate that you will be operating under the usual ten-minute Bill procedure.
  It is reasonable to ask why the Government brought the Bill before the House for consideration in the first place. Of course, we all understand that after the disastrous events at Hungerford there was an instant lobby that demanded that the Government do something. However, I have to tell the House that if that something is this Bill, the events at Hungerford could still have taken place because there is no legislation that can legislate against a madman. A madman can kill with whatever weapon he chooses.
  There is nothing in the Bill that will reduce crime. The Government are quite wrong in simply wishing to reduce the number of firearms by seeking out a section of the community for no good reason. Self-loading rifles and pump-action shotguns are the main objects of the legislation. The interesting thing about rifles is that they are scarcely ever used in crime. In 1976, the last year for which figures are available, in nearly 10,000 crimes involving firearms, about half were with air weapons and only 53 were with rifles—0·6 per cent. The police acknowledge that pump-action shotguns are the least useful weapon to take if one is bent on criminal assault. They are least useful because they are bulky, heavy and difficult to saw off.
  I sympathise with the Government's wish to increase the security of weapons and to understand more about the ownership and disposition of weapons. However, that could have been done by administrative procedure. Instead, we have this Bill which was hastily drawn up, written in a few minutes and written very badly. Before the Committee stage, the proposal was that a cardboard tube, which I produced in Committee, was an item that would from thenceforth require a firearms certificate because it was a mortar. The advisers to the Home Office had forgotten about fireworks. That is one example of many.
  I shall come to the substantive part of my argument in moving the motion. There are no fewer than 36 groups of amendments on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Groups.
  Mr. Wiggin: Yes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, there are 36 groups. By anybody's interpretation, the Bill is being rewritten and

  81
  that will happen unless the House votes for my motion. Surely it is not right to rewrite a Bill on Report; that should be done in Committee.
  My most important reason for seeking the support of the House was last week's inclusion, for the first time in all the months that we have been debating the Bill, of Northern Ireland. It cannot be constitutionally right for a Bill to pass Second Reading and Committee without including Northern Ireland and then, at the eleventh hour, to be changed to include it. As we constantly debate the unity of the United Kingdom, that was a grave error by the Government, and it is another good reason to send the Bill back to Committee.
  We believe that my hon. Friend the Minister gave us several commitments that the Government are refusing to honour. The exclusion of self-loading rifles with integral magazines was given in all but name. My hon. Friend used weasel words, but he has now gone back on that commitment.
  The one thing in the Bill that those of us who are interested in the subject believed was a step forward was the statutory committee to advise the Government so that we should not get into this sort of mess again. The lack of expertise in firearms in the Home Office is only too apparent. On Friday morning the Government tabled a series of amendments to neuter that statutory committee and make it a puppet of the Home Secretary—and effectively useless.
  I see no reason to take the full 10 minutes that you have kindly allowed me, Mr. Speaker. My final and most overpowering argument is that if the House votes for this motion everyone should be having their dinners in their homes before 8 pm. If it does not, 36 groups of amendments will have to be gone over carefully. It is just conceivable that in the early hours of the morning some of my hon. Friends may turn a little critical. If they want a night's sleep, I hope that they will support the motion.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) played his best card last. The only thing in favour of the motion is that it would give us an early night. I cannot commend it on any other ground. Much as I should enjoy serving on another Committee with my hon. Friend to examine this Bill, I do not think the facts justify my asking the House to give me that indulgence.
  It is perfectly true that there is a substantial number of amendments on Report, but there is nothing unusual about that. I have always made it plain that the Government would respond to reasonable criticisms, and that is what we have done. With the exception of the amendments related to Northern Ireland, all the substantive amendments reflect exhaustive debate in Committee. Indeed, in most cases they reflect the Committee's conclusions.
  The main changes can be summarised as follows. First, we are leaving three-shot self-loading shotguns in clause 2. That matter was extensively canvassed in Committee and in making that concession we responded to the Committee's wish. The second major change relates to the deactivation and conversion of guns, which was also extensively debated in Committee, and these amendments respond to what was said.
  82
  Although our movements on compensation do not feature on Report in the form of Government amendments, they were widely debated and are, I think, broadly welcomed by hon. Members.
  Other major changes relating to museums were also debated a great deal in Committee, and, without exception, the amendments that we are bringing forward today respond to what hon. Members who served on the Committee wanted us to do.
  As for Northern Ireland, most of the powers that have been taken by way of order either accord with existing practice or are of minor impact.
  What we have done with the consultative committee is to put in proper form that will be acceptable to the House the intent of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. We tidied up the provisions about the nomination of its members and provided clear guidance on its remit. We have honoured the intent of hon. Members on the Committee in every respect.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has always been candid; he is instinctively opposed to firearms control and believes that this is a bad Bill. He is entitled to those views, although I disagree with both. But the motion that he so lucidly and briefly introduced was more a reflection of his hostility to the concept of firearms control and to the Bill than of his desire to spend another few months in Committee with me. I do not criticise him for that—he is entitled to his views—but hon. Members listening to the debate need to be clear about the reasons that lie behind the motion.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 254.

  Division No 318]

  [7.36 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Allen, Graham

  Clay. Bob

  Anderson, Donald

  Clelland, David

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Coleman, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cummings, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cunningham, Dr John

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benyon, W.

  Darling, Alistair

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blair, Tony

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

  Boateng, Paul

  Dewar, Donald

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dixon, Don

  Boyes, Roland

  Dobson, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Douglas, Dick

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Eastham, Ken

  Buchan, Norman

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Fatchett, Derek

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Faulds, Andrew

  Buckley, George J.

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Caborn, Richard

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Callaghan, Jim

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

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Flannery, Martin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Flynn, Paul

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Foster, Derek

  83

  Foulkes, George

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Galbraith, Sam

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  George, Bruce

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morley, Elliott

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mullin, Chris

  Gordon, Mildred

  Murphy, Paul

  Gould, Bryan

  Nellist, Dave

  Graham, Thomas

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Patchett, Terry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Grylls, Michael

  Prescott, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Radice, Giles

  Haynes, Frank

  Randall, Stuart

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Reid, Dr John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Richardson, Jo

  Henderson, Doug

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Robertson, George

  Holland, Stuart

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Holt, Richard

  Rogers, Allan

  Home Robertson, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hood, Jimmy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Rost, Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Illsley, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Ingram, Adam

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  John, Brynmor

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kennedy, Charles

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

  Lambie, David

  Snape, Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Soley, Clive

  Leighton, Ron

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lewis, Terry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Litherland, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Livsey, Richard

  Straw, Jack

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McAllion, John

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Turner, Dennis

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Vaz, Keith

  McFall, John

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Wall, Pat

  McKelvey, William

  Wallace, James

  McLeish, Henry

  Walley, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McWilliam, John

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Madden, Max

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Marek, Dr John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Marland, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wilson, Brian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Winnick, David

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Worthington, Tony

  Martlew, Eric

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Meale, Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Michael, Alun

  Sir Hector Monro and

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Mr. Robert Hicks.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Allason, Rupert

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amos, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Ashby, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  84

  Boswell, Tim

  Hill, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Howard, Michael

  Bowis, John

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

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Irvine, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Jack, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Jackson, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Janman, Tim

  Butler, Chris

  Jessel, Toby

  Butterfill, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Carttiss, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Cash, William

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

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

  Knowles, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Knox, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lang, Ian

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Latham, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Cope, John

  Lightbown, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lilley, Peter

  Couchman, James

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Cran, James

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Critchley, Julian

  Lord, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Curry, David

  McCrindle, Robert

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

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Maclean, David

  Day, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dicks, Terry

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Dunn, Bob

  Madel, David

  Durant, Tony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Maples, John

  Evennett, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Farr, Sir John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Favell, Tony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Mates, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Miller, Hal

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mills, lain

  Forth, Eric

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Franks, Cecil

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Freeman, Roger

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Gale, Roger

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Gardiner, George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mudd, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Grist, Ian

  Page, Richard

  Ground, Patrick

  Paice, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Harris, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Portillo, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Price, Sir David

  Heddle, John

  Raffan, Keith

  85

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Stokes, John

  Redwood, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Renton, Tim

  Sumberg, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Summerson, Hugo

  Riddick, Graham

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Thorne, Neil

  Ryder, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Trippier, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Trotter, Neville

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Walden, George

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Walters, Dennis

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watts, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wheeler, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wilshire, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Speed, Keith

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Speller, Tony

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wood, Timothy

  Squire, Robin

  Woodcock, Mike

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stern, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, in moving his motion, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) referred to Northern Ireland. May I point out that in Committee I was prevented from discussing the effect that the Bill would have on Northern Ireland because there was no reference to it in the Bill? The House should be aware of that. What guidance can the House be given about whether Northern Ireland may be fully discussed?
  Mr. Speaker: The matter has been resolved by the House and we must now proceed. If the hon. Gentleman catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair, he will be able to deploy his case then.

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
    New Clause 2

      DE-ACTIVATED WEAPONS
      'For the purposes of the principal Act and this Act it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that a firearm has been rendered incapable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile, and has consequently ceased to be a firearm within the meaning of those Acts, if—

      (a) it bears a mark which has been approved by the Secretary of State for denoting that fact and which has been made either by one of the two companies mentioned in section 58(1) of the principal Act or by such other person as may be approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section; and

      (b) that company or person has certified in writing that work has been carried out on the firearm in a
      86
      manner approved by the Secretary of State for rendering it incapable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 3—Conversion not to affect classification—
      '(1) Any weapon which has at any time (whether before or after the passing of this Act) been a weapon of a kind described in section 5(1) of the principal Act as amended by or under section 1 above shall be treated as a prohibited weapon notwithstanding anything done for the purpose of converting it into a weapon of a different kind.
      (2) Any weapon which—

      (a) has at any time since the coming into force of section 2 above been a weapon to which section 1 of the principal Act applies; or

      (b) would at any previous time have been such a weapon if those sections had then been in force,

      shall, if it has, or at any time has had, a barrel less than 24 inches in length, be treated as a weapon to which section I of the principal Act applies notwithstanding anything done for the purpose of converting it into a shot gun or an air weapon.'.
      and amendment (a) to the new clause, leave out subsection (2).
      Mr. Hogg: The two new clauses before the House respond to the criticism of clause 7 of the Bill as it was originally formulated and which was defeated in Committee. The two new clauses deal with deactivation and conversion. I shall deal first with deactivation. It is dealt with in new clause 2, which permits it. Deactivated weapons will be outside the scope of the firearms legislation, provided that the work of deactivation has been carried out in accordance with a specification approved by my right hon. Friend and is certifed by the proof house or houses as having been deactivated in an approved manner.
      The original proposal about conversion in clause 7 was that a weapon always retained its original status. Hon. Members on the Committee suggested that that proposition went too far and they deleted clause 7 from the Bill. On reflection, we feel that there was justification in that criticism, although I suggest to the House that the original proposal should still apply to section 5 guns. Thus fully automatic guns, and if the House so decides self-loading rifles, will always retain that status. So will section 1 guns having a barrel length of less than 24 in. Subject to that, the Bill allows conversions of section 1 guns downwards to airguns and shotguns. The most obvious example is a rifle that has been smooth-bored so that it takes a shotgun cartridge. The purpose of new clause 3 is to permit that downwards conversion.
      Sir Hector Monro: We welcome the new clause about deactivisation, which we debated at some length in Committee. However, the Minister will have to go a little further in explaining what he is doing. The Minister has been fair enough in what he has said so far, but we have to go into the issue of clarification about the proof houses and the letter that they will have to provide to say that the weapon has been deactivated.
      As we all know, there are only two proof houses in Britain—one in Birmingham and one in London. Given all the things that they will have to do if the Bill is approved, they will be grossly overworked. They are geared not to do

      87
      this sort of work but to do what they do better than any other proof house in the world—test guns. They are not used to writing out certificates and, if necessary, writing on the weapons something to the effect that they have been deactivated. Can the Minister tell us who else will be allowed to carry out this work? Which gunsmiths or dealers will be allowed to carry it out? The skill and knowledge of our gunsmiths are envied throughout the world and it should not be too difficult for the Minister to arrange through the trade for many gun shops throughout the country to be available to do this work.
      I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the geographical issue. Birmingham is as far north as the proof houses go and I should like to see dealers in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Inverness appointed to carry out the work because they could do it just as effectively as anyone in the south. It could also be carried out in the north of England, in Newcastle and perhaps in Carlisle. Nothing about this is in the Bill or has been spelt out by the Minister who has not given us anything like sufficient information that would enable us to give the Bill the wholesome welcome that we wish to give it.
      New clause 3 deals with conversion. I hope that the Minister will explain subsection (2). I have not yet found anybody interested in this Bill who has been able to elucidate what on earth it means. The people to whom I have spoken are highly skilled and knowledgeable members of the British Field Sports Society. They all ask what on earth the Minister is trying to say in subsection (2).
      The Minister has failed to deal with the conversion of rifles into other forms of weapons, such as rook rifles and .410 shotguns, and old elephant guns into shotguns. We discussed those matters in great detail in Committee. The Minister has never given an explanation about why one should not do that. He seems to think that some crook entering my house to pinch a rook rifle that has been converted to a ·410 shotgun and is therefore of smooth bore will take it to some highly skilled gunsmith to have it rifled, re-barrelled. It beggars description that that will happen. What is wrong with a rook rifle made into a ·410? It will be a smooth bore ·410 for the rest of its life. I hope that someone will give the Minister the answer to that question.
      Mr. Michael Colvin rose——
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend is making a mistake.
      Sir Hector Monro: I was giving way to to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).
      Mr. Colvin: Can my hon. Friend quote to the House any instance where a rifle converted to a shotgun has been converted back to a rifle?
      Sir Hector Monro: No, I cannot, but perhaps the Minister can. Many experts have told me firmly that no converted weapon of the sort that we are talking about has ever been used in crime.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend may be under some misapprehension. The proposition that we originally put forward was that a gun retained its original classification. As I explained when I introduced the new clauses, we adhered to that proposition for section 5 guns. I also said that where a section 1 rifle has been smooth-bored to make it a shotgun it has been treated as a shotgun under the proposals and not as a rifle. My hon. Friend is talking about a rifle that has been turned into a 410. He can do that because the weapon is then treated as a shotgun held under section 2 and not under section 1.
      Sir Hector Monro: I am grateful for that explanation. The matter mystifies everybody else in the gun trade and the Minister must be the only chap who understands the Bill. His explanation is a step forward.
      I have already spoken about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside about whether a converted weapon has ever been used in crime. I have not heard of any such cases, but I look forward to the Ministers's reply when perhaps he can tell us whether such a crime has taken place. The Minister has gone too far and has been over-restrictive about conversion. My hon. Friends in Committee raised other matters about conversions and no doubt they will raise other points in this debate.
      Is the Minister clear in his own mind about where we stand about sleeving guns, re-barrelling and re-sleeving them, because that is also important? We want to know whether that will be entirely in order in future. There was certainly doubt about it in Committee and it has not been elucidated in the new clauses. As I have said, I welcome the minor step about deactivation but the Minister is still going too far on conversion.
      8 pm
      Mr. Robin Corbett: One of the hallmarks, or perhaps one of the proofs, of the Bill is the sloppiness with which it has been drafted. Because of the earlier vote, we shall now have to discuss 177 amendments and new clauses, 63 of which have been tabled by the Government—a fine example of making legislation on the hoof. This is not the best way to do it, especially with such an important subject. These new clauses illustrate this point.
      Yet again we are being invited to give the Secretary of State a blank cheque. I doubt whether the details that lie behind new clause 2 exist on paper. They are probably a thought in the head of somebody in that grey area of the Home Office. Perhaps the Minister will tell us something about these details because he did not do so when he moved the new clause. Over what period is this expected to happen? Is it unlimited? Is it over a fortnight, six months, a year, three years, six years, 10 years, or as quickly as possible?
      What kind of mark is envisaged? Is it to be a red dot, a yellow dot or a blue dot? What is to be its size? Is it to be a scoring on the barrel? Clearly, it must be something that cannot easily be removed if this is to be of any value with either deactivated or converted guns. This is a serious point, and I am not treating it lightly. What discussions has the Minister, or his officials, had about the kind of mark that will be permanently attached to the weapons? Have the fine proof houses in Birmingham and London been consulted? Has there been consultation about the adhesion or the engraving of the mark and of the effect

      89
      that that may have on valuable weapons? I am thinking in particular of antique, vintage weapons or classic weapons that have a high market value.
      The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) asked the Minister who he has in mind to carry out the work, and on what basis. The geography is important. Pleased as I am to see more work going to the Birmingham proof house, it will make problems if only proof houses are used. If, as I suspect, some gunsmiths will be allowed to put these marks on the weapons, on what basis will they be selected? Is it every gunsmith who applies, one per county, or two per county? These are the factors about which we need to know.
      What about the cost of the exercise? Has anybody taken advice on the likely charges that either the proof houses or the authorised gun dealers or gunsmiths will impose for carrying out this work? Will there be a difference in the level of charges between the proof houses and the gunsmiths? Has anybody thought about this? These are the questions that the holders of these weapons not just want answered but have a right to have answered. These points could well have been settled in Committee if the Minister had not been so bone-headed as to oppose the earlier motion for recommittal.
      Unless the Minister is going to say that every gunsmith in the kingdom will be able to apply to carry out this work of deactivating and converting weapons, there will be a great deal of unfairness because choices will have to be made. I do not object if we say to every gunsmith, "If you want to do it, spend 13p or 18p on a stamp and we will grant the necessary authorisation." I suspect that it will not be like that. Instead, qualifications will be laid down. I hope that, before we get much further in the debate on the new clause, the Minister will give us, and those beyond the walls of the House, the answer to these questions.
      I understand that Bills are drafted in this way, but new clause 2(b) is confusing. It says:
      "that company or person has certified in writing that work has been carried out on the firearm in a manner approved by the Secretary of State for rendering it incapable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile."
      I am not sure what
      "in a manner approved by the Secretary of State"
      means. Does it mean that the mark put on the weapon will be approved by the Secretary of State; or—this is another legitimate reading of these words—that it has to be put on, let alone that it is a proof authorised by the Secretary of State, in a manner of which the Secretary of State approves?
      This is an important issue. It would be for the convenience of the House if the Minister had been more forthcoming at the start of the debate on these new clauses. and told us in a little more detail what they propose. I hope that he will now do so.
      Mr. Wiggin: I say, first, to my hon. Friend the Minister—in the hope that he is not leaving the Chamber—that, despite his accusation, I am not opposed to all firearms legislation. I am opposed to legislating against the innocent private legitimate owner of firearms in the completely misplaced notion that in some way that will prevent criminal activity. My hon. Friend has consistently refused to answer that point, because he has no answer to it. That is why I am opposed to the legislation. I would support any part of it that I could fnd useful, but I can find little or no part of it that is useful, and this has promoted my hostility to the Bill.
      90
      I find it distressing that, the Committee having removed a clause from the Bill, the Government are seeking to put it back again, although I suppose that that is predictable. If someone has a ·410 that has been made from an old rifle—there are a considerable number of such weapons—on the passing of this legislation that person will he committing an offence. This is a retrospective proposal, and I have always voted against retrospective legislation. In this instance, innocent people who have shotgun certificates will be required to get a firearms certificate at a considerable cost.
      Mr. Ron Davies: On Second Reading, which we both opposed, the hon. Gentleman and I made common cause on the grounds that the Government had advocated this legislation on the basis that it would be an adequate response to the events at Hungerford. The hon. Member served on the Committee that considered the Bill, and I know that he agreed with the points made by those of us who had reservations about it.
      If these new clauses had been in force, would they have prevented any of the events that led to Hungerford? If they were accepted now, would they prevent events such as those that led to Hungerford, or would they improve the existing legislation on firearms in such a way as to prevent the illegal use of firearms in the pursuit of crime?
      Mr. Wiggin: As I said in my speech when I proposed the motion to recommit the Bill, I do not believe that anything in the Bill would have prevented Hungerford. Nor do I believe that the Government can legislate about anything that could have prevented Hungerford. A mad man can, and sadly may in the future, kill with whatever weapons he happens to have at his disposal. The misplaced notion that reducing the number of legally held weapons will prevent such an incident is ridiculous.
      Mr. Frank Cook: Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate on the proposition that had the existing legislation been properly applied Hungerford would not have happened?
      Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) has recently tabled a series of interesting questions. The spokesman for the Thames Valley police made a slip the other day when it was acknowledged that there may have been some modest administrative error in the issue of Ryan's certificate. I support those who believe that the Government should have had a full-scale inquiry into that matter. The Government's persistent refusal on the ground that there is nothing to inquire into does not give the public the confidence that the Government tell us they are trying to imbue in the public, and for which purpose they have introduced this legislation.
      Mr. Frank Cook: I want to be clear about this, and I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the existing legislation had been applied the events at Hungerford should not have been possible?
      Mr. Wiggin: Every item of evidence points to that effect, but other hon. Members may be better informed than me and may wish to elucidate that matter. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to put words into my mouth.
      It was a mistake not to have had a fuller inquiry into the precise bureaucratic procedures that preceded the issuing of that certificate. On the other hand, it is worth bearing

      91
      in mind that Ryan also possessed some unlicensed firearms and therefore even if the procedures had been complied with he would still have been in possession of weapons. I am not certain whether it is wise to go down that road, certainly not in respect of these measures, and I have no doubt that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will rule me out of order if I do so.
      I query the application of retrospective legislation to this important issue, and I question the great crime wave that is supposedly associated with converted weapons. I do not believe that it exists. It is yet another example of the petty, spiteful attitude towards all firearms of those who advise my hon. Friend the Minister.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on four points. First, an issue has come to light that I had not realised might arise under the proposal. There is some doubt as to whether guns that have been resleeved or rebarrelled would still have protection. The Minister should deal with that point and I wish to quote to him some advice that I have received from a former colleague, Fred Silvester, who has been assiduous in representing to the Committee the interests of the gun trade. He says:
      "There is the problem of sleeving. The Home Office keeps saying they understand the point, but they do nothing about it."
      He goes on to say:
      "Sleeving involves removing the barrel and replacing it with another."
      He is not entirely right. My gun has been redone, and that simply involved taking out a piece and replacing it. However, he goes on to say:
      "The man who does this work commits no offence because he is given special protection by section 4 of the 1968 Act, and by clause 6 of the Bill. New clause 3, however, still leaves the gun itself unprotected. If it is cut down below 24 inches, it remains in section 1"——
      that is entirely right—
      "and fixing the new barrel to it makes no difference."
      My hon. Friend the Minister should elucidate that point as a simple issue of practicality.
      My second point echoes that raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I should like to know exactly what kind of mark will be required to be placed upon firearms to prove that they have been rendered inoperable. It is important for the police—the House knows of my interest, which will remain for some time to come—to know what sort of mark will be used, and their advice should be taken because they will have to identify the mark and take action accordingly.
      My third point arises from the fact that other persons, besides proof houses, will be able to carry out such work. That is entirely right. There are only two proof houses, and it would be extremely onerous to expect people throughout the country to use only those two proof houses. There are plenty of satisfactory craftsmen who can do the job. For example, a man in my constituency, who acts as the police armourer, is capable of doing that job without relying on the excellent work done in Birmingham. However, it is important to the police, to the trade and to all those who will be required to have their firearms dealt with in this way to know which local craftsmen will be allowed to do the job and on what basis.
      92
      8.15 pm
      That brings me to my fourth point—how the Government intend to authenticate the armourers who will be permitted to perform the deactivations. What sort of skills must they have? How is their probity to be measured? A form of qualifying certificate will have to be issued. It is important, on Report, that the Government are seen to have thought these matters through and to have explained them carefully to the House before we accept the measure.
      Mr. William Ross: If the Bill had contained a reference to Northern Ireland when it went into Committee, the consideration that we gave to it would have been somewhat different. In those circumstances, and in view of the terrorist situation in Northern Ireland, the effect of the Bill on the supply of weapons to terrorists would have been carefully considered. There will now have to be references to Northern Ireland in every part of the Bill because, despite the amendments, the ramifications will go much further.
      A number of questions relating to the two new clauses have not been fully considered. I wish to point out to the Minister that we do not have a proof house in Northern Ireland. If the guns, or weapons of whatever kind, have to be brought across to Britain for the work to be carried out, the cost will be greatly increased. If we then have to look for gunsmiths to do the work in Northern Ireland and the work has to be done in a rush, rather too many weapons will be in the hands of individual gunsmiths for at least some time and no one wishes that to happen.
      Above all, we shall have the problem of ·410 conversions. For many years, it was possible to buy the old ·303 ex-Army rifle, converted to a ·410 bolt action. There are many such weapons throughout the United Kingdom. Although it is not the most popular sporting weapon, there are many ·410s and converted ·410s lying around in farms all over the country. As I understand it, those weapons are caught by the legislation, as any ex-bullet firing weapons will be.
      It is my understanding—I have consulted people who know and give evidence in court cases about such matters—that the weapon normally used by a criminal is a clapped-out sawn-off shotgun, if only for the good reason that a good quality shotgun is worth far more on the black market as a shotgun than it would ever be to a criminal. If a weapon looks capable of being fired, it is sufficient for the criminal's purposes.
      However, there is a real problem when one considers new clause 2(b), which relates to the expertise available to the Home Secretary. I have not been as impressed by that expertise as I would like to be, because it appears to fall short of what is required for the purposes of the Bill, even before it was amended. If the Home Office is to advise on what sort of work must be carried out, that advice will have to be based on detailed knowledge of the most intricate type of weapons. Has the Home Office such a person on its staff? I believe that it has not, and, therefore, I wonder where it will go for that information and advice and what it will cost.
      We shall be dealing with hundreds of different types of weapons, not one, and many of them will be mechanically different from others. The methods of deactivation that apply in some instances will not apply in others. We shall reach the stage when there will be one-off operations. I do not understand how this system will be carried through

      93
      into practical effect, unless the Minister is prepared to allow the gunsmith to determine whether the work that he has carried out is sufficient. If the police decide subsequently that the work is not sufficient, who will end up in court—the gun owner or the chap who carried out the work?
      The Government are entering an area that they would have been well advised to avoid. No evidence was produced on Second Reading or in Committee—nor will there be any such evidence on Report—that the weapons that we are discussing pose a serious problem in criminal activity. Anyone who knows anything about the subject is aware of that.
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: I think that we all listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say on these matters with considerable respect. Does he agree that converted weapons are often of relatively low resale value? If the cost of carrying out the identification marking is high, there is a greater chance that it will not be acceptable to the gun-owning public. That means that there will be more evasion in this instance than with more expensive and valuable weapons.
      Mr. Ross: That is correct. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has picked up so early in our deliberations this evening an issue to which we shall probably return on more than one occasion. He has raised a matter of concern to those who know about these matters, and it is a concern that I share.
      It is probable that the Government will label the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and myself as members of the pro-gun lobby. I admit that I shoot. I do not shoot much, however, because I do not have a lot of time in which to do it after attending this place. If there is an hon. Member who is concerned about the safety of the general public in terms of firearms, it must be me. I have been to the funerals of many who have died as a result of the misuse of firearms. I do not know exactly how many I have represented in the county of Londonderry who have died as a result of terrorism, but I made a rough count some weeks ago and the total came to about 350. No matter what is said in the House or alleged in the media, I hope that I shall not be accused of being unreasonably or madly pro-gun.
      I know what I am talking about. I know as much about firearms and their use by terrorists and criminals as any man. I cannot see much good in this part of the Bill and I see very little that is good in the Bill as it has been drafted and presented to the House.
      Some of those who considered the Bill in Committee appeared to me to be anti-gun, to put it mildly. They were mainly Opposition hon. Members. Slowly but surely they allowed themselves to be convinced by the force of the arguments that were advanced and to be influenced by the Government's failure adequately to respond to them. They came to understand that what I and others were arguing was based on a solid foundation. If the Government had acknowledged that there was a problem and had agreed that they should return next year with a better organised, better presented and better looking Bill, we should not have the mess of amendments that are set out before us. If the Government had adopted that approach initially, they would not have had to live through such a difficult Second Reading and Committee stage.
      94
      The Government must know that this is not a good Bill. Unfortunately, they are committed to it. There is nothing worse than for a Government to proceed with a measure that they know in their heart and mind is inherently bad and will bring no good purpose to the House.
      Mr. Michael Colvin: I should like to question the Under-Secretary of State about imported deactivated weapons, which have not been referred to so far. Would other countries with a suitably high and effective standard of deactivation be allowed to send such weapons here? Could our marks, which we have been asking my hon. Friend to say more about, be readily recognised by other countries, and would their marks be recognised in this country? We are not the only country with firearms legislation.
      Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the effect of the Bill in terms of 1992. Only last week, I received from the Commission of the European Communities a copy of its proposal for a Council directive on the control, acquisition and possession of weapons. It is premature for this House to be debating now the amendment of our firearms legislation when the European Community is about to make its own proposals. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to comment on the Commission directive, dated 28 July, and say what will happen on 1 January 1993 if harmonisation in Europe is achieved on that date. What will happen then to deactivated weapons?
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in some European countries it is possible legally to own two or three-inch mortars, for example. This was referred to briefly in Committee, and the Minister said something to the effect that good care would be taken to protect British interests. I did not hear him expand upon that to any extent in terms of harmonisation.
      Mr. Colvin: I do not want to digress too far on this subject. The point that I am making is that I think it is quite wrong for the House to pass the Bill without considering the impact of harmonisation. That is why [put my question to the Minister at an early stage. I think that his answer would help to clarify our minds on what follows.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I support the argument advanced from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on the inherent ambiguity in paragraph (b). The precise meaning of the paragraph is far from clear. It is for the Minister to explain precisely what interpretation should be placed upon it. One cannot help feeling that this is yet another example of a rather hasty reaction to the unhappy events of last summer. First, there was the hasty production of a White Paper, which was followed by the hasty production of the Bill. I think that it is fair to say that the Bill has had hardly a friend in the House as it has proceeded through its various stages.
      Secondly, it is obviously necessary that some consideration be given to ensuring that the persons who may be approved, in addition to the two proof houses, are gunsmiths located throughout the United Kingdom. It would be especially onerous, for example, if someone living in the far north of Scotland were unable to take a weapon to Inverness, Aberdeen or somewhere of that

      95
      description to have the necessary work done to it, and instead had to ensure that the weapon was sent either to Birmingham or London.
      I hope that the Minister will find it possible to respond to the invitation to provide more detail on precisely what sort of person the Secretary of State has in mind and the geographical distribution that he will be prepared to approve.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Deactivation is the subject of new clause 2. It is perhaps necessary to distinguish the two stages. There is the work of deactivation, which is done by a gunsmith. That is the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). The answer is a gunsmith—any old gunsmith who reckons that he is capable of doing the work of deactivation. That work, before it is effective in taking the gun out of the firearms legislation, must be approved by one of the two proof houses. The proof houses only certify the work: they do not do the work of deactivation.
      A number of hon. Members have asked whether we intend to use the reserve power to nominate a number of certifying authorities. The answer is that it depends. The proof houses believe that they are capable of dealing with the volume of likely work. They are anxious to do it. We have no reason to doubt that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the reserve power to nominate another certifying person or authority if we find that the proof houses are not capable of doing the work of certification.
      Mr. Pat Wall: How many weapons does the Minister expect to be deactivated and to go to the proof houses? I do not wish to be over-sarcastic, but the Home Office does not have a good record in predicting numbers. The mess with the 120,000 unopened letters at Lunar house, the chaos because of the miscalculation on the issue of new passports, and the large numbers of people on remand in prison who will eventually be released having been found not guilty do not show that the Home Office has a good forecasting record. Has the Home Office thought about how many weapons will have to be dealt with and whether the two proof houses can deal with them?
      Mr. Hogg: Deactivated guns have been treated hitherto as falling outside the scope of the firearms legislation. It follows that there is no record of the number of guns that will be affected by the legislation. I cannot, therefore, answer the question. This is one reason why the reserve power has been included to extend the certifying authority to others, if necessary.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: There is the issue that these firearms must be transported to the proof houses. I think that I am right in saying that.
      Mr. Hogg indicated assent.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees. Does this part of the Bill apply to Northern Ireland? If so, are we to have firearms brought from Northern Ireland to the two proof houses on this side of
      96
      the water? What happens in the Customs channel when firearms are brought in and taken back to Northern Ireland from this side of the water?
      Mr. Hogg: The answer to that specific question is that this part of the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland.
      Mr. William Ross rose——
      Mr. Hogg: I should like to proceed, if I may.
      A number of hon. Members have asked, understandably, about the nature of the mark. The intention is that the proof houses will engrave a view mark on the three major parts of the deactivated weapon. That will be evidence of the fact that the gun has been deactivated and that the work of deactivation has been done to the approved standard.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have the power to set the necessary standard of work. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked about the meaning of paragraph (b). The phrase
      "approved by the Secretary of State"
      as having been rendered incapable relates to the work which must be done to a standard approved by the Secretary of State.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked about imported guns. If other countries have a system similar to ours, and deactivate weapons and place a mark to signify that fact, that mark will not be accepted in this country. If they wish to import deactivated weapons into this country and wish them to be outside the scope of the firearms legislation, they will have to submit them to the proof houses for approval in the same way as any other person operating within the jurisdiction.
      Mr. Colvin: What about the visitor to this country?
      Mr. Hogg: If a visitor comes to this country with a deactivated weapon which is not proof marked in the way that I have described, it is caught by the ordinary provisions of the firearms legislation. I should be surprised if my hon. Friend wanted it otherwise. A number of weapons that are sometimes described as deactivated are not in the least deactivated and can readily be used to fire as a lethal weapon. We should set up proper protection for our fellow citizens, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish us to do that.
      There is apprehension about conversion. That may well be my fault, in which case I apologise. It is true that clause 7 as originally presented to the House on Second Reading and in Committee enshrined within it the proposition that a gun could not by conversion ever change its original categorisation—if it started life as a section 5 gun, it always remained a section 5 gun; if it started life as a section 1 gun, it always remained a section 1 gun, even if work had been done to turn it into a shotgun or airgun. That proposition was criticised, and I understand why, so we qualified the position substantially.
      The proposition which we originally brought forward remains now as it always was in respect of section 5 guns—if a gun starts life as a section 5 gun, it will always remain a section 5 gun in the eyes of the law, whatever is done to it. That proposition does not apply in respect of section 1 guns having a barrel length in excess of 24 in. In respect of a section 1 gun, for example a Lee Enfield rifle, which has

      97
      been smooth-bored so as to take a ·410 cartridge and thus becomes a shotgun, it is not a section 1 gun any more—it is a shotgun.
      The new clause has the effect of allowing people to transform their section 1 rifle into a shotgun if they wish without the necessity of getting any certification to prove it. That does not apply in respect of those guns with a barrel length of less than 24 in. The most obvious and gross examples are pistols which are smooth-bored which can still fire a pistol cartridge but which hitherto were treated as section 2 guns when they should have been treated as section 1 guns.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) expressed some doubt about the meaning of subsection (2) of new clause 3. That deals only with those section 1 guns which have a barrel length of less than 24 in. The character of such a gun cannot be changed by downward conversion into, say, a shotgun or an airgun.
      Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend spell out, chapter and verse, when it is permitted to convert a rifle into a gun capable of taking a ·410 cartridge?
      Mr. Hogg: That is the necessary consequence of new clause 3.
      New clause 3 prevents only downward conversion of section 5 guns and section 1 guns with a barrel length of less than 24 in. What is not prohibited is lawful and therefore the position is as I stated. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has a Lee Enfield rifle which he wants to turn into a shotgun taking a ·410 cartridge, he can lawfully do that and hold that gun on a section 2 certificate, not a section 1 certificate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds raised a perfectly proper and interesting point about resleeving. Any gunsmith can lawfully carry out the process of resleeving as a result of section 4(2) of the Firearms Act 1968. On the other hand, if the end result is a gun with a barrel length of less than 24 in.—the process of conversion has produced a short-barrelled shotgun—the law in the Firearms Act 1968 survives, although it has been modified, and that gun will be held on a section 1 certificate, if it is held at all.
      I hope that hon. Members will believe that I have tried to address the various points that have been raised. I know that there were complaints, particularly from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), that I did not go into immense detail when I opened the debate. If the House agrees, I would like in the debates in which I introduce Government amendments to deal with them in broad terms to begin with and then meet specific points. I believe that that will be for the convenience of the House.
      Mr. Corbett: I am grateful for much of what the Minister has said to clarify these matters. However, he did not comment on the likely level of charges. I assume from what he has said that consultations have taken place with the proof houses. That must follow from what he said about the engravings on three separate parts of the weapon. Therefore, the proof houses will have had the opportunity to say how much that would cost. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on that.
      The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) raised an important point as to whether, and if so how, the police have been consulted over the marks to ensure that they are readily identifiable.
      98
      It follows from what the Minister said that, in his words, any gunsmith can carry out the deactivation work. However, the weapon will then have to go to the proof house for it to authorise that the work has been carried out properly. What happens if and when that weapon arrives at the Birmingham proof house? I must declare an interest and say that I hope that most of the weapons will go to Birmingham rather than elsewhere.
      What will happen if the proof house believes that the quality or standard of engraving is inferior and is not satisfied that it has been carried out properly? Will it improve the engraving to the acceptable standard that it is authorised to provide? Will the weapon have to go through the mail or Red Star back to the gunsmith who originally carried out the work? If the work is to be carried out by the proof house, presumably it would have to contact the weapon's owner and state that it is not satisfied and inform the owner that it can re-do the work to the standard which the Secretary of State authorises it to reach, but that will cost the owner a certain sum. It would be for the convenience of the House if the Minister could answer those practical points about the engraving marks.
      Mr. William Ross rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?
      Hon. Members: Yes.
      Mr. Ross: The Minister alarmed me when he said that this section of the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. What are the corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland? I am sure that they exist. With regard to the importation of weapons, will the proof houses have to see each weapon that is imported and deactivated?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office is sitting beside me on the Government Front Bench, it would be presumptuous of me to make any comment on Northern Ireland, and I do not propose to do so.
      With regard to charges, at present the proof charge is about £3·43. I would not wish to tie the charge down to a particular figure, but I expect that it would be of that order.
      With regard to consultation with the police, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds was right, and I should have responded to him. Of course the police will be consulted about the nature of the mark. In response to the question about the mark raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), he will bear in mind that the mark must be approved by the proof house. In fact, it is the proof house mark.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is essential that this matter is absolutely clear. My hon. Friend the Minister said that this part of the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. What then is to happen in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Hogg: As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am always a man to duck a question when I can. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office is sitting beside me, I will leave that question which relates specifically to Northern Ireland to him.
      Mr. Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be for the convenience of the House to invite the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office to clear up this matter, because this is of some importance?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to invite the Minister to speak.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Following from the last comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister, will he clarify whom he means by the police when he says that he will consult the police? I hope that he does not mean the Metropolitan police. I do not think that any sporting bird can be found it that area. By the police, I hope that he means the more rural forces such as those in Devon and Cornwall. This is a serious point, because my hon. Friend the Minister has had so much bad advice in the drafting of the Bill that he must disabuse himself of the belief that the monopoly of wisdom and experience reposes in the Metropolitan police. Who does he mean when he says that he will consult the police?
      Mr. Hogg: In the first instance at least we would consider the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is the normal channel for consultation in those circumstances. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds felt that that was an insufficient consultative process he would let me know and inform me in respect of those whom he has hitherto so admirably represented in this place and elsewhere. We would give his views careful consideration.
      Mr. Paul Marland: Does that not underline the serious need for a statutory committee to advise the Home Office on those matters?
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend will be aware that the proposal before the House recommends a statutory consultative committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      CONVERSION NOT TO AFFECT CLASSIFICATION
      '(1) Any weapon which has at any time (whether before or after the passing of this Act) been a weapon of a kind described in section 5(1) of the principal Act as amended by or under section 1 above shall be treated as a prohibited weapon notwithstanding anything done for the purpose of converting it into a weapon of a different kind.
      (2) Any weapon which—

      (a) has at any time since the coming into force of section 2 above been a weapon to which section 1 of the principal Act applies; or

      (b) would at any previous time have been such a weapon ifthose sections had then been in force,

      shall, if it has, or at any time has had, a barrel less than 24 inches in length, be treated as a weapon to which section 1 of the principal Act applies notwithstanding anything done for the purpose of converting it into a shot gun or an air weapon.'.—[Mr. Stanley.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Mr. Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Bearing in mind the background of the 1968 Act, there are no copies in the Vote Office. I have the only copy, which I obtained from the Library. I raise that point of order so that my hon. Friends may know where to find it.

    New Clause 4

      CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
      '(1) An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule I to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which states that it is made only for purposes corresponding to those of provisions of this Act to which this section applies—

      (a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but

      (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.

      (2) This section applies to—

      (a) section 1(1), (2) and (4);

      (b) section 7;

      (c) section 8(1), (3) and (6);

      (d) section 9;

      (e) section 10(5) and (6);

      (f) section 17(1);

      (g) section 19(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6).'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the proposed new clause: (a), leave out line 9.

      (b), leave out line 10.

      (c), leave out line 11.

      (d), leave out line 12.

      (e), leave out line 13.

      (f), leave out line 14.

      (g), leave out line 15.

      It will also be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
      Amendment No. 102, in clause 20, page 10, line 38, before 'This', insert
      'Except for—

      (a) section 1(1), (2) and (4);

      (b) section 7;

      (c) section 8(1), (3) and (6);

      (d) section (9);

      (e) section 10(5) and (6);

      (f) section 17(1);

      (g) section 19(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6);

      Mr. Stanley: The House will be aware that, because of the security situation, firearms control in Northern Ireland is extremely tight and it is necessary to take an altogether more restrictive approach to the possession of firearms there than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
      Strict controls over the possession of firearms are exercised by the Chief Constable through the discretionary powers given to him under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Those powers are subject to a right of appeal to Ministers. However, we are concerned that the basic statutory provisions in relation to firearms controls in Northern Ireland should remain in line with those for the rest of the United Kingdom. As the changes now being given effect in Great Britain under this Bill would in some areas represent useful minor improvements and refinements of the existing statutory controls in Northern Ireland, we felt that it was right to take advantage of this Bill to make certain corresponding changes to Northern Ireland's legislation.
      The purpose of new clause 4 is to provide authority for the making of an Order in Council subject to the negative resolution procedure to apply in Northern Ireland those provisions of the Bill specified in the new clause.

      101
      Subsection (1) of the new clause enables the negative resolution rather than the affirmative resolution procedure to be applied to the proposed Northern Ireland Order in Council. It is felt that that is the more appropriate procedure, given the fact that the Order in Council must be limited to the provisions of new clause 4 and that the House will have had an opportunity to consider new clause 4 in this debate.
      As to subsection (2)(a), the specially dangerous weapons and ammunition now prohibited by clause 1 of the Bill are already prohibited to the public in Northern Ireland. That is achieved by the Chief Constable exercising his discretionary powers under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 rather than by specific statutory prohibition. Paragraph (a) will keep the statutory controls in Northern Ireland for those types of specially dangerous weapons and ammunition in line with those in Great Britain. It will have no effect on firearms certificate holders in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. William Ross: Before the Minister leaves the subject of firearm certificates, will he make it clear that all firearms in Northern Ireland, including shotguns, have to be held on a firearms certificate? That is the great difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Stanley: I certainly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says.
      I turn to paragraph (b). In common with the Firearms Act 1968, the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 specifies that one photograph must accompany firearm certificate applications. Administrative experience has shown the value of having two photographs in such circumstances, and in practice two are already supplied. The opportunity presented by the Bill has been taken to enable an amendment to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to include reference to the provision of two photographs. That is achieved by paragraph (b).
      In Northern Ireland, the registration of firearms dealers takes place on 1 January each year. To extend the period of registration of firearms dealers in Great Britain to three years without reciprocal action in Northern Ireland legislation would put Northern Ireland dealers at a relative disadvantage, in that they would have to pay a registration fee annually rather than triennially. We also consider it desirable to provide in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain that a dealer whose name has been removed from the register of dealers should surrender his register of transactions. That is to prevent the loss of records which may be of subsequent use to the police. Those amendments to Northern Ireland legislation are achieved by paragraph (c) of subsection (2).
      In Northern Ireland at present, there are no physical security requirements asked of auctioneers, carriers and warehouse men who handle and transport firearms. All others who handle firearms, such as dealers and authorised repair agents, are required to provide extensive security. Paragraph (d) will enable those businesses to be required to take reasonable precautions for the security of firearms and ammunition under their control.
      Paragraph (e) will provide for police powers of entry and inspection of rifle and pistol club premises to ensure that a club is operating according to its authorisation. At present, police may enter and search club premises only if it is suspected that an offence has been committed.
      102
      Paragraph (e) will make possible improved monitoring of rifle and pistol clubs to ensure that their activities are fully in accordance with their terms of authorisation, which are given under article 54 of the 1981 order.
      Paragraph (f) is a minor consequential amendment. Powers exist under article 13 of the 1981 order enabling the Secretary of State to authorise the use of a prohibited weapon subject to appropriate safeguards in theatrical or other performances. This paragraph brings the list of such prohibited weapons up to date, in line with the changes made by the Bill.
      Paragraph (g) deals with interpretation and supplementary provisions. They will enable definitions, time limits for prosecutions and detailed rules for the serving of notices and exemptions contained in the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to be carried over to the new Order in Council.
      Finally, consequential amendment No. 21 will enable new clause 4 to come into effect after enactment of the Bill, subject to the negative resolution Order in Council that will be based upon it. Amendment No. 22 makes the necessary amendment to apply new clause 4 to Northern Ireland.
      Now that I have explained new clause 4, the House may agree that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was entirely right in responding to the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) by saying that new clause 4 either reflects in the statute what is already existing practice or makes extremely minor changes in Northern Ireland legislation.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend sits down, what he has not explained to the House, and what l think needs explaining, is why what he has said was not equally true when the Bill was in draft. Why is this brought in by, as it were, a side wind at Report stage, rather than having been embodied in the Bill when it was in draft? Does his own Secretary of State never meet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? The House needs to know.
      The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made the perfectly fair point that he was prevented from taking part in certain debates in Committee on the ground that at that stage the Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland. If there are not amendments down to a given clause now that the Bill is on the Floor of the House, he will not have the opportunity of debating it here either. My right hon. Friend has an obligation to tell the House why the case that he is making now is not an equally good case for having embodied it in the Bill in the first place.
      Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will know as well as anyone that the Bill has been the subject of considerable debate, and that there have been a number of changes in Government policy and thinking as it has evolved. It was not possible when the Bill was introduced to take a final view on whether it would be sensible to make what are, as I have sought to explain, very minor changes in Northern Ireland legislation. By the time that the Bill had made some progress in Committee, it had become apparent that there could be a useful degree of tidying up of the statutory provisions. At the end of March, my hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who leads for the Opposition, saying that we intended to make these relatively minor changes when the Bill reached the Report stage.
      9 pm
      Mr. William Ross: We have just heard what I can only describe as an astonishing admission from the Minister. He has confirmed what all of us who have taken an interest in the Bill have known since it first saw the light of day—that it was not properly thought through, but was a knee-jerk reaction. Only as it progressed and people such as myself asked more and more questions about it did it become apparent not only to the Home Office but to the Northern Ireland Office that here was a vehicle that could be used.
      This is a most unusual procedure. The Government cannot get away with saying that it was a convenient way of doing things. On every other occasion when they have wanted to bring the firearms law, and indeed many other laws, in Northern Ireland into line with those in Great Britain they have brought in an order. There is no reason why that should not have been done on this occasion.
      Do not get me wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want the House to think that I object to United Kingdom legislation. On the contrary, I welcome it. What I cannot stand is this measure being slipped in as an afterthought, and an afterthought it most assuredly was. I can take no other meaning from the Minister's speech.
      The Minister also told us that the application of the legislation to Northern Ireland was largely unnecessary. That is clear to those of us who know anything about firearms and the firearms law in Northern Ireland. We know that it is extremely tight. We know that looking for a standard full-bore self-loading rifle is like looking for hens' teeth. It is not easy to obtain such a weapon, or even any high-powered centre line rifle. Firearms certificates simply are not granted for such weapons—not that the IRA uses legal weapons anyway. God knows it ships them in from elsewhere by the shipload, and it is not the kind of stuff that it is using anyway. The plain truth is that such weapons, in the hands of sympathisers with terrorist organisations, could presumably be used for training purposes and to allow people to acquire expertise in handling firearms.
      I well understand that, and well understand also the restrictions that have been applied. However, I have a serious objection to the procedure that is being used. Let me explain the reasons for the amendments put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself. First, we wished to draw attention to our dissatisfaction with the procedure. We wanted to give the House an opportunity to discuss in relation to Northern Ireland all that was discussed in Committee, and anything else that occurred to us since. It seems to be the fashion nowadays to think of more and more as the passage of a Bill continues. Certainly that is the line of action that the Government have been following. That opportunity is open to the House this evening.
      Amendment No. 102 deals with the part of the Bill that says that the legislation does not apply to Northern Ireland. If the Minister is honest, I think that he will confess that the method that we have proposed for extending the provisions to Northern Ireland is much neater and simpler than the route that he has chosen. I hope that he will accept amendment No. 102 and withdraw his new clause. I would find that a perfectly satisfactory course, after we have thoroughly explored the application of these slabs of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
      104
      Later—probably much later—the House will have an opportunity to discuss whether there should be two, or three, photographs. My experience, as the holder of a firearms certificate, is that the police expect me to produce two photographs. One of the photographs is on the firearms certificate. The second is held in police headquarters, where it is of little use to anybody, except to those in police headquarters. It is looked at every three or four years. A third photograph would be most welcome. The local station would then be provided with a photograph. That point has been put to me most strongly, and I hope that the Minister will take note of it and move in that direction.
      There is so much that one could say about all these clauses. I could spend all evening on them. These amendments are the heart and soul of the Bill and caused the most anger in Committee. The Government had to consider them very carefully. They were introduced as a direct result of the Hungerford incident.
      Why have the Government introduced the Bill? Why have they decided to proceed in this way at this time? Every honest person knows that this was the Government's reaction to the Hungerford massacre. Their excuse was that the law was insufficient to deal with Hungerford. That point has been raised again in this debate, and so far there has been no satisfactory answer to it.
      I shall attempt to run through some of the events on that dreadful day. The shock of that massacre spread throughout the whole island of Great Britain and muddied people's thinking. I was distant from it but, sadly, I was all too well aware of the reaction—of the numb horror that can strike a community after such an incident. However, I had the advantage, apart from being distant from it, of 20 years of terrorism; an advantage which I could well do without and which I should be very happy to do without. Nevertheless, those experiences are with me, with the result that I tend to take a cooler look at such incidents than do those who have them thrust in their faces for the first time.
      The Bill will have no effect on terrorist activity. By their very nature, terrorists are lawbreakers. They will be unconcerned about any law that is passed to control firearms. They will steal them if they find them handy, but a terrorist who is serious in his intentions does not rely upon a few .22 rifles or even self-loading rifles. He relies to a large extent upon far more lethal machinery and upon high explosives. That has been proven day after day, and happened in Londonderry last night.
      Who, or what, are we trying to control by the Bill and by the other firearms legislation? We are trying to keep firearms out of the hands of known criminals, yet I am told that it is possible for people who are suspected of engaging in criminal activities to visit pistol galleries in Great Britain and shoot to their heart's content. There is nothing to stop their doing so. If we can identify them, I believe that it is our duty to keep firearms of all types out of the hands of those who are actually or potentially mentally unstable. That is extremely difficult, but I have tabled an amendment to cover that point, which I hope the House will consider carefully.
      There are people who have a history of violence, although it may not be classed as criminal violence. There are people who have suffered some mental illness, and who may well suffer from mental illness again, and there are people who show a general lack of responsibility. Perhaps that is more apparent in young men than it is in older

      105
      people, but responsibility is important for those who own and handle firearms. That covers the majority of the groups from whom we should actively endeavour to keep firearms. Hon. Members may think of other smaller groups and categories, but I believe that I have encompassed most of them.
      Most people who own firearms have been so well screened by their peers or by the police that very few legally held weapons are ever used in crime. In addition to the Firearms Acts, police forces have a code which they impose. I consider that the present law and the code of practice carried into effect by the Thames Valley police should have been sufficient to stop Mr. Ryan getting his weapons. I understand that the Thames Valley police enjoy a fairly high reputation with shooting clubs. That makes it all the more sad that on this occasion they appear to have fallen short of those high standards.
      The questions that I have asked and the very slow dribble of information that appeared to the world as a result of that sad story should not be allowed to go unnoticed. There are lessons which have not properly been absorbed or learnt by the House, by the country and possibly by the police. If they have, nothing has been published that convinces me that those lessons have been learnt. Although chief constables can issue firearms certificates whenever they wish, they do not do so. They lay down strictures as to who may or may not have firearms. The special procedures created by the Thames Valley police force——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been waiting patiently to see how the hon. Gentleman relates the substance of his argument to the new clause under discussion and the amendments to it. I am finding it very difficult to do so. It would be quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to go into detail on events arising from the Hungerford occurrence.
      Mr. Ross: I bow to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was hoping to prove that if the police in charge of the Hungerford occurrence had applied their own regulations, which must be co-existent with the firearms law, that situation would not have arisen. The amendments will not prevent someone like Ryan in future legally laying his hands on firearms unless the police carry out their procedures absolutely accurately and fully. In that context I was hoping to draw attention to the fact that the police had not really followed their code of practice. Whether they would follow the proposed firearms legislation, or whether they followed firearms legislation in force at that time, is open to debate. The amendments do not make sense unless the administration procedure used by the police in all cases is properly followed.
      It is only by example that one can come to a full understanding of how the firearms law operates in practice. When one considers the history of the Ryan saga and how he got his firearms, one begins to wonder how closely the police followed the law. One then has to question whether the police will follow any amendments that we may make, even in regard to Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Thames Valley police did not follow their own guidelines when they allowed Michael Ryan to have a firearms certificate. He will know that Ryan had been a probationary member of the Dunmore shooting centre for three months and that, in September
      106
      1986, that was the only requirement that the club required for full membership. After three months, when Ryan applied to the Thames Valley police, he was given a firearms certificate on the basis of his membership of the centre and of his being a consistent shooter at it.
      Because the centre used only pistols, Ryan joined a club with a rifle range and applied to have rifles added to his certificate. He was allowed the addition to his certificate. The hon. Gentleman has tried to claim that, because Ryan did not go through the full procedure, but obtained a firearms certificate as a result of membership of Dunmore, he was somehow beyond the law when he obtained his rifle certificate. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is wrong and that the chief constable was right in believing that, once he awarded a certificate, the addition of another weapon to the certificate was not——
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. Moreover, what I feared when I reproached the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) is now happening—instead of discussing how relevant the application of parts of the Bill are to Northern Ireland, we are having a House of Commons inquiry into the Hungerford occurrence, and we are not going to have that.
      Mr. Ross: I am sorry that we shall not have such an inquiry. There does not seem to be any great willingness to have one outside either.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Such an inquiry would be quite irrelevant to a discussion of new clause 4.
      Mr. Ross: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope, however, to be able to follow up the matter in another context. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has been a personal friend for many years, but I must tell him that the police code demanded a six-month probationary period. When the police officer arrived to inspect the arrangements, he was bound to be shown the Dunmore card. I understand that Ryan had only a probationary card, which was a quite different colour from the full membership card.
      There is much more to say about the Ryan affair. No doubt it will be possible to say some of it before the night is done. My amendments—(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g)—cover all the matters that occupied the first sitting of the Standing Committee. These issues were the source of much pain and difficulty. I was left with the impression of the Government making a knee-jerk reaction. That is not appropriate for the Government. Firearms legislation is extremely important and we should be absolutely clear about our objectives before we embark on it. The Government are acting in haste. They have not sat down and thought through seriously the effects of what they are proposing.
      There is no point in passing law for Northern Ireland which will simply annoy the law abiding. God knows they have had reason enough in the past few years to be annoyed at Government action. The small group of people who are fortunate enough to be able to practise full-bore rifle shooting and to take part in international competition will now be clobbered and, to put it mildly, that is unfortunate. They will say to me, to the Government and to every public representative, "Why have you done this? Why are you attacking us when there is a far bigger firearms problem in this country which, after 20 years, you

      107
      have not resolved?" When the Minister eventually replies, those are the questions to which he should address his mind.
      The Minister has told us that most of those things are already covered by existing police powers in Northern Ireland. I have pointed out to the House that it is practically impossible to get a firearms certificate for a full-bore rifle in Northern Ireland. The Minister has told us that the amendments that have been tabled are minor. They are so minor that they could have been run through the House on the nod after 10 o'clock some evening if the Minister had cared to produce a little order or a statutory instrument. He now has before him his own cumbersome and inept way of extending the legislation to Northern Ireland. He also has before him a carefully drawn amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley and myself. That amendment has the same effect.
      I hope that the Minister will get to his feet shortly and say that he will accept amendment No. 102 and reject his own, because I believe that is the most sensible and reasonable way to proceed. My amendment will have the same effect as his own and will get over some of the constitutional fury that his present procedure has aroused.
      There is a great deal more that I should like to say on this important issue. However, there are a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches who expressed their concern in Committee. I hope that it will be possible to leave it to them to follow up this matter and to make the same arguments in relation to Northern Ireland as they made in relation to Great Britain. I also hope that this is the last time that I shall see such a miserable procedure used to extend any legislation to the Province, part of which I have the honour to represent.
      Mr. Colvin: I have one simple, short question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. It concerns the legislation that we are in the process of amending. New clause 4 proposes to change the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The Home Office produced a memorandum in response to the publication of a Council directive by the European Commission on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. The Home Office memorandum addressed the impact of that directive on United Kingdom law. It said that
      "The relevant legislation of Great Britain is the Firearms Act 1968"
      —which we are in the process of amending. It also said that the relevant legislation for Northern Ireland was the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
      When my right hon. Friend comes to reply, will he confirm that we are in the process of amending the right piece of legislation because it would be a waste of the time of the House if we did the wrong thing?
      Mr. Corbett: I am delighted that the Minister of State Northern Ireland Office is here tonight. I would like to apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who is not here for precisely the reason that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and others have complained about—the way in which the Government changed their mind about the extension of many of the provisions of the Bill to cover Northern Ireland when that was not mentioned on Second Reading and when, as the
      108
      hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, discussion on it was not possible in Committee. It gets worse than that. Standing Committee F, which discussed the Bill, had its last sitting on 11 March 1988. The letter I received from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department bears the date 22 March. I understand that it is reasonably rare for letters to be written on the date they bear at the top. In many cases, as right hon. and hon. Members will know, the month and the year are typed and when the Minister is topping and tailing the letter he will chalk in the date. The date on this letter is typed and, it has to be said, it was certainly drafted well before 22 March because it had to shunt through various procedures and it ended up in that famous grey area in the Home Office where it is decided whether it is fit and proper to present it, even to the Under-Secretary of State.
      It is fair to assume that the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office were in consultation over extending the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland while our Committee was sitting. Should the Minister catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he will be kind enough to tell us at what stage he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made representations to the Home Secretary about extending the provisions to Northern Ireland or when he was invited by the Home Secretary to respond to the Home Secretary's suggestion that they should be extended to Northern Ireland.
      The Government have treated the House, let alone the Committee, less than courteously. It is one of the hallmarks of the way in which the Bill has been handled since it first saw the light of day.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this has been a matter on which there has been rare cross-party agreement on many aspects; positive and negative. Unless things have changed, will the hon. Gentleman accept that it would not simply be a matter of negotiation between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? The legislation sub-committee of the Cabinet would have to give its consent to the importing into a Bill at this stage of no fewer than 16 changes to the law and, certainly, the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip would have had to consent to that being done. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that all that must have taken place while Standing Committee F, which did a first-class job on the Bill, was still in being.
      Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because everything he said must be so. To that extent, the plot thickens. We are left with the question to which I hope the Minister will respond: why was this not in the Bill when it came to the House for Second Reading? If for some reason that was not possible, why were the amendments not mentioned by the Minister during the sittings of the Committee?
      Mr. Frank Cook: Do I understand my hon. Friend correctly? Is he suggesting that, when the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) was seeking to make reference to conditions in Northern Ireland and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was advising him as Chairman of the Committee that references of that sort were improper, out of place and out of order, these matters were being considered behind closed doors?
      Mr. Corbett: I am saying that that must be so. This move cannot have appeared out of a clear blue sky. It is not as if one of the Ministers involved suddenly stepped out of the bath one morning and thought to himself, "I know what I'll do today. I'll extend the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I've got nothing else to do and it will fill in the odd half hour".That does not bear thinking about.
      9.30 pm
      I apologise to hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee. I assumed—wrongly as it turned out—when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary wrote to me on 22 March that he had had the courtesy to write to every member of the Standing Committee. That would have been the proper thing to do, but I now know that it did not happen.
      On the buy-in scheme—the compensation scheme—the Minister carried out the undertaking to inform members of the Standing Committee about the Government's proposals as far ahead of this debate as possible, and we are grateful to him for his courtesy in doing that. However, that was not done in respect of the proposals to extend some of the controls in the Bill to Northern Ireland.
      I claim no more rights than any other member of the Standing Committee. It so happens that during most of the Committee's proceedings I led for the Opposition, but I do not want special treatment. Every member of the Standing Committee had an equal right to know that the Government were contemplating this major change. It was not contained in the original Bill and thus could not have been discussed on Second Reading—yet another subject that we were unable to discuss. I do not want to add to the Minister's discomfort, but he will remember the little altercation we had over trying to ensure that the Committee could discuss the matter of compensation if it wanted to. The Minister had to return to the House to seek approval for a second money order to make it possible for the Committee to discuss something that, on Second Reading, the Government had said that they were not going to do and did not want anything said about after Second Reading.
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that usually, when Northern Ireland legislation is brought forward, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is informed. The letter may well have gone astray in the post but my right hon. Friend cannot recall ever receiving any such confirmation and neither can I. What sort of political skullduggery are the Government up to here? It is unbelievable that this could happen.
      Mr. Corbett: This goes from bad to worse. Not only was the proposal kept from every member of the Committee but me—I assume that that was no accident—but now we hear that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was not told either. This may not comfort him, but he may be interested to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was not told. I do not know who was supposed to tell him, but whoever it was did not. From the way in which things work in this place one can assume that it was the responsibility of Northern Ireland Ministers to tell members of the Opposition and of other parties with a clear and well-known interest in Northern Ireland what had been suggested by the Northern Ireland Office to the
      110
      Home Secretary—or vice versa—or what, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said, had been agreed and decided at Cabinet level. What seems to have happened is that the responsibility did not simply disappear in a fog, but dropped down a big black hole.
      Generally, I have no objection to the extension of these parts of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I do not know whether the Northern Ireland Minister has seen the Under-Secretary's letter, but he will agree with this because not only did his hon. Friend say it, but right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies confirm it. The Under-Secretary reminds me in his letter that
      "firearms controls in Northern Ireland are exercised under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981"
      and adds that those controls
      "are generally tighter than those in Great Britain."
      That compounds the mystery. If the controls are tighter and more stringent, for horrendous reasons that we all understand and accept, what is the need for the provision? If that need is as compelling as the Minister has implied because he says that the provision will help for the various reasons that he gave in moving the new clause, I must ask him again why those compelling reasons only partly saw the light of day in the Under-Secretary of State's letter to me of 22 March.
      Would the police and security forces in Northern Ireland happen across a copy of the Bill on their way to work or pick it up in the canteen because somebody had left it there, and say, "Well, that seems a good idea. Let's have it."? Of course it does not happen like that. I ask the Minister to understand that I accept that. That emphasises this point: why did the Government act in that 'way, behind the back of the Committee and of Opposition Members with responsibilities for Northern Ireland? I do not believe that it is simply incompetence, although I suspect that that is part of it. Yet again, it is an illustration of the slipshod manner in which the Bill was prepared. That has led to the new clause and 176 other amendments on Report, 63 of them from the Government themselves. The Bill remains littered with confusion. There is confusion of purpose and confusion about the aim of the Bill. Having been through all those Committee sittings, I get the impression that not a single Minister or team of Ministers has sat down and said, "What do we want to achieve? What is the best way of achieving it?" Those are two straightforward and simple questions.
      I listened to what the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, and I suspect that what happened in the wake of the appalling events in Hungerford was that senior officials at the Home Office were sent for and told, "We must do something. Give us a bit of paper." If that was so, it was a wholly improper way in which to proceed.
      After that row and the argument about compensation in Committee, the Government have sprung another one on us late in the day. They say, "Trust us," giving the impression that it has only just been thought of.
      Mr. Frank Cook: I am following closely what my hon. Friend is saying. I am trying to hang on to the same logic, but there is a difficulty that we should discuss. My hon. Friend agreed with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who suggested that when we spoke about Northern Ireland in Committee we were told that the Bill did not relate to it but that consultations were taking place behind closed doors almost simultaneously. On issues such as compensation and on at least two clauses

      111
      in the Bill, the Minister had to backtrack and go away. Initially he could not even get his sittings motion passed because matters were so ill-considered.
      In my mind is the picture painted by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds of some kind of subterfuge and conspiracy. There is also the picture that I recall from Committee of gross ineptitude and lack of preparedness. I cannot equate one with the other. Perhaps my hon. Friend can come up with some explanation.
      Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend illustrates the point well. I suspect that both things were happening at the same time and that the people involved in one did not know about the other. It is a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, and in this case both hands were probably held out of sight.
      The Minister should be clear. Hon. Members want the most stringent and effective legal steps to try to reduce the number of murders carried out in Northern Ireland by terrorists using firearms. We object to the way in which the Government and the Minister have chosen to treat a topic that deserves and demands better consideration than we are able to give it on Report.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: As you have just come into the Chair, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should make it clear that references to my earlier remarks do not mean that I have spoken to this clause, and therefore I do not need to ask leave to speak again.
      I approach the new clause more in sorrow than in anger, first, because I want the Bill as amended and I am off to Gibraltar in the morning and am anxious not to remain here throughout the night. Secondly, I have a very high regard for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, and for all the Home Office Ministers who have been occupied with the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that comment in the way that it is intended. I acquit them at once of any suggestion that they have engaged in subterfuge or conspiracy. I am tempted to quote the inelegant phrase of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who said the other day that it was more a matter of a cock-up than a conspiracy.
      There is here an issue of important principle. Like many other hon. Members, I have no fundamental objection to the contents of the new clause and the amendments that it makes to no fewer than 16 sections or subsections of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. It is not a small matter, but I have no objections in principle, because effectively the provisions move into statute law what is already the practice of the police in Northern Ireland. There is certainly merit in making sure that the practice of the police has statutory cover. The Northern Ireland Office is not to be criticised for wanting to do that; nor should the Home Office be criticised for wanting to facilitate it.
      Mr. William Ross: There is an important issue here, to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention. If it is police practice, it could easily be changed when circumstances in Northern Ireland change—when terrorism diminishes and we return to peaceful conditions. We are creating a body of law that will be very difficult to change even if it becomes desirable to do so.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: That is the hon. Gentleman's view and he has great knowledge of Northern Ireland, which I respect. I do not happen to share his view, because it is not the advice that I have received from the police. I am putting to the House a fundamental point about the way in which the Government have chosen to proceed. The lack of notice to the House as a whole has been wrong. The bad manners shown to members of Standing Committee F are disgraceful. That Committee worked extremely hard, and it was entitled to be told by the Government that this intention had been formed and approved of by the Cabinet before the Committee had ceased its work.
      One should also protest at the exclusion from any consultation about the new clause and amendments of significant sections of our fellow countrymen. They might have had an interest in these changes, but have had no opportunity to discuss them since they came on the Amendment Paper last Thursday and we are dealing with them now, for the last time, on the following Monday. The exclusion of our fellow citizens from any effective consultation is a reprehensible way in which to proceed.
      9.45 pm
      I should remind my hon. Friend—he is a Northern Ireland Minister and therefore was not intimately involved in this legislation—that, on Second Reading, Northern Ireland was not just left out, but was explicitly excluded. In Committee, hon. Members who strayed into discussing Northern Ireland were reminded by the Chair that they should not do so because Northern Ireland was not included. Therefore, in my capacity as adviser to the police service, I did not consult the Northern Ireland Police Federation, as I would have done normally. I told the police that they did not need to apply their minds to this legislation because it did not apply to Northern Ireland. I did so on the authority not only of Ministers but of the Chairman of the Committee. What else could I do? The procedure throughout the Bill has been, to put it mildly, unsatisfactory.
      Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend's point is important, as is the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). If the Committee had known the decision had been made to apply the law to Northern Ireland, and if that been known to the House when we voted earlier on the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-mare (Mr. Wiggin), the House might have come to a different conclusion.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: That is as may be. In my judgment, if Standing Committee F had been made aware of the Government's intention to apply these clauses to Northern Ireland, the Committee would have assented. It was a good Committee, which considered these matters with great care. A Minister representing a Northern Ireland constituency served on it. If the matter had been given to us we would have debated it and come to the conclusion, based on their merits, that these amendments should be included. I have little doubt about that.
      I do not object to the importing of different matter into the Bill on Report. Many of us who have served in government have seen this happen, and Governments of all complexions have done this. The procedure is not in any way outside the norms of Parliament. However, there are ways and means of doing it that were not followed in this case. For example—Mr. Speaker, your experience will probably bear this out—when a Government intend on

      113
      Report to add significant new matter to a Bill, it is often the case that a question is arranged so that it appears in Hansard and all Members are aware of what is intended. Alternatively, if the matter is of great importance, it can be set out in a statement. No statement was made and no question was answered. Worse than that, the only letter that was sent by the relevant Minister to any member of the Committee went to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). It was right that he should have received a letter, because he was leading for the Opposition, but the remaining members of the Committee were kept completely in the dark.
      That was wrong, and I should like to make this suggestion to my hon. Friend who, in every respect, is an honourable man. Instead of trying to defend the Government's position, he should simply say that he is sorry. Occasionally mistakes are made, and in those cases the best thing to do is to apologise. The House will always understand that. It is far better to do that than to attempt to explain the unexplainable.
      The Government have not got this right. There are no objections to the content. I, for one, hope that the amendments will be carried, but my hon. Friend should recognise that, in this case, the Northern Ireland Office has dropped him in it. It is a reflection of the fact that there is insufficient parliamentary scrutiny of what happens in Northern Ireland. All too often, officials of the Northern Ireland Office have told me that changes in the law that Ministers themselves want to see and that I, on behalf of the police service, have asked for—I can give many examples—have not been made because there has been no parliamentary opportunity.
      There has been ample opportunity to make many other changes, and I am left with the impression that when it suits the Northern Ireland Office to insert certain matters into legislation at the last minute it will do it, but if it does not suit it, it does not want to know. That is the objection, and I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that that is not the way to proceed.
      Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said that new clause 4 was unnecessary. I do not agree with him on that. However, new clause 4 and the statutory changes it makes are minor.
      In view of the consideration of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, the consideration of the important policy issues of firearms control by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the fact that the Bill might result, in certain minor respects, in the statutory basis for firearms control in Great Britain being slightly more restrictive than in Northern Ireland, we believe that it would not be justifiable for the position in Northern Ireland, given the security situation there, to be any less tight in every respect than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
      For example, we would not want to have a statutory list of prohibited weapons and ammunition that was less limited under Northern Ireland legislation than under legislation elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We would not want security precautions taken by auctioneers, carriers and warehousemen in Northern Ireland to be less stringent than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We would not want the statutory basis for monitoring rifle and pistol clubs to be less limited in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
      114
      Those were effectively the three relatively minor areas in which, without new clause 4, we would have been slightly out of kilter with the rest of the United Kingdom. Given the security situation in Northern Ireland, we felt that that would not be a satisfactory note on which to end proceedings on the Bill.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: Why have the Government not chosen the affirmative resolution, but have used the negative procedure which is generally unsatisfactory, no matter how trivial the Minister regards the subject? The measure is being put to the House because it is regarded as important and I should therefore have thought that the affirmative procedure would have been best.
      Mr. Stanley: If the hon Gentleman had been in his place when I moved new clause 4, he would know that I had dealt with exactly that point. The Order in Council that will come forward under new clause 4 will be based on the provisions of new clause 4 and the House has a full opportunity to debate those provisions this evening.
      The hon. Member for Londonderry, East referred to amendment No. 102, which stands in his name and that to his right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). He asked why we could not proceed with the direct extension of parts of the Bill to Northern Ireland rather than proceeding through the Order in Council procedure. Consideration was given to the desirability of making provision in the Bill for the direct extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions that are set out in the new clause. As the corpus of the law on firearms in Northern Ireland lies in the Northern Ireland statute book, to extend the provisions directly would render the law harder to find and more difficult to follow. It would require lengthy and complex amendments to be made to existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman hoped that his route would be neater and simpler, but that would not be so. That is why we decided to proceed by way of Order in Council.
      Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister saying that firearms legislation in Northern Ireland is so different from that in Great Britain that it is impossible to follow the route that I have set out? If that is so, has it not been demonstrated once again how foolish it is to have the Northern Ireland statute book kept separate from the statute book for Great Britain? Instead, we should be dealing with Northern Ireland as if it were an integral part of the United Kingdom and included in United Kingdom Bills. That would be far more satisfactory to us in Northern Ireland than this miserable way of proceeding.
      Finally, the Minister mentioned warehousemen and others. How many firearms have been stolen from warehouses and that sort of establishment over the past 20 years?
      Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman might not agree with this view, but I am sure that he will recognise that there is a considerable body of opinion in Northern Ireland that welcomes the fact that there is a separate Northern Ireland statute book. Those who are sympathetic to the possibility of restoring devolved legislative arrangements in future would recognise the importance of maintaining these arrangements.
      The hon. Gentleman has taken up my reference to warehousemen. The question that the hon. Gentleman

      115
      should ask himself is whether it could be justifiable in the security situation of Northern Ireland to have any lesser statutory arrangements for physical security precautions in such establishments than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked whether we were amending the right piece of legislation. I am happy to assure him that we are. The reference in the new clause to the 1974 legislation relates to proceeding by negative resolution rather than affirmative. The base legislation that will be changed by the substantive part of the new clause as opposed to the procedural part is the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who leads for the Opposition, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) both spoke of the way in which the new clause was brought forward and its timing. I was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman's contribution this evening was not one that he might have made at a somewhat earlier stage. He did not tell the House—I am sure that he would wish me to do so now—that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made it clear in his letter to him on 22 March that the new clause and amendments that we proposed to bring forward would be introduced on Report. We accept entirely the criticism which the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend made, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, that the letter of 22 March should have been sent to all Committee members to ensure that they were fully informed of what would take place. I convey our apologies to Committee members for the fact that that was not done. I understand that the drafting had still not been finalised before the Bill had left Standing Committee, so we would have had to bring forward the measure on Report. That is the explanation for the timing in bringing forward the measure.
      Mr. Frank Cook: The Minister seeks to present a reasonable case and is doing a decent job in difficult circumstances. I congratulate him. Bearing in mind the comments of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) about the timing of the letter and the new clause, will the Minister explain why there was a two-month delay before tabling the new clause——
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      As amended (in the Standing Committee) again considered.
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Cook: Bearing in mind the need for consultation with the Police Federation, which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds represents, and the consultation which the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and his colleagues need, why did it take two months to table the new clause after the letter had come on 22 March?
      Mr. Stanley: When my hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member for Erdington, the measure was still being finalised. I do not know exactly when it was finally
      116
      available. No doubt, further consideration was being given to the finer points of drafting. The substantive changes brought about by new clause 4 are small. I hope that neither the House nor people outside have lost very much by not having sight of the measure earlier.
      Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I do not want to make heavy weather of this matter. I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue, but the right hon. Gentleman gave the House the impression that the measures were in the process of drafting while the Standing Committee was meeting. If so, that compounds the felony. That could and should have been mentioned while the Standing Committee was sitting.
      Mr. Stanley: I cannot say precisely at what point the drafting began and was finished. There may have been some few days during the Committee's sittings when the parliamentary draftsmen were working on it. I believe that there was no possibility of tabling this measure in a final form during the Standing Committee's proceedings, as I have explained to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 5

      STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES
      'After section 26(2) (b) of the principal Act (rules requiring verification of matters contained in applications for certificates) there shall be inserted—
      "(c) require any application for a certificate to be accompanied by a statement by the person verifying the matters mentioned in paragraph (b) above to the effect that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm.".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of the new clause is to improve the application procedure. Section 26 of the Firearms Act 1986 provides for verification of the likeness of photographs and prescribes details. This provision in new clause 5 adds to a provision that will enable the Secretary of State to require the inclusion of a statement by the person verifying that he knows of no reason why the person who is making the application should not possess a firearm.
      Mr. Corbett: New clause 5 sounds eminently reasonable. We want to take every sensible precaution to ensure that the applicant is, in the well understood phrase that is perhaps a little old hat, responsible and a person of good standing.
      On what basis will the person signing the verification make the judgment that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm? That is like proving a negative. It implies, but does not state, that the person verifying should not just know the applicant, but should have known him for a sufficiently long period to enable him, or her, responsibly to make a judgment. Probably the Minister can dispose of this quickly for me.
      The new clause says nothing about the factors that must be taken into account. What is the person who is asked to sign the verification statement supposed to do if he is

      117
      aware that the applicant, five, six or 10 years ago, had a very severe mental illness, but is satisfied that the applicant is over that illness? None the less, that is part of the applicant's history. Is that a factor that must be taken into account? A very senior and well respected Member of the House, in response to a constituent's request after the police had refused to issue him with a firearms certificate, gave the opinion that he knew of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm. The senior hon. Member knew the applicant—although not like a member of the family—and he was surprised when he was told that the local police has declined to issue the certificate. He signed the verification. He was confident and content that he had acted properly.
      Some weeks later the local police telephoned him. He was told that the certificate had been issued, although against the better judgment of the police, and the person to whom the certificate had been issued had blown his brains out after a quarrel with his girlfriend. No one would question that the hon. Member concerned had acted anything other than correctly, and all of us who know the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. Had he not known the applicant seeking to have the application verified, he would not have signed it. He would not have signed it if he believed that it was wrong to do so. However, he signed it with tragic results.
      Would it not be helpful for those called upon to make statements of verification to be given guidance about the factors that they should take into account? We are not talking about a photograph that accompanies a passport application. In that case, many hon. Members and other people are simply required on the form to say how long they have known the applicant and to certify that the likeness is true. Much more is at risk in verifying a statement in support of a firearms certificate than in signing the back of a passport photograph. Without wanting to he facetious, I do not know many people who have been battered to death with passports. This is an important matter.
      If it will help to achieve the purpose which I believe the Minister intends, those who are invited to verify applications ought to be given explicit guidance about the basis on which they should make their judgments. If the Home Office and the police will merely require signatories to declare, "I have known Joe Bloggs for five years and can think of no reason why he should not be permitted to possess a firearm," and if the Government are saying that the signature is worth no more than that, I must question its value. I suspect that it is meant to mean more than that. I hope that it is, and that a signature of verification will be given after much weightier consideration. It will help the House if the Minister will spell that out.
      Mr. Colvin: I follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) in questioning who precisely should be entitled to verify applications. In the case of passports, only certain people, such as Members of Parliament, are entitled to give verification. I do not know whether we are suitable people to verify whether or not a person should be granted a firearms certificate. If a list of suitable persons could be drawn up by the Home Office, it would be of assistance.
      As to photographs, the law applying to passport applications provides that the person who signs the accompanying photograph commits an offence if his
      118
      statement proves to be false. In the case of a firearms application, will the person who verifies it also commit an offence if the applicant proves, with hindsight, to be unsuitable to hold a firearm? If that is a danger, it should be possible to include in the Bill a phrase that will provide for a statement made in good faith to be a let-off if the holder of the firearms certificate proves in time to be unsuitable. Perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify that point when he winds up the debate.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that this touches on a subject that was discussed in Committee? It concerns the whole question of the validity of the counter-signature on a firearms certificate application. The new clause places upon the general practitioner who counter-signs an application a requirement to know more about an applicant, rather than merely look at the 10 questions which precede his countersignature and agree that they have been answered correctly. My hon. Friend will know that one of those questions asks the applicant:
      "Do you suffer from any form of mental disorder or defect?".
      I cannot imagine a general practitioner putting his signature to an application without examining the applicant concerned. If his signature is to serve as verification of the qualities of the person seeking the certificate he must ask himself, as a medical person, whether he will simply add his signature or will ask the applicant to his surgery for an examination and study his records. Such would be a wise precaution.
      Although it is a fact that Michael Ryan's general practitioner signed his application, I wonder whether he would have done that quite so willingly if this new clause had been before him. He might himself have wished to take a second look at Ryan and consider his mental state before doing so. I impress on my hon. Friend that, although I entirely support the new clause, I wish to see it strengthened by introducing the concept of a medical examination before an applicant's signature is countersigned by a general practitioner. In that is not only the question of the person's mental state but also that of his physical ability to handle a weapon.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. William Ross: One or two little questions disturb me. The Firearms Act 1968 requires
      "the verification in the prescribed manner of any prescribed particulars and of the likeness of any such photograph to the applicant."
      But I am not sure what kind of person the new clause is talking about, and I should like an explanation.
      A working party reported on the administration of the Act in 1984. I am sure that the Minister, having read the Bill assiduously, would also have taken time to read that report, and that he has looked at paragraph 48, headed "Counter signatures" which reads:
      "Rule 4 of the Firearms Rules provides that a shotgun certificate application form must be countersigned by a person of good standing, who has known the applicant personally for at least two years, to the effect that the information given on the form is, to the best of his knowledge correct. Many forces make no enquiries at all about countersignatories and the requirement seems to serve little useful purpose. There is no similar requirement in respect of firearms certificates. The Working Party accordingly recommends that the requirement of countersignatures in respect of shotgun certificates be dropped."

      119
      I am not sure that I can mesh together the statements in the various reports, Bills and orders amending Bills, but no doubt the Minister, who has had such a clear exposition of the Bill given to him by members of the Committee, will be able to make it all clear to us. I should like to know why the working party was able to come out with that statement, why the Bill seems to say something rather different and why the new amending Bill seems to be restoring an earlier position. I confess that I am becoming rather confused, and I should like some daylight—or perhaps a spotlight—cast upon the matter so that we can understand what it all means.
      Sir Hector Monro: I too would like to know who will verify the application and the photograph. It is a very different kettle of fish from what many of us do in various walks of life, whether we are doctors, ministers, Members of Parliament or justices of the peace—verifying the likeness of a photograph for a passport. Here it is necessary to verify that a person is capable of holding a firearms certificate. As the matter is dealt with in section 26(2) of the 1968 Act, why is it only now that we are talking seriously about photographs when they could have been introduced administratively at any time in the past 10 years?
      I also wonder about the efficiency of the photograph system. I do not think, when I look at my photograph in my London Underground pass, that anyone would know who it represented, and I am glad that that is so. But we should bear in mind that the photograph could be used by someone going to a gun shop to buy a weapon or ammunition. As it is not a legal requirement to carry a firearm certificate at all times, it will be of no great use when someone is out in the countryside with a weapon. What are the qualifications of the person who has to verify the application under section 26(2)(b) of the 1968 Act? The section does not specify who has to verify the application. We might make some progress if my hon. Friend could give some details about that.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: I echo the point that was made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. It is strange that we are not considering an amendment that specifies what the verifier of the firearms certificate is supposed to be looking for. Without such an amendment, the Bill will not prevent such tragic events as Hungerford. We heard earlier that, had the existing legislation been correctly implemented, the Hungerford tragedy would never have happened.
      I see no point in including this new clause in the Bill unless it covers the person who has to verify the application. Without that obvious criterion, it is administrative nonsense and serves no purpose whatsoever.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I agree that this is a modest procedural improvement. We are asking for a statement to the effect that a person is not unfit to possess a firearm. It is not a statement that a person is suited to hold a firearm. Few people would care to make that positive assertion. We consulted the British Medical Association, whose considered view was that general practitioners would not wish to be party to a verification procedure that obliged
      120
      them to make a positive assertion that somebody was fit to hold a firearm. It is a negative procedure, to the effect that somebody is not unfit to hold a firearm.
      Questions have been asked about the identity of the people who will be asked to make such a statement. An example can be found in rule 4 of the 1969 firearms rules. Instances are Members of Parliament, justices of the peace, ministers of religion, doctors, lawyers, bank officers, or persons of similar standing who have known the applicant personally for at least two years.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked about the offence. The position is dealt with in section 26(5) of the Firearms Act 1968, which provides:
      "It is an offence for a person to make any statement which he knows to be false for the purpose of procuring, whether for himself or any other person, the grant or renewal of a certificate under this Act."
      Accordingly, if a person made a deliberately false statement under the proposed new clause, he would be caught, but if he were acting honestly and in good faith, he would not be committing an offence.
      Mr. Frank Cook: As to the verifier's qualifications, the Minister appears to be saying not that he wants to make it harder for the applicant to obtain a firearms certificate but that he wants to make it easier for the verifier to do his job without difficulty or embarrassment. Is that his argument?
      Mr. Hogg: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman is doing me an injustice, so I shall repeat what I have already said. I accept that this is a modest amendment. I do not think that we can impose on any person who is verifying an application the obligation to assert positively that the person making the application is fit to hold firearms. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether he would make such a positive assertion in respect of somebody else. I think that he would probably answer, no. Most of us can sensibly ask ourselves of a person we know whether there is any reason known to us why that person should not hold a firearm. The new clause seeks to address that question, and it is wholly reasonable to incorporate it into the legislation.
      Mr. John Home Robertson rose——
      Mr. Hogg: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman; it is nice to see him here.
      Mr. Home Robertson: If the Minister is happy to see me, he may hear more from me. I hope that the new clause is intended to be constructive. I presume that the Minister tabled it in such a spirit. It is building on part of the 1968 Act which provides simply for the verification of a photograph and adding to it a judgment as to whether someone is a suitable person to hold a firearm. He has given a list of ministers of religion, bank managers and Members of Parliament, but does he think that such a measure will add to the sum total of human safety in the United Kingdom if the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), who I do not think has taken his seat here, signed a document asserting that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm?
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Section 26 of the principal Act is not confined to a verifying photograph; it also deals with the verification of a substantial number of relevant particulars.
      Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend has read out the usual list of people who are permitted to do that. Does he agree that there is a vast difference between signing a verification of this kind and a passport application? If something goes wrong in regard to a passport, not too much discredit accrues to the person who did the signing, but I should have thought that a great deal of opprobium would attach to the person signing if the person who has the licence eventually goes wrong. It is a very difficult judgment for anyone to make, even under this procedure, and to sign his name. Indeed, a great number of people will opt out of signing.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend emphasises the difficulty which I previously stressed. Very few people would make the positive assertion that someone was fit to hold a firearm, because of the very points that my hon. Friend has just made. However, most of us who know someone reasonably well would be able to judge whether there were any good reason to disqualify that person from holding a firearm. If we felt that there were no good reason to disqualify that person from having a firearm, we would
      122
      sign the verification contained in the new clause. My hon. Friend is right about the difficulty, but I hope that he feels that we have the balance about right.
      Mr. Corbett: Has the Minister thought about guidance which could be made available to those asked to sign verification statements? I have followed what he said, although, if he will forgive me, it is more of a lawyer's point than a layman's point. A statement saying. "I know nothing that would prevent Joe Bloggs from having a gun," in simple terms is tantamount to saying, "Let him have a gun." I understand the reservation that the Minister makes, but does he not consider that there is some virtue in having guidance available for those called upon to make verification statements?
      Mr. Hogg: I am always reluctant to indulge in too much bureaucracy. The verification contained in the new clause is fairly clear. It is an assertion that the person knows of no reason why someone should not be permitted to possess a firearm. That matter is fairly clear to an ordinary person addressing it. I do not think that it would be necessary to furnish guidance. If we adhere to the groups of people referred to in rule 4, the hon. Member might feel that a person such as himself would be able to deal with the question without further guidance.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 12

      GRANT OF CO-TERMINOUS FIREARM AND SHOT GUN CERTIFICATES
      '(1) Where a person who holds a firearm certificate applies for the grant or renewal of a shot gun certificate that certificate may, if he so requests, be granted or renewed for such period less than that specified in or prescribed under section 26(3) of the principal Act as will secure that it ceases to be in force at the same time as the firearm certificate.
      (2) Where a person who holds a shot gun certificate, or both such a certificate and a firearm certificate, applies for the grant of a firearm certificate, or for the renewal of the firearm certificate held by him, he may, on surrendering his shot gun certificate, apply for a new shot gun certificate to take effect on the same day as that on which the firearm certificate is granted or renewed.
      (3) Where a shot gun certificate is granted to a person or such a certificate held by him is renewed and on the same occasion he is granted a firearm certificate or such a certificate held by him is renewed the fee payable on the grant or renewal of the shot gun certificate shall be £5 instead of that specified in section 32 of the principal Act.
      (4) Subsection (3) above shall be included in the provisions that may be amended under section 43 of the principal Act.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 1—Conditions attaching to the possession of self-loading rifles—
      'No firearm certificate shall authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading or pump-action rifle to which section 5(2) (ab) of the principal Act applies unless that person—

      (a) has held a firearms certificate for at least three years, and

      (b) has been a full member of a rifle club for at least three years, and

      (c) is a member of a club which is affiliated to the National Rifle Association or the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association and which has been approved by the Secretary of State as a club suitable for target shooting with self-loading rifles, and has satisfactorily completed a course of service rifle or practical rifle shooting approved by either of these Associations, or

      (d) has a reason to possess such a gun because of disability or participation in vermin control or deer-culling.'.

      New clause 6—Club membership a condition of new firearms certificate—
      'Before a Chief Constable issues a firearms certificate to a person who has never previously held a rifle or pistol that person shall have been a member of a Home Office approved rifle or pistol club for at least six months and have obtained full membership of the club. "Home Office approved" shall mean a club organised along guidelines drawn up and issued by the Home Office.'.
      New clause 7—Qualifications for holding certificate—
      'No firearm certificate shall authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading or pump-action rifle to which section 5(2)(ab) of the principal Act applies unless that person—

      (a) has held a firearms certificate for at least three years, and

      (b) has been a full member of a rifle club for at least three years, and, as a member of a club which is affiliated to the National Rifle Association or the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association, which has been approved by the Secretary of State as a club suitable for target shooting with
      124
      self-loading rifles, has satisfactorily completed a course of service rifle or practical rifle shooting approved by either of these associations, or

      (c) has a reason to possess such a gun because of disability, or,

      (d) has a reason to possess such a gun for vermin control, deer culling, or other good reason.'.

      New clause 8—Appeals in cases of refusal of registration—

      '(1) An appeal under section 20, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, or 38 of the principal Act lies in England and Wales to the Firearms Appeal Tribunal and in Scotland to the Scottish Firearms Appeal Tribunal and an appeal from a decision of any such tribunal on a point of law shall lie in England and Wales to the Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice and in Scotland to the Court of Session.

      (2) The Home Secretary shall by regulations provide for the establishment of a tribunal or tribunals to determine appeals by persons in England and Wales aggrieved by any decision of a Chief Officer of Police under the principal Act or under this Act.

      (3) The Secretary of State for Scotland shall by regulations provide for establishment of a tribunal or tribunals to determine appeals by persons in Scotland aggrieved by any decision of a Chief Constable under the principal Act or this Act.

      (4) Regulations made by the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland may include provision for summoning persons to attend and give evidence and produce documents and for authorising the administration of Oaths to witnesses.

      (5) There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament any administrative expenses incurred by the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland for the purposes of the principal Act or this Act.

      (6) Section 14 of the Firearms Act is repealed.'.

      New clause 9—Certificates, applications and grants—
      'After section 26(1) of the principal Act (Application for, and grant of certificates) there shall be inserted:—
      "(1A) When an application for the grant or variation of a firearm certificate in respect to firearms ammunition or conditions or grant of a shotgun certificate has been made in the prescribed form to the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which the applicant resides the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which the applicant resides shall proceed to either—
      (a) grant the shotgun certificate or firearms certificate or variation to the firearms certificate application within twenty-eight days, and/or
      (b) state in writing the reasons for refusal to grant the authority to possess each individual firearms/ ammunition or shotgun and ammunition, additionally stating the relevant sections of the Act in each case and notify the applicant of his right to appeal to Crown Court within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of such notification, and/or
      (c) state in writing any difficulty or delay external to the Police service preventing the granting or formal refusal to processing of the application.".'.
      New clause 10—Application of certificates (verification) —
      'After section 26(2)(b) of the principal Act (rules requiring verification of matters contained in applications for certificates) there shall be inserted—
      "(c) require the application form for a certificate to contain the following questions, the answers to which shall be certified by the applicant's General Practitioner to the best of his knowledge and belief that the particulars as stated by the applicant to the above questions are accurate—
      (i)(a) Do you suffer from epilepsy or from sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting? Please state 'Yes' or 'No'.
      (b) If 'Yes' give details opposite,
      (ii)(a) Do you suffer from, or have you at any time suffered from mental illness? Please state 'Yes' or 'No'
      (b) If 'Yes' give details opposite.

      125
      (iii)(a) Do you suffer from any other disease or disability which might make possession by you of a firearm dangerous to the public? Please state 'Yes' or 'No'.
      (b) If 'Yes' give details opposite.".'
      New clause 11—Renewal of and temporary certificates—
      'After section 26(1) of the principal Act (Application for, and grant of Certificates) there shall be inserted:—
      "(1 B) When an application for the renewal of a firearm or shotgun certificate has been made in the prescribed form to the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which the applicant resides no less than twenty-eight days prior to the date of expiry of the existing certificate and subject to the certificate holder not having been served with a notice of revocation then the Chief Officer of Police shall either:—

      (a) grant a renewal of the firearm or shotgun certificate subject to subsection X below in either the terms of the expiring certificate, and/or

      (b) issue a temporary certificate in the same terms and conditions as the expiring certificate, subject to subsection X below, and/or

      (c) state in writing the reasons for refusal to grant the authority to possess each individual firearm/ ammunition or shotguns and ammunition additionally stating the relevant section(s) of the Act in each case and notify the applicant of his right to appeal to Crown Court within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of such notification, subject to subsection X below, and/or

      (d) state in writing any difficulty for delay external to the Police Service preventing the granting or the formal refusal to the processing of the application, subject to subsection X below, to the issue of a certificate.

      (X) To be received by the certificate holder 48 hours prior to the expiry of the existing certificate".'.
      New clause 16—Standard form of firearms certificates—
      'The Home Secretary shall authorise the use of a standard application form by all police authorities in respect of the grant or renewal of firearms certificates after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation and representatives of shooting interests within 12 months of the coming into force of this Act'.
      Amendment No. 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert
      'unless the person holds a firearm certificate issued on the conditions required by section (conditions attaching to the possession of self-loading rifles) of this Act.'.
      Amendment No. 134, in clause 3, page 2, line 42, at end insert—
      'and shall take such steps to ascertain the mental and physical history and present state of the applicant as he considers necessary.'.
      Amendment No. 10, in line 48, at end insert—
      '(1AA) No such certificate shall be refused on grounds relating to the safekeeping of the shotgun unless the chief officer of police has reason to believe that the lack of security for the shotgun is a danger to the public safety or the peace.'.
      Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 11, after 'guns', insert—
      'and any additional shotguns acquired after the grant or renewal of the certificate shall he added to the certificate by the holder of the certificate and such amendment shall be notified to the chief officer of police.'.
      Amendment No. 114, in clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
      Amendment No. 115, in line 27, after 'photograph' insert—
      'certified by the Chief Constable to be a true likeness'.
      Amendment No. 13, in clause 10, page 5, line 27, leave out
      'with only such types of rifles or pistols as are specified in the
      126
      approval'
      and insert—
      'and competition with small-bore rifles and pistols and full-bore rifles and pistols or any combination of them.'.
      Amendment No. 14, in line 31, at end insert—
      '(3A) A person aggrieved by the refusal of the Secretary of State to approve a club, or renewal of 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.'
      Amendment No. 80 in clause 17, page 9, line 30, at end insert—
      '(3A) After section 27(2) of that Act there shall be inserted—
      "(2A) Where a condition is specified on the certificate to the territory over which the firearm may be used, such conditions must be such as is specified in the firearms rules.".'
      Amendment No. 146, in line 30, at end insert—
      '(2d) section 33(4) of that Act (registration of firearms dealers) shall be amended by inserting after the word "registration" the words "which shall bear an up to date photograph of the person registered, countersigned by a person of standing and known to the dealer.".'
      Amendment No. 147, in line 37, at end insert—
      '(2e) In section 53(a) of that Act there shall be added after the word "or the words "application documents and".'
      Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the most helpful course would' be for me to introduce new clause 12, inform the House that I cannot commend the other new clauses and the amendments in the group, and respond later to what has been said in the debate.
      New clause 12 is designed to make coterminous grants of firearms and shotgun certificates. That is what most members of the Committee wanted, and I am glad to say that we have been able to achieve it.
      Mr. Corbett: The Minister said that he would be brief, and my word, he was.
      There seems to he sense in the new clause. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to make it clear that the Government have also accepted that, when someone holds——
      Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These are serious matters. Considerable resentment has alredy been expressed about our not being given an opportunity to discuss them properly in Committee. Can I ask you to rule on the hilarity that is being exhibited on the Conservative Front Bench below the Gangway? it proper in such a debate?
      Mr. Speaker: I was listening so closely to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that I did not notice any hilarity. I do not think that this is a particularly funny subject, and I hope that we can get on with it.
      Mr. Corbett: I am grateful for, and flattered by, your remarks, Mr. Speaker.
      Would the Minister be kind enough to make it clear that, when someone holds both a firearms certificate and a shotgun certificate, that can be shown on a single sheet of paper? The one does not automatically follow from the other. In view of our shared interest in cutting bureaucracy, the Minister many see some sense in that suggestion.
      New clauses 1 and 7 are designed to license the shooter rather than the weapon. Someone in Anglesey wrote to me

      127
      today—the argument is not new, but it was put in a slightly different context—asking what the difference was between a fast motor vehicle and a slow one. The answer is the driver. He said that in the event of an accident, it is, of course, the driver and not the car who is before the courts, and if that is good enough for something as lethal as a car in the wrong hands, it should apply to weapons.
      That argument has some merit in some respects. I understand the wish of people who use self-loading rifles to be able to continue to do so. I want to be open with the House and others on this issue. I said in Committee, and now repeat, that the case for using SLRs to kill animals for what are known as sporting purposes is slight. The case for using them in competition target shooting is stronger, but that has to be balanced against the potential—indeed, the inbuilt—lethality of SLRs from a public safety point of view.
      The ban on SLRs is justified, although I and some of my hon. Friends were prepared to support the idea of keeping legal those SLRs with integral magazines capable of storing between three and five shots. I know that that meets the argument of many hon. Members. However, there is anger among competition shooters because the House cannot guarantee that the banning of SLRs will prevent another Hungerford tragedy. We should acknowledge that and perhaps it is the strongest case for banning SLRs. Such a ban would make even the illegal possession of these weapons more difficult given that they would be added to a list of weapons that people would not be allowed to hold. That is a public safety argument that we cannot dismiss.
      Mr. L. R. Tucker wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) to explain how he and his brother had invented a device that locked the trigger mechanism so that it was impossible to fire weapons without unlocking it with a key and removing the device. He was kind enough to enclose a photograph of one such mechanism attached to a shotgun. To unlock the mechanism takes about five seconds. Mr. Tucker states that keys for such devices could be held at gun clubs when weapons were taken home. Such a mechanism would also cover anxieties about the safety of weapons in transit from home to an event, sometimes via a public house or restaurant.
      Such a mechanism is another alternative to an outright ban on the use of SLRs and it could go a long way to meet the Government's objective to try to ensure better public safety. Hon. Members who sat on the Committee will already be aware that I find this a difficult area because I do not want the Government to act as a nanny. We want an enabling state and at the end of the day a judgment must be made. That judgment is simple and stark, although, as I am demonstrating, it is not an easy one to reach.
      Will the public safety be helped to some degree by making it illegal to hold SLRs? I have reached the conclusion—I am not pretending that it is shared by all my right hon. and hon. Friends—that the answer must be yes.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care and I agree with much of it. He has reached the conclusion that the
      128
      banning of such rifles, even if they are limited to five rounds, will enhance public safety. Is there any evidence to back that conclusion?
      Mr. Corbett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous when I say that we spent a great deal of time in Committee discussing this matter—he would expect nothing less. At the end of the day it is a matter of judgment. Some facts are available—the House will be familiar with them, so I shall not weary it with them —that would strongly support the argument that I suspect the hon. Gentleman backs.
      It is a balance of judgment as to whether such a ban helps or hinders public safety. I have reached the conclusion—I am aware that it will not be universally shared—that it stands a chance of helping public safety.
      Amendment No. 134 concerns the grant and renewal of shotgun certificates. It would empower the chief officer of police to inquire into the
      "mental and physical history and present state of the applicant as he considers necessary."
      In Committee there was a substantial debate about making such an inquiry a condition of consideration for every application, but that was not a successful proposal. Where a chief officer of police or someone acting on his behalf was uncertain and had perhaps no more than a fingertip feeling about this—police officers are not medically qualified and do not pretend that they are—they should have powers under the Bill to seek the opinion of the applicant's general practitioner in cases where licences were about to be issued or renewed. It is an extremely important point.
      We have to face the fact that about one in five of us is likely to suffer some form of mental illness during our lifetime. Happily for most of us it is temporary and we get over it. However, it does happen. I am thinking about what the loss of a job that someone enjoyed could do to a character. Certainly, the sudden and tragic loss of an infant, the break-up of a marriage or a relationship, and everyday events such as that—unhappily that is how they should be described—can and do put people temporarily off mental balance.
      It may be said that a person in that condition should know well enough that he or she should not make applications in the first place. However, it could be part of that condition that they do not recognise that they are in that state and are reluctant to take advice about it. That is an area of risk.
      All that the amendment seeks to do is to enable the police, through a quick telephone call to a GP, to clear up the matter. I appreciate the point about medical confidentiality but the applicant could be asked to agree to the telephone call being made beforehand. The police officer concerned would draw conclusions, and would perhaps be entitled to do so, when an applicant said, "No, I do not want that done."
      Amendment No. 146 deals with a simple and obvious point. If it is proper to require certificate holders to have an up-to-date photograph on their certificate—there is little disagreement on that—I would have thought that it is at least as important for registered firearms dealers to have to do the same. Perhaps it is more important for the firearms dealers because the scope for abuse or misuse of a dealer's licence is greater than for the holder of a single weapon. I hope that the Minister will see the sense of that.

      129
      The House will know that under section 53(a) of the Firearms Act 1968 the Home Secretary is given powers by statutory instrument to prescribe the form of the certificates. Amendment No. 147 seeks to give him the power to do the same with application forms for those certificates. It seems an obvious point and makes one wonder why it was not done in the first place. The intended merit of that is that every police force in England and Wales would be collecting the same sort of information in response to answers to exactly the same set of questions from every applicant whether he or she lived in the far reaches of Cornwall and Devon or just below Hadrian's Wall.
      10.45 pm
      As we were told in Committee, some shooters complained about the attitude of some chief constables to certificate applications. It is well known that some of them are less enthusiastic about firearms than their brothers. It is strange that they all happen to be men; to the best of my knowledge, there is not yet a single woman chief constable, although no doubt we shall get around to that. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have provided a marvellous precedent which I hope will soon be followed by the police forces. Shooters, as I was about to say, do not want the issue of a licence to depend either on the temperament of a chief constable or on where an applicant happens to live. Now, on occasion, it does. It is wrong that there should be so much personal interference in the way the Firearms Act is applied. Just because chief constables in different areas have different attitudes to firearms should not mean that shooters with equally legitimate reasons for holding weapons should be treated differently when applying for certificates.
      As for new clause 16, I have teased the Minister about this issue before. I have a draft of the standard application form which I am perfectly prepared to let the Minister see. It is called:
      "An inquiry form for the grant. renewal or variation of a firearms certificate."
      It lists all sorts of personal details, followed by 20 questions—almost like "20 Things You Did Not Know About Getting A Firearms Certificate" in The Sun. Frivolity aside, the form goes through the things about which it is proper for the police to ask questions and get answers. It is designed to assist the police to determine the suitability of an applicant to hold a certificate.
      This proposal would not put any great burden on the police. It is one of the things that the consultative committee—and the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation—should be consulted about. The more people who see such a draft, the better. I imagine that agreement about this could easily be reached. Why should police forces bear the extra burden—as they now do—of devising, preparing and printing their own application forms? Across the country, that must waste a tremendous amount of police time and money.
      The Minister may say that such provision for a common application form is not needed. If the Secretary of State gets powers under the 1968 Act to specify the licence or certificate that shall be issued, I cannot see why the application forms should not he similarly covered. If, however, the Minister disagrees, will he give an undertaking that the Home Secretary will strongly recommend such a course of action in guidance given to chief constables to try to meet the concerns of large
      130
      numbers of shooters about the differences in treatment that they receive from chief constables and those who work under their authority i n the police forces in England and Wales?
      Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made an important point about uniformity of information for a shotgun or firearms certificate. As my hon. Friend the Minister will remember, he gave this undertaking in Committee:
      "There is no intention to use the shotgun certificate process to limit the number of guns that an individual can possess. The only intention … is for the number of shotguns possessed to be described and identified."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18 February 1988; c. 138.]
      I am not sure that my hon. Friend has followed that up by giving us legislation that can be interpreted in the way that he did in Committee.
      I welcome new clause 12 and thank my hon. Friend for it. It is about conterminous certificates. My only question is about cost. I know that my hon. Friend is reducing the shotgun cost to £5, but throughout the Committee stage he dodged the issue of the eventual cost—perhaps next year—not only of a shotgun certificate, but of a firearms certificate. As a result of the legislation that may be introduced after the Bill, enormous additional costs may be imposed on the police, so that inevitably the cost of the shotgun and firearms certificate will increase substantially. I mentioned £50 for a firearms certificate, and my hon. Friend has not denied that yet.
      I am glad that the Home Secretary has returned to the Chamber, because this group of new clauses and amendments is at the heart of two of our main criticisms of the Home Office's handling of the Bill. The second is the issue of the statutory committee. One arm of the Government gave us an absolute assurance last week that it would remain as it was in the Bill, and the following morning, last Friday, we found a series of amendments that made substantial alterations. That is not the way in which hon. Members should operate, and I found it extraordinary that that should happen.
      The other great issue is the self-loading rifle. I hope that we shall be able to vote on new clause 1 if we do not receive a satisfactory reply from my hon. Friend. This is another opportunity to try to persuade the Government that the use of self-loading rifles is not as heinous as they make out. It is the man behind any rifle, not the form of action, that matters. As we demonstrated time and again in Committee, a competent operator with a bolt action rifle can get off just as many rounds as a person with a limited integral magazine with a self-loading action. Yet the Minister seems reluctant to listen or understand. I shall come to some of his quotations in the not too distant future.
      One of our principal objectives in new clause I is to give us another opportunity to persuade the Government, and my hon. Friend will see that we include four important safeguards so that a self-loading weapon can be used. The first is that the owner
      "has held a firearms certificate for at least three years"
      and has a good track record. Secondly, he must have been
      "a full member of a rifle club for at least three years",
      observed and controlled by people who understand firearms. Thirdly, he must be
      "a member of a club which AS affiliated to the National Rifle Association or the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association,"

      131
      two national bodies that control practical shooting. He must have completed proper training. The Home Secretary would have the power to approve special clubs using self-loading rifles, and so on. That is a powerful control.
      I shall refer to the fourth safeguard in depth because it covers those who are disabled and need self-loading rifles if they are to participate in the important recreational sport of shooting. Why is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary determined that disabled people should not have self-loading rifles for their enjoyment of the sport? Why will he not let women use self-loading rifles to participate? I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is here. Why will Scotland, England and Wales not allow those people to use self-loading rifles?
      We are not talking about self-loading rifles with a vast magazine capacity. We are talking about self-loading rifles with four or five-round internal magazines. What does the Home Secretary have against such weapons compared with a bolt-action rifle holding 10 rounds and having greater firepower than a five-round self-loading rifle? I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend does not even appear to be listening to me. I wish that he would take on board the fact that we are serious about disabled people, women and others who cannot fire a bolt-action rifle. Some people have disfigured hands and cannot use a right-handed bolt-action rifle and cannot afford to have it converted to left-handed action.
      There are many difficulties related to self-loading weapons, but the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State do not seem to be prepared to listen to them. It is a disgrace that, even though this country goes out of its way to help the disabled in athletics and almost every sport, the Home Office is not prepared to help and support the recreational shooter. I am amazed that the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State are not prepared to respond to the needs of these people.
      Our other reason for being cross about this issue of the self-loading rifle is that in Committee my hon. Friend said that he would look favourably upon the five-round, internal magazine self-loading rifle. It is astonishing that at the end of the day he has reversed everything that he said in Committee, although he never gave a firm commitment. I shall give a few quotations from my hon. Friend. He said:
      "As a self-loading rifle can fire three, four or five rounds over an extended period, it is difficult to argue that that gun is more lethal than a traditional 10-shot bolt action."
      Later he said:
      "I am trying to approach the matter constructively in an attempt to meet the point about disability. Incidentally, it would also meet the culling point."
      We were talking about culling hinds. He went on:
      "It does not constitute a major departure from the main thrust of the clause".
      My hon. Friend later said:
      "I am very much closer in this matter to the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury than those of my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North-West and for Dumfries. I am happy to reconsider the issue, but I have in mind a limited capacity. What we are likely to consider appropriate will probably be nearer to four, as for the Remington Woodmaster, than to eight shots.
      Therefore, my undertaking is that I shall look at this issue seriously to see whether it would be right to leave in section
      132
      1 integral-magazine self-loading guns of very limited capacity, preferably three … That would meet … the pest control point".
      Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of our reasons for feeling so strongly about this issue is that a quasi commitment was given and as a result we did not vote against clause 1 stand part? That is why we feel badly let down. A quasi commitment was given to buy off our vote.
      Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even the Minister would accept that he knew he was facing defeat. It was only because of my summing up at the end of the debate that he escaped. He has let us down very badly. In winding up that debate I said:
      "I am about to seek to withdraw the amendment, bearing in mind that, had I pressed the amendment on disability, I could probably have won it in the Committee. I hope that I shall not feel that I am let down on Report, when one has little hope of winning against the full Government Whipping operation. I should be very disappointed if the Minister did not table an amendment on Report covering the points that we have made this morning."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 8 March 1988; c. 326–32.]
      My hon. Friend never came back to say that that was wrong. He left every impression that that was the right summing up. My hon. Friend has let down not only the whole of the shooting public, but all the disabled men and women over the issue of the small four or five-shot internal magazine self-loading rifle. I should have preferred him to go as far as an eight-shot internal magazine, because that would have covered the Garand rifle, which is commonly used by the target shooting fraternity. This country is particularly good at target shooting, and has the highest reputation for it, but one of the weapons used is to be taken away, purely at the behest of the Front Bench and the Home Office. It is a disgrace, and I hope that it is not too late for my hon. Friend to reconsider the astonishing decision that he and Scottish and Welsh Ministers have made.
      Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that during the passage of the Bill we have all undergone a certain amount of education about what shooting today is all about? We are no longer living in the days when he and I went down to the ranges and used a bolt action rifle because that was the only sort of rifle that was available. We have moved on, through the self-loading rifle, and many of the competitions that take place, nationally and internationally, do so with self-loading rifles. The point about competition is important for the United Kingdom and should not be under-estimated by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
      11 pm
      Sir Hector Monro: Who would have thought in 1917 that many cars would have automatic gears by now, instead of a gear lever? We have moved on, and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not seem to have done so in this respect.
      From the start we have agreed that certain military weapons with large magazines are not acceptable. We are talking about rifles that hold a maximum of eight rounds, and usually four or five, as we discussed in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he would do as we wished if there were a sufficient number of rifles, but some of them are made internationally. There is a huge supply of these rifles. I reeled off about six different types in

      133
      Committee, and can go through that list again. if the Government are prepared to look at the matter again and give a commitment that they will introduce an amendment in the other place on self-loading rifles with internal magazines and deal properly with the consultative committee, there would be a different attitude to the Bill, not only in the House, but in the other place.
      I shall not go into the details of the amendments grouped with the new clause, because my hon. Friends will speak on them. Many of these are extremely important. I am not saying that my new clause is 100 per cent. right, and I would be happy if my hon. Friend would concede the point about the five-shot, or eight-shot or the pre-1939 self-loading rifle. He has a whole host of opportunities to get out of the corner into which he has painted himself. I hope that if I move the new clause later, for voting purposes, we will get the concession hoped for by all those in the shooting world involved in target and sporting shooting for recreation—there is a huge involvement in it —who feel cross about the Government treating them in the way that they have. We shall have a fresh attitude to the Bill if tonight we get a positive answer from my hon. Friend.
      Mr. William Ross: Like the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), I have been rather disappointed by the Government's reaction this evening, because I remember clearly the incident in Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred, when we refrained from voting. Had we done so, the Government would have been defeated and as a result would have been in a difficult position. The Minister's hon. Friends let him off the hook, in the expectation that he would meet their case, which they had put to him graciously, but unanswerably. The Minister appeared, as so often, to accept what they said, and in good faith they let him off the hook. I am sorry that they have lived to regret that. At the time, some of us wondered whether that was wise, but we were guided by their judgment rather than our own cynical assessment of Government attitudes.
      You will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is a large group of amendments. You will also appreciate that many of them are mine, which means that I shall have to talk on this subject for a long time. They are all sensible and soundly based and they are all worthy of acceptance by a Government who are trying to do something sensible and constructive about firearms law. As the Minister has said, that probably means that none of them will be accepted, but I hope to persuade even him, with his closed mind, that my proposals are worthy of acceptance.
      I have considered each of the amendments carefully before tabling them to try to find the appropriate language. Sadly, there is a typing error in the group of amendments which alters the meaning of one of the new clauses. Like the typing error that originated in the Minister's office regarding the verification of the Home Office approval of the Dunmore shooting centre, it has unforeseen consequences, but not, I hope, as serious as those arising from that error.
      I should like to refer first to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I understand what he is driving at and it is clear from the various amendments that have been tabled that we are all aiming at roughly the same thing. The hon. Gentleman's amendment excludes farmers and persons who use firearms in their work and other bona fide firearms clubs.
      134
      A number of points raised in Committee have a bearing on these issues. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) asked what changes there had been since 1968 and what record of crime or irregularities the Home Office had discovered. The Under-Secretary of State replied:
      "An unapproved rifle club would be no more than the banding together of people who possess section 1 certificates for the shooting of their guns in a quarry … They are a gathering together of people who have section 1 certificates and want, for example, to shoot in a quarry that one of their number owns."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 25 February 1988; c. 213.]
      In other words, certain difficulties are involved in defining a club. From what I have been told, that is a real problem in Great Britain. The problem may lie not entirely with the clubs, but with the Home Office and the form sent out to clubs. That form is then filled in by the club and sent back to the police, who send it back to the Home Office. The Home Office is then supposed to tell the National Rifle Association or the National Small-bore Rifle Association. That appears to work, albeit sometimes slowly and irregularly, in regard to the first application for the formation of a club.
      However, if a club then seeks an extension of the firearms that it may use, there appears to be a difficulty in that no one appears to think it necessary to send the forms on to the relevant associations. Because of that, we must go further than the hon. Member for Newbury goes in his new clause. I tabled new clause 7 because of my knowledge of this subject and the knowledge of those people who advised me.
      New clause 7 demands that a person should have held a firearms certificate for at least three years, should have been a full member of a rifle club for that period and should have undertaken a training procedure as a member of that club, or should have a reason to possess such a firearm because of disability. There are those who do not belong to a rifle club but who need to use one in the course of their work. Deer stalker, gamekeepers and others fall into that category, including farmers. We must try to cater for that large and important group.
      A difficulty arises with new clause 8, which appears in my name, because the final line includes a reference to section 14 of the Firearms Act 1968 when it should have been section 44. Section 14 deals with the possession, purchase or acquisition of a shotgun by those temporarily in Great Britain, a matter to which we shall come in due course. Section 44 deals with appeals, and it is only when the typing error is taken note of that the new clause makes sense. I tumbled to the error only the other day. I tried to have it corrected, and it is unfortunate that it was not. If the mistake had been put right, I do not think that the new clause would have appeared in the group that is now before the House.
      It is vital that we meet the concern of those who find that their application for a firearms certificate has been refused. I am sure that all those who take an interest in firearms will be aware that if someone's application is refused there is no cheap or easy way in which he can appeal against the decision. Such an appeal normally ends up with a hearing before the High Court, and that is an extremely costly business. It could cost many hundreds of pounds to take that course, but quite frequently those who appeal win the day.
      I hope that the Government will meet the real need for a cheap, simple and straightforward appeal system that

      135
      will sort out some of the worst cases of refusal and at the same time, if the appeal tribunal fails, allow the issue to proceed to the High Court if that is considered worth while. I ask the Government seriously to consider this issue.
      The object is to set up a tribunal system to hear appeals against the refusals of chief officers of police to grant or vary firearms certificates or shotgun certificates, but not to deal with criminal offences. The tribunal should be on the lines of an industrial tribunal, the procedures of which would provide a useful model. It should have a legally qualified chairman of suitable standing. It should represent police interests and shooting interests, and perhaps other interests. The tribunal should sit in England and Wales in buildings of the sort that are used by industrial tribunals, and there would be localities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some sort of legal representation would be allowed. No award of costs would be allowed except in exceptional circumstances. There would need to be a secretariat.
      There would need also to be a flat fee. The costs of taking an appeal to such a simple tribunal should not be allowed to move into the realm of costs that are incurred in taking cases to other legal forums. There could be an appeal on a point of law to the divisional court or whatever happens to be the relevant court in the appropriate jurisdiction. The tribunal could have all the functions that are exercised by the Crown court in its administrative capacity.
      The advantages are numerous. The cost of administration would be much less to the police and the shooting public. I assume that, normally, whenever the police lose an appeal, the public purse must bear the cost. The speed of decisions would be far greater than under the present system in Crown courts, where appeals are regulated and are properly considered less important than criminal matters. Taking away this small portion of work would greatly ease the burden on the Crown court system. The new system would build up its own expertise.
      11.15pm
      At present, the Crown court cannot compel the attendance of witnesses, documents and so on. Anyone who wishes to compel attendance must issue writs through the High Court, which is a time-consuming and costly business. [Interruption.] By far the most important advantage of a tribunal over the Crown court would be the lessening of the enormous cost of dealing with firearms applications. It has been a tactical advantage in some cases to refuse certificates, knowing that the costs would be £2,000 or £3,000. That is unacceptable.
      An important possibility has been opened up by the new clause. I hope that the Government intend to go down that route, as it is badly needed. [Interruption.] No doubt—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber. The hon. Member has serious points to make and I hope that he will be heard properly.
      Mr. Ross: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. No doubt hon. Members at the rear of the Chamber are
      136
      catching up because of their lack of knowledge of firearms law. I am pleased to see them all here, but, is a pity that they have not attempted to read the Bill's proceedings.
      New clause 9 deals with the application for the granting or variation of certificates. It imposes a time limit within which the whole application procedure must be carried out. Twenty-eight days is a reasonable time for the police to carry out their work. The new clause demands that the police must tell the individual when the application has been refused and notify him that he has a right of appeal within 21 days of the date of receipt of the notification and
      "state in writing any difficulty or delay external to the Police service".
      There should not be any difficulty within the police service, but something may happen over which it has no control —for example, in the Home Office—so I should like to give the police a let-out.
      New clause 10 sets out three questions which are intended to discover the applicant's condition. The Minister may not have seen these questions before. If so, he should pick up the RUC application form. These questions are a direct lift from that form. The questions ask:
      "Do you suffer from epilepsy or from sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting? … Do you suffer from, or have you at any time suffered from mental illness? … Do you suffer from any other disease or disability which might make possession by you of a firearm dangerous to the public?"
      The applicant must answer yes or no and give details.
      One might think that an individual who suffered from those conditions and who was anxious to get a certificate would not answer the questions. The RUC tells me that frequently people answer them truthfully and a proper investigation can be carried out.
      The RUC application form does not ask, as paragraph (c) does, for the applicant's general practitioner to certify
      "to the best of his knowledge and belief that the particulars as stated by the applicant … are accurate".
      I have listened to what has been said about the position of the medical world in certifying the stability and sanity, or otherwise, of an applicant for a firearms certificate. No one, not even the doctor who apparently signs and acts for the applicant, can give a hard and fast, black and white ruling that an individual is stable. That is not a matter for a general practitioner.
      Mr. Corbett: I want to return to the question of mental illness in the context of what the hon. Gentleman said about the RUC experience being that most people—or perhaps he said many people—answered the questions truthfully. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of an applicant who answered that he had suffered at some time from mental illness, say 10 years ago, yet has clearly recovered from that illness, who has been refused a certificate merely on the grounds that he has demonstrated that he has recovered from that illness?
      Mr. Ross: I am not aware of that, and I cannot answer that question. However, I understand that in such cases the police make the most careful, detailed and discreet inquiries of the medical staff who treated that person for the mental illness, of the general practitioner and of those people who know the individual intimately. I would think that in general such people with that background of mental illness would not receive a firearms certificate, but I believe that there are cases in which people have recovered from instability and would be granted a

      137
      certificate. However, this is a delicate matter that is best left to common sense, which is sometimes sadly lacking in these affairs.
      This is a difficult matter, and no one would try to deny the difficulty of the general theme. However, the line followed by the RUC is a worthy example that should be followed. I have introduced the matter for the House to consider.
      I have a number of examples of application forms for firearms certificates. I have a copy of the form that I sent to the Minister today at his request. He said that he was not aware of its existence, and I have tabled a written question about it. I apologise for neglecting to send him a copy of that form until today. It is a model produced by the Home Office in 1969. It is headed:
      "Report upon the application of … "
      It continues:
      "Is applicant of good character and fit to be trusted with firearms? If not, give reasons—eg. mentally unstable, previous convictions, intemperate habits, notoriously careless, etc."
      Even then, previous consideration was given to this whole theme. The application form included space for reasons why the applicant wanted the firearm.
      It is interesting to note that all the police forces in Britain use pretty much the same form, but with a different number. One never knows which firearms application form one is dealing with because each constabulary has its own. The South Wales constabulary has progressed. Its form asks:
      "Is the applicant of temperate habits and sound mind?"
      It approaches the whole question from a slightly different direction. It also asks:
      "Is the applicant subject to fits of violent temper or careless in the use of firearms?
      Can applicant be permitted to have a certificate without danger to public safety or to the peace?"
      The police have made progress. However, they do not seem to have developed cohesively or satisfactorily for all concerned. It appears to be bitsy—a little bit here, a little bit there. That is not satisfactory. We should have a more comprehensive approach. The RUC has taken a different approach. That is wrong. We should try to nail this down and deal with it comprehensively across the country. One approach should be known to the police, the public and the shooting world and understood by all concerned. It is far more likely that such an approach would be considered satisfactory by all concerned. If we can achieve that tonight, this debate will have been worth while. I am afraid that we may not get that far.
      New clause 9 is important and the Government should be prepared carefully to consider it. They should try to learn some lessons from it and aim at producing something in a form that people will accept.
      New clause 11, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself, is aimed at making the police get their act together and handle renewals as quickly as possible. It provides:
      "(1B) When an application for the renewal of a firearm certificate or shotgun certificate has been made in the prescribed form to the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which the applicant resides no less than twenty-eight days prior to the date of expiry of the existing certificate and subject to the certificate holder not having been served with a notice of revocation"—
      I hope that the police would at least send out a reminder —
      "then the Chief Officer of Police shall either:—
      138
      (a) grant a renewal of the firearm or shotgun certificate subject to subsection X below in either the terms of the expiring certificate"—
      in other words, when there is no change. I believe that on some occasions police have renewed a certificate but have calmly removed some weapons, and then the holder found himself possessing firearms for which he did not have a certificate.
      The chief officer may also
      "(b) issue a temporary certificate in the same terms and conditions as the expiring certificate, subject, to subsection X below, and/or
      (c) state in writing the reasons for refusal to grant the authority to possess each individual firearm/ ammunition or shotguns and ammunition additionally stating the relevant section(s) of the Act in each case and notify the applicant of his right to appeal to Crown Court within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of such notification, subject to subsection X below, and/or
      (d) state in writing any difficulty for delay external to the Police service preventing the granting or the formal refusal to the processing of the application, subject to subsection X below, to the issue of a certificate."
      In other words, I am trying to make the police state the specific reasons for their refusal so that applicants will have some understanding of the true situation rather than find themselves facing a totally blank wall. People refused a firearm certificate have a right to know what the reasons are for that refusal. If the police receive an application 28 days prior to the date of its expiry, there is no reason why they should not give those reasons in writing.
      Subsection (X) of new clause 11 is simply a requirement that the police will see to it that the individual owning a firearm is provided with a new certificate 48 hours prior to the expiry of his existing certificate. If an applicant's certificate expires on 31 March, come 1 April he may otherwise be in possession of firearms for which he has no authorisation. That is not a matter to be taken lightly, because the penalty is a fine of up to £2,000, or six months' imprisonment, or possibly both.
      Does the Minister really believe that any free citizen in this nation of ours should be left in that situation? I do not think so. If the police delay matters, or have them delayed, they have a duty to the public, and to the shooting public, to ensure that applicants are covered for the period in question. Holders of certificates should be told some time before if their certificates are not going to be renewed. Otherwise, renewal should follow.
      I understand that in some parts of the country renewals simply omit weapons. North Wales has been quoted as one example, but perhaps hon. Members with knowledge of that part of the world can give the House more details. As a result, people are left without the right to hold the weapons in their possession. I understand that the Chief Constable concerned is a member of the Minister's working party on firearms, which seems rather a queer choice.
      In passing over the amendments and new clauses put down by other right hon. and hon. Members, I am not actively saying that they are bad; it is just that I have quite enough of my own to be getting on with. I hope and pray that they will deal with theirs in a manner that will convince me, as I am trying to convince them of the validity of what I am saying.

      139
      11.30 pm
      Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 deal with the photographic provisions. As I have pointed out before, under Northern Ireland legislation it is necessary to have two photographs, which must be certified by the police officer. Amendment No. 115 proposes the words
      "certified by the Chief Constable to be a true likeness".
      I do not expect Sir John Hermon to come down and look at me, then say, "That's you in the photograph, Willie," and sign it on the back. I do, however, expect him to delegate his authority, as do chief constables and chief officers of various types throughout the country when dealing with all sorts of matters.
      For all I care, that authority can be delegated all the way down to the constable who came out of the depot only yesterday. But I want the policeman actually to see the individual, and then to declare on the back of the photograph that he is the individual named in the firearms certificate, so that the police have a record for the lifetime of the certificate.
      Amendment No. 114 refers to the need for three photographs rather than two, which I hope the Minister will take on board. As I have said, in Northern Ireland at present one photograph is on the firearms certificate, stamped and verified. One is held in police headquarters in the firearms section. The section is far too big and overstaffed, because, as we all know, the work is probably done by the local sergeant or constable on the ground, who knows the folk anyway. I have a quibble with the Northern Ireland Office about that, but, sadly, it is outside the realms of this Minister's responsibilities. The third photograph should, I believe, be left on the file in the local police stations, because, although the police are assiduous in trying to identify individuals, they cannot always do so.
      I believe that in Northern Ireland, where there is terrorism, and equally in Great Britain, which has a large population whom the police cannot be expected to know individually, it should be possible for the police to identify the individual who stands in front of them saying, "I am Joe Bloggs, and here is my firearms certificate." I want the police to have a photograph that cannot be interfered with, and which therefore will be different from the one that appears on a certificate that is stolen. The amendments are purely and simply for the protection of the public, and I strongly believe that they should be taken seriously and accepted.
      At the beginning of the debate, the Minister said that only one of the amendments could be accepted: in other words, that everything was perfect. I am trying to show that everything is not perfect—that many of the suggestions being made tonight are sensible and should be acted on. The identification of people is vital to the control of firearms. Some hon. Members say that this is an invasion of privacy, but privacy will be invaded if only one photograph is taken.
      Let me now deal with amendment No. 80, which is found on page 2099 of the Amendment Paper. We do not have quite 2,000 pages of amendments, although the Bill really needs that number. There is a difficulty, which did not previously exist, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland over where firearms may be used. The imposition of territorial conditions in Northern Ireland has not made a blind bit of difference. They have not improved matters; they have made them a little worse for those who use
      140
      firearms. From what I have been told, I understand that the conditions are to be found in the 1969 memorandum of guidance, but I believe that they ought to be incorporated in the firearms rules.
      I understand that there is a great deal of disquiet among the shooting public and also a great deal of disagreement with the police in Great Britain generally over the use of firearms. Most of those who have high-powered rifles know how dangerous they can be, and they are very careful in their use, but there is always somebody who is not. I have been given a large amount of correspondence on the use of firearms. [Interruption.] I am troubled by the fact that the correspondence shows that few policemen appear to have real knowledge of the behaviour of bullets when they strike and ricochet.
      I have a report, written by a major who is clearly a man who knows about firearms. [Interruption.] He says that, on behalf of the occupier of a farm, he met a sergeant of the Gwent constabulary.
      Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. These are serious matters. The points that are being made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) are pertinent and must be decided this evening, but Conservative Members who are sitting below the Gangway are talking yet again about matters that appear to have nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion. I ask you either to ask those Members to hold their discussions outside the Chamber or to pay attention to what is being said by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Far too many group meetings are taking place in the Chamber. I have already appealed for quiet so that we can hear the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who has tabled a number of serious amendments to which he wishes to speak.
      Mr. Ross: I regret that so many hon. Members from both the major and the minority parties have been so overburdened with Hungerford that they have been unable to stand back and take a long, cool look at what we are trying to do. I very much regret that it has fallen to an Ulster Unionist to make comments which I believe should be made. I should have preferred them to be made by hon. Members with constituencies in Great Britain, because their constitents rather than mine will suffer from the effects of the legislation. The application of the firearms law will make no real difference to the people of Northern Ireland.
      The major said:
      "During the discussions, it became apparent to me that, in general,"
      the sergeant's
      "knowledge of firearms was not of a very high standard and most certainly his knowledge of their use in the field and of the type of weapon involved was minimal. When dealing with land inspections of this type, such knowledge must be vitally important.
      To confirm my suspicions, I showed him a sample safety template and asked him if he had ever seen anything like it before. After a careful examination, he finally admitted that he did not know exactly what it was."
      I assume that he did not know what it was at all.
      "This was said in the presence of the Inspector. A safety template is a printed pattern, which can be laid on a map to enable persons accurately to mark out areas liable to become danger zones because of ricochets etc. Training in the use of such items is a basic part of the syllabus of a weapons instructor and I was amazed and horrified that a Force

      141
      weapons instructor had no knowledge of it and even more so that he was employed in assessing land for safety without such knowledge."
      That is a very serious situation.
      I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members saw the article in the Western Mail on Friday 19 July 1987 which reported that golfers at Wales's top golf course were having their golfing destroyed by rabbits. The course manager asked for a ·22 rifle and was refused. He took the police to court and he won because the judge said, "Public safety is what the case is all about. In this case the risk is as slight and as minimal as it could ever be in well-regulated circles." That is another case where the police are in a mess.
      There is a great deal more. People seem to have lost their common sense about firearms safety. I have a vast amount of information, but I do not want to weary the House with all of it. I have a letter from one gentleman who draws attention to the entire history of territorial control, right back to the Firearms Amendment Bill 1919. It shows how the system of territorial control has developed over the years. There is far too much for me to read out at 20 minutes to 12 in the evening, but I should like to quote one or two extracts.
      Under the heading "The 1973 Green Paper", the letter states:
      "This paper was at the time of its publication unacceptable to the then government. This present Bill"—
      the 1988 Bill—
      "is based on the 1973 Paper and there has been no change in the circumstances but even in paragraph 77 the Committee say on occasion a Firearm Certificate is issued subject to a condition limiting its use to a specified area of land. The practice since 1968 has been invariably to impose a condition restricting usage to specified land. In exercising his discretion the Chief Officer should bear in mind that the imposition of a territorial condition might be unduly restrictive in some cases."
      It goes on to mention mortality statistics, of which there were not very many.
      In Northern Ireland, we have to specify on what we can use a ·22 rifle. I assume that that is to stop people driving all over the country with the excuse that they need a ·22 rifle on a farm, but using it for some other purpose.
      In my experience, that is unduly restrictive. It creates unnecessary difficulty for farmers and others who cannot restrict themselves to their own land all the time. Farms are generally small and people in my part of the world shoot vermin and rabbits over quite large areas of the countryside. That means trespassing on their neighbours' land. It is quite common, and no one was worried about it. Now, one has to seek permission. The difficulty is not that permission might be refused; it is the sheer trouble of getting it and the fact that the police can ask an individual whether he has the permission of 20 or 30 farmers to shoot on their land.
      Another surprising matter has arisen in regard to the Gwent constabulary. The letter sent by the chief constable states:
      "The ·303 and 7·62 rifle and ammunition to which this certificate relates shall also be used for deer-stalking on land which is safe and over which the holder had permission to shoot."
      It is my understanding that, whenever he talks about safety, the shooter in that case, and not the chief constable, has to decide whether the land is safe. That might very well be the position in Gwent but it does not seem to he the position elsewhere. The deputy chief constable of Gwent said that it was for the shooter to decide. It does not seem
      142
      that the chief constable's people looking at the land to decide whether it is safe need be there at all. It is left to the individual who is actually firing the shots.
      The letter finishes by saying:
      "Your request to also use this rifle for shooting marauding dogs is somewhat unusual and perhaps this could be clarified."
      Anyone in Northern Ireland who wanted to keep a ·22 rifle but who did not have a flock of sheep to protect from stray dogs would have a poor chance of getting a certificate. It seems that conditions in Wales are very different from those in Northern Ireland.
      I have spoken at some length on this matter because it is important and has not been given the consideration that it deserves. The Bill is a mess. It was ill-conceived and is a knee-jerk reaction. If they were wise, the Government would have accepted the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and thought about the issue again. They could have come back next year with a Bill that would have gone through in a day and a half and there would have been no trouble. Sadly, they have chosen the route of confrontation, and very unwise confrontation at that. This provision will do no good. It will not prevent another Hungerford if there is another madman out there with a weapon of some sort, and it will not do anything to improve relations between the shooting public and the police.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome new clause 12 and congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on fulfilling yet another of the promises that he made in Committee. He has granted conterminosity between the shotgun licence and the firearms certificate. He knows that I would have preferred him to go a stage further, and have only one document divided into two sections. I believe that that would have provided certain administrative achantages for the police. I am nevertheless grateful for what he has done, and I am sure that it will be a useful step forward.
      I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker., for selecting new clause 6, which relates to how somebody should obtain a firearms certificate and what Home Office approval of a gun club really means. It has been said that one of the Bill's weaknesses is that it imposes stronger legislation on law-abiding shooters and does little to catch those who are in illegal possession of weapons.
      There may be some substance in the charge, but I know that law-abiding shooters feel a sense of grievance that arises out of the actions of one man—Michael Ryan—and the dreadful crimes that he committed on 19 August 1987 with a self-loading rifle and a Beretta pistol. He killed 16 people and wounded 14 others.
      I believe that the Government are right, and always have been, to react to that massacre for what it was—the worst massacre of its kind that we have ever witnessed in our nation. It shook the people of Hungerford and west Berkshire, and its ripples went throughout the nation and even abroad. It is right that we should be implementing this legislation, because the Government had to react to that dreadful event and show the public that they could have confidence in our gun laws.
      One of the consequences of Michael Ryan's dreadful act was that we all became aware that the Kalashnikov, which until then had seemed to be the weapon only of terrorists, might be held in our street, or in our next door neighbour's house, and that a crime as terrible as the one

      143
      at Hungerford could happen in any small country town. It became clear that a young man could go around with such a weapon and kill at least eight people with it, and kill a further eight with his pistol.
      No Home Secretary could have walked away from Hungerford, closed the door of his office, and said, "It was the aberration of one man. It does not matter. We can forget it." As we know, he received a firearms certificate on 11 December 1986.
      Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have wondered why I have detailed the way in which Ryan joined the Dunmore centre. I have done so to illustrate the reasoning behind my new clause. First, I pointed out that Ryan had to wait only three months before becoming a full member of the centre and being able to apply for a firearms certificate. The centre now insists on six months. That is not as a result of any directive from the Home Office. I cannot stress that too strongly. The centre itself has decided to raise the probationary period from three months to six months because there are no absolute Home Office rules on the matter.
      Mr. Marland: Although the required membership period of the club has been increased from three months to six months, does it stipulate how many shooting lessons or how many hours of supervision a probationary member should have before being allowed to have a certificate?
      Mr. McNair-Wilson: I will not weary the House with the details, but I have the rules of the club which I should be delighted to give to my hon. Friend if he would care to look at them. In the rules, he will probably find the answer to his question.
      I have already referred to whether the period should be three months or six months, and that is an important point. On it, hangs the question whether somebody can apply to have a firearms certificate and from that to own a firearm.
      As a result of my visit to Dunmore I wrote to the deputy chief constable of Thames Valley asking him about police guidelines on the matter and, in particular, his view on the probationary period that somebody should serve before being allowed to become a full member of a gun club and, therefore, to apply for a firearms certificate. In his letter to me, dated 9 May 1988, and signed by J. B. Rutherford, deputy chief constable, he says:
      "experience has shown that the majority of Home Office approved clubs are well run and co-operate fully with the police when enquiries are made in respect of their members. However, the lack of guidelines in relation to rules of membership has led to different criteria being applied, particularly where the issue of professional membership is concerned. The majority of clubs within Thames Valley have a probationary period of six months but some have a three month period and others twelve. Some clubs insist on a minimum number of visits within the probationary period, others do not. It is perhaps in this area that greater uniformity would be beneficial given that Home Office approval is granted to a club but without a clear indication of how it should operate."
      In a sense, that is the essence of my new clause. Obviously, I endorse every word of the deputy chief constable's letter, particularly the section that I have just read to the House. I should like to pick up two implications from the quotation. First, the writer said:
      144
      "the majority of Home Office approved clubs are well run and co-operate fully with the police when enquiries are made of them in respect of their members."
      That seems to carry within it the implication that some Home Office approved clubs do not fulfil those requirements. If that is the case, I wonder what sanctions can be taken against them.
      Secondly, the deputy chief constable states that
      "greater uniformity would be beneficial given that Home Office approval is granted to a club but without a clear indication of how it should operate."
      That point was reinforced by my visit to Dunmore. When I asked whether the centre had been constructed according to Home Office model rules, I was told that such rules do not exist. The shooting centre had been constructed with Home Office, guidance. The Home Office, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Defence, had approved the weapons that could be held, and the Army had vetted the firing range for safety, with the police involved from the beginning. The Home Secretary had to act, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on the way in which they have brought the Bill to the House and carried it through Committee.
      The substance of new clause 6 relates to how somebody who wishes to become a shooter is able to obtain a firearms certificate and to which club he should be allowed to belong. That should be added as a qualification to be considered when issuing such a certificate.
      We would all agree that firearms are, by definition, lethal weapons, even if they are used only for target or clay pigeon shooting. I am aware that other weapons such as crossbows come within the same definition, but I do not believe that anyone would dispute that the right to possess a firearms certificate is a right that should be given sparingly. Such a certificate should be given only when the person concerned has been established as being a fit and responsible person, with a knowledge of the mechanism of a firearm and of how to handle it and its ammunition to ensure the maximum safety of those within its vicinity. He should also have a secure place in which to store it. Such a consideration is already covered by the Bill.
      Before the question of applying for a firearms certificate can arise, I want to ensure that a would-be shooter follows a definite pattern of entry into the sport, and that is the purpose of new clause 6. To an extent, it is a follow-on to the debate that we had in Committee on clause 11. In Committee I queried the difference between a Home Office-approved gun club and a bona fide gun club. Membership of both confers on a would-be shooter a certain standing in the eyes of a chief constable, which makes it more likely that he will be granted a firearms certificate. In reply to my question, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
      "The concept of what is a bona fide club always involves some subjectivity of judgment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 25 February 1988; c.214.]
      I wonder whether that is a good enough basis on which a chief constable should form his opinion.
      Following the Committee stage of the Bill, I visited the Dunmore shooting centre, which is one of the two Home Office-approved gun clubs of which Michael Ryan was a member. It was the first of the gun clubs that he joined. When he joined the centre as a provisional member on 8 September 1986, it was approved as a pistol shooting club only. As Ryan had no experience of pistol shooting, he filled out a questionnaire about himself and was given a

      145
      green, provisional member's identity card. He then came under the jurisdiction of the range officer, whose tasks are care of the range, general safety, weapon training, how to handle a weapon and how to load and unload it before even a shot is fired. When shooting begins, such a beginner fires only with the range officer in attendance on a one-to-one basis.
      First, the new shooter is required to use a ·22 single-shot pistol, and only when the range officer is satisfied with the recruit's proficiency is he allowed to progress to a ·22 revolver, and so on to a ·38 revolver assuming always that he has shown that he can cope with a higher calibre gun.
      When Ryan joined Dunmore, the probationary period before full membership could be claimed was three months. Every time he visited the centre he was required to sign in and the range officer—a former service NCO instructor—was in attendance.
      Once Ryan's three months were completed, he was entitled to and applied for full membership of the centre, which he received. He then sent in his application for a firearms certificate to the chief constable of Thames Valley. He included in his application his membership of the Dunmore centre so that the police were able to check it and the number of times he had attended the club. I do not suggest, and do not want to suggest, that this multi-discipline approach has been a cause for concern. On the other hand, and bearing in mind the chief constable's remarks, is it not time that we standardised the probationary period for the first-time shooter seeking to own his weapon?
      12 midnight
      I was told that 99 per cent. of Dunmore's members own their own guns. Should not each Home Office-approved club answer to guidelines or model rules drawn up and issued by the Home Office, covering weapons, security and training standards? Lastly, should we not make full membership of a Home Office-approved club that has met those guidelines the only club membership that is acceptable to a chief constable issuing a firearms certificate to a first-time shooter? Once someone has acquired his or her firearms certificate, he or she can join any other gun club, whether approved or not.
      New clause 6 would create a formal statutory entry into the sport of shooting with a pistol or rifle. That would increase the professionalism, competence and safety of all shooters, while enabling those running clubs or shooting centres to be aware of the Home Office-approved guidelines that would have to be followed if they wished to obtain what should be regarded as the jealously guarded epithet "Home Office-approved status."
      Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman had completed his speech.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall be brief, as I know that my hon. Friends are getting tired and do not want unnecessary delay.
      It is a great pity that the Bill has reached this stage of its life with so many amendments still to be considered. We have been talking for five hours and have reached only the fourth of 36 groups of them. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that the Government were right to bring in the Bill when they did. It would have been much better if they had
      146
      delayed bringing it forward. [Interruption.] I very much regret the interruption of our business, which is preventing us from considering these problems properly. I shall try to resume my train of thought.
      My hon. Friend the Minister was able to concede a great deal in Committee to hon. Members who thought that the Bill was not in the correct form. I congratulate him on that and on the tolerant way in which he has accepted the criticisms made by my hon. Friends during the debate, but there is one thing that I cannot understand, and I hope my hon. Friend will explain it now. Why. having given so many concessions to those who oppose the Bill's details, can he not reconsider the repeating rifle? Why does he think the self-loading rifle is more dangerous than a rifle that must be operated by bolt action but has twice as many bullets in its magazine? I do not understand what makes the self-loading rifle, in the numbers in which it is found, such an outstandingly dangerous weapon that it must be isolated and dealt with differently from all other types of firearm. My hon. Friend's concept of self-loading rifles —particularly those that are limited to five shots in the magazine—profoundly wrong.
      No one wants Kalashnikovs to be widespread throughout the community, or self-loading rifles of any sort not to be properly looked after by competent people, but such rifles can be dangerous to the public for only two reasons: first, if they are stolen and fall into the hands of criminal elements; secondly, if the legal owner of the rifle is someone who should not have been given it in the first place. New clause 1 seems fully to meet the second of those problems, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would state specifically what he considers to be the shortcomings of the clause.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) so effectively said, the safeguards are comprehensive. He has drawn the attention of the House to the three main safeguards. The first is that the owner must have
      "held a firearms certificate for at least three years".
      Secondly, he must have been
      "a full member of a rifle club for at least three years".
      Thirdly, that club has to be affiliated to one of the two national bodies. The fourth condition is significant. Under the new clause the Home Secretary would have the power of approval for special clubs to be licensed to have only self-loading rifles. For the life of me I cannot see what is wrong with the new clause and why self-loading rifles should not be allowed with the conditions that the new clause applies to them. If the reason is not that people who are licensed should not have self-loading rifles, but that he rifles may be stolen from them, will the Minister give the House examples of when that danger has occurred? My understanding is that there are virtually no examples of rifles of any type having been stolen and used for criminal activities.
      I ask my hon. Friend to deal specifically with those points, because at the moment I cannot see any other course but to vote for the new clause. I hope that sufficient of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will join me in doing so.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: By ignoring most of this group of new clauses and amendments the Government have reinforced the attitude that they took in Committee, in that they have completely missed the point. It is the type of person, not the type of weapon, that is important.

      147
      An opportunity is being lost to effect sensible changes to the legislation. For example, why is no amendment being accepted to consider the mental history of an applicant? Many applicants may slip through, but many may also be weeded out. Why is no amendment being accepted to inquire into the standing of an applicant with his peers in a recognised club? Why is every effort not being made to standardise the approach of the police to the examination of applicants? Indeed, why have we not had an inquiry into the issue of Michael Ryan's firearms certificate, which might have turned up some facts that were pertinent to the legislation? Instead, we have had a dogmatic approach, which does not tackle the real problems, but takes the easy way out, and attacks the firearm, not the firer. It leads me at least to suspect that there is something to hide in the circumstances surrounding the Hungerford tragedy.
      Mr. Colvin: New clause 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), is sensible. Any moves that led to greater consistency among police authorities would help in controlling firearms and their use. Had the county boundary between Hampshire and Berkshire been some 5 miles further north, and had Ryan been subject to the sort of investigation and controls exercised by my police authority, there is a good chance that he would not have been in possession of a firearms certificate, and perhaps not those weapons either. The proposal to produce a uniform application form for firearms certificates is sensible and I hope that the Government will take it on board. If there is a vote, I shall support it.
      I also support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who spoke so ably to new clause 1. The Government said that they introduced the legislation to meet public demand and that these are tougher controls following the Hungerford massacre, but I wonder what evidence there is of that great public demand. Much has been written in the press perhaps, but I suspect that the Government have not taken sufficient account of the legitimate views of the shooting lobby.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister, who will reply to this debate, will know that the shooting lobby consists of about 5 million people. Shooting is the second greatest participatory sport, and that means that on average there are 7,500 legitimate supporters of shooting in every constituency in the land. That is why our mail bags have been full of letters, many of them from Conservative supporters who just cannot understand why the Government have reacted in the way that they have to the Hungerford massacre.
      Why do we have these proposals, and why are the Government hinting that they may not support new clause 1? It goes back to the 1973 Green Paper, which I suspect forms the basis of the proposals in the Bill. That Green Paper showed very clearly that out of 4,402 offences involving firearms between 1969 and 1971—a period that just preceded the Green Paper—only 120 featured firearms that had been licensed, and that every one had either been stolen or otherwise taken from its legitimate owner. Therefore, out of 1,020,000 firearms licensed in England and Wales, not one case could be found of a certificate holder using his guns for the commission of a crime. I suspect that that is still the case today.
      148
      As hon. Members have said in this debate and in others, it is not the weapon that is important, but the finger on the trigger that counts. I think that it was a former Home Secretary who had an accident on a grouse moor and peppered somebody in the backside. Surely that shows that it is the finger on the trigger that we have to watch, not the weapon. It is fair to remind the House that the double-barrelled shotgun is much more likely to be used in its sawn off state in the execution of crime than is the self-loading rifle. When my hon. Friend winds up the debate, perhaps he will tell us how many crimes in Britain have been committed with self-loading rifles.
      Mr. Wall: I support new clause 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and in particular subsection (c) of that clause which deals with giving in writing the reasons for the renewal of a firearms or shotgun certificate.
      In the debate on new clause 5, I appreciated the difficulties that arise in examining a person's qualifications and I listened to the Minister's speech about that. I had an experience some years ago which demonstrates those difficulties and shows why I support new clause 11. In 1982, I had the misfortune to make a speech that became nationally infamous. It became known as my "rivers of blood" speech, an exaggerated description.
      Arising out of the publicity in the press, in the course of my job of commercial buying and selling, a business man came to see me. He had been chairman of the federation of his branch of industry in his city, a pillar of society. We went out at lunchtime to have a sandwich and a half of beer and as we walked to the car park he said, "Could I say something personally?" I told him that he could say anything that he wanted to say. He said, "How would you obtain firearms?" I said, "As far as I know, if you want a firearms certificate, you join a gun club, you are trained in the use of guns, and after a while the club accepts your membership and gives you advice on how to apply for one." He said, "I should have thought that you would have known how to get them much more easily." I had to assure him that I did not have a cache of arms awaiting the insurrection, and that the only collection I had was of Everton programmes and old jazz records, and he was somewhat disappointed. I said, "In any event, why do you want a gun?" "Well," he said, "I have built an atomic bomb shelter"—he had the money to do that, which most people have not—"and it is no use having that unless I can defend it." Such survivalists—Michael Ryan was in some ways a survivalist—should not be granted a licence to hold weapons that can kill and maim people.
      12.15 am
      The point about that case is that the man was a member of society who, had he gone about it in the right way, could have joined a gun club. He was a respectable business man, and a nice chap, a decent family man with no criminal record. Unless he said something loose along the lines of what he said to me, in his misapprehension that was fed by The Sun, the Daily Mirror and other such journals, he would have been granted a firearms licence that he would have used to defend his bomb shelter.
      The gun lobby puts the point of view of 5 million decent people who participate in the sport of shooting with various types of guns. It must understand that one of the reasons why it does not get the support of the Opposition to which its membership entitles it is that many of us have

      149
      looked on gun ownership as something for gentlemen, and particularly the landed gentry. We feel that guns are the prerogative of such people. The legislation dealing with firearms, which was introduced during the 1920s, was the direct result of the events of the Russian revolution in 1917.
      I am afraid, as are others, that people have been refused a licence for a shotgun on the basis of their involvement in trade unions or trade union militancy, when the business man that I described could have got a licence, and been a danger to others. However, I strongly support the right of the individual to be told why he has been refused the licence in the first place, or a renewal of his licence. The issuing of licences is a difficult business, as the debate has made clear. We, as members of society, have to take the responsibility of refusing licences to those whom we think are not capable of using guns in a responsible manner. In all walks of life, people are entitled to know the reason for the refusal, which should be given in writing, and they should be given the right to appeal in court. Therefore, I support new clause 11.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: I could not possibly agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall). I do not think that he would suggest that a person should be told why he did not get a job, or why he did not pass some medical examination. It is impossible to prove a negative, and if the hon. Gentleman reflected on that, he would see why it is impossible for reasons to be given as to why the firearms licence is withheld.
      New clause 12, with which we began the debate, is sensible and we ought to have brought together the certificates for shotguns, and for pistols and rifles, years ago. The House will be doing us a service if it passes new clause 12.
      There are numerous other new clauses and amendments, and I shall comment briefly on only two of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), speaking with his deep and passionate knowledge of the Hungerford affair, deserves in every way to be listened to most carefully by the House. If I understood him correctly, he supports the conterminosity of firearm and rifle, but his new clause would then imply that every person wanting to get a shotgun certificate would also have to belong to a Home Office-approved gun club. If my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury can assure me that that is not the case, I need say no more about his new clause. However, as it stands at present and in the context of his comments about supporting conterminosity, he certainly appears to be suggesting that every applicant for a shotgun licence should go through a Home Office-approved club.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am sorry that I conveyed that impression to my hon. Friend. Just as in our driving licences certain sections cover the vehicles that we are allowed to drive, according to which part of the test we have passed, so there could be a single document, divided into two sections, the first covering shotguns and the second covering firearms, and a person would apply according to what he wanted.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is clear that my hon. Friend's new clause would not require the applicant for a shotgun licence to take that route.
      The Bill is immensely complex and highly technical and, as usual, it will be left to the police to implement and
      150
      enforce it. It is essential, therefore, that the legislation is clear, as simple as possible and, above all, uniform. The state of affairs will always vary from one police area to another because circumstances and chief officers of police vary. It is Parliament's duty to ensure that at least the parameters of legislation are the same.
      So far as possible, the Home Secretary—this is probably what he would wish to do—should ensure that there is a standard form of application throughout the country, that the conditions for refusal of or agreement to the issue of a licence should be the same, that the conditions that the applicant will have to meet should be the same and that the photographs should be the same. There should also be the same number of photographs. I believe that there should be three, so that the police have a copy. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), with his experience of these matters in Northern Ireland, was entirely right about that. In addition, the authentication of the photographs should he the same throughout the country.
      Mr. Frank Cook: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we allow the Bill to go through unamended, fewer photographs would be required in Northern Ireland than the police there at present believe are necessary?
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: I understand that that is probably the case, but, as it is a procedural point, I am unable to confirm or deny it. However, if, perversely, as a result of the legislation, no third photograph were available to the police in Northern Ireland—I know that that is most important in security terms—we should be doing a great disservice, as my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware.
      It is essential that, after the great amount of time that the House has spent on this matter, both Houses of Parliament should agree arrangements whereby we can create standard forms of examination of those who wish to obtain certificates to carry firearms and that they should be clearly examined on those criteria. It should be clear how a person obtains a gun and what can lead to his being refused the right to have a gun. Above all else, the police should have clarity.
      Virtually every hon. Member, including myself, has a distaste for records going into computers, but, in modern policing terms, it is essential that the police national computer should be able to obtain access to all the data about people who have guns. That can be done only if there are standard methods of interrogation and standard methods in respect of the agreement to the issue of a certificate.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I add my support to the observations made some time ago by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who made a most formidable case in support of the self-loading rifle. I do not intend to repeat the hon. Gentleman's observations other than to remind the House that they were received in something approaching deafening silence by those who occupy the Government Front Bench. It is clear from the reports of the proceedings in Committee that the case was being advanced not for the first time. When it was made in Committee, the impression was given that there might be some scope for concession. Like the hon. Member for Dumfries, I await with rapt anticipation the Minister's response to the hon. Gentleman's penetrating and pungent observations.

      151
      I understand and appreciate the motives behind the decision of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) to table new clause 6. He spoke to it, if I may say so, in an informed and restrained manner, but I regret to say that if it is pressed to a Division I shall not find myself able to support it. As I understand it, it means that any applicant for a firearms certificate for a rifle—any rifle—would have to show that he or she had been a member of a Home Office approved club for at least six months. In the more populated parts of the United Kingdom that may be a qualification that is easy to achieve, but for a young assistant stalker in the far north-west of Scotland, for example, his nearest club may be 100 miles away or at least, to put it colloquially, a day's march.
      I do not demur from the proposition that anyone who is admitted to the responsibility of a firearms certificate should be able to demonstrate that he is a fit and responsible person. However, if the provisions of new clause 6 are the necessary qualifications to be regarded as a fit and reasonable person, they will, at least in geographical terms, place an unfair burden on a number of individuals who could claim legitimately to be entitled to be the holders of firearms certificates. For that reason, new clause 6 does not commend itself to me, however well intentioned it may be.
      Mr. Bellingham: I am pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) supports new clause 1 and the quasi concession that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave in Committee. I am pleased also to have the opportunity to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) about the Ryan certificates.
      As I understand it, the Thames Valley constabulary were right to issue Ryan with his firearms certificate. By the time that he received the certificate he was a fully paid-up member of the Dunmore club. However, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the variation of the certificate. Under the stipulation of good reason, the Thames Valley constabulary should have gone through the process again to ascertain exactly whether there was a good reason for the variation of a certificate, which referred to pistols, to include a Kalashnikov and an M1 carbine. Logic dictates that a good reason should have been shown for possessing such weapons, and that would have meant full membership of a rifle club. We all know that Ryan was only a probationary member of the Wiltshire rifle club. I submit that the Thames Valley constabulary were not adhering to their standing orders and that the officers in question were ignoring completely what they had been told and the instructions with which they had been issued at various seminars.
      The Government's case that the Bill is necessary because the Ryan tragedy has made the existing firearms legislation nonsensical is not one that I consider to be sustainable. It is time that my hon. Friend the Minister commented upon that. My hon. Friend should comment on the statistical point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made so eloquently. In 1986, 3,177 offences were committed involving firearms. Only 27 of them involved rifles—0·85 per cent.—and quite a few of
      152
      them were·22s. Has my hon. Friend had a chance since Standing Committee to work out how many of those rifles were self-loading?
      12.30 am
      The Shooting Foundation has said:
      "Ryan's was the only case recorded since records were kept when a rifle of any description has been used in violent crime by its lawful owner."
      The Home Office has not denied that. Michael Ryan was the first person in recorded history to use in a crime a rifle described on his certificate. As the Thames Valley constabulary should never have given Ryan the certificate in the first place, we are legislating on a shaky basis. My hon. Friend knows full well, however, that I support many aspects of the Bill. I certainly agree with a Bill that to some extent improves firearms legislation, although I am worried about some points.
      I am sure that hon. Members would like to know something about practical shooting. If the Bill is passed in its present form, the sport of practical shooting will be annihilated. This sport is a limited discipline involving shooting at moving targets with a self-loading rifle. There are about 20,000 members of the United Kingdom Practical Rifle Commission and the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association. There are 124 affiliated clubs, with a total membership of 16,600.
      The sport of practical shooting is growing in popularity. It is growing as an international sport and will soon be an Olympic sport. There are about 400 or 500 high-powered practical shots who shoot abroad regularly and compete in international competitions. If the new clause is passed in its present form, we shall deny those people their sport and wipe out the important discipline of target shooting.
      For the past 120 or so years rifle shooting has been done, in the main, with bolt-action rifles. Most target shooting involves traditional target rifles. The technology is developing and the sport will not stand still. It is likely that in the coming years the self-loading rifle will be used increasingly as a target rifle in more than one discipline. If we do not have an escape route for these practical shooters, such as is proposed in new clause I, we shall not only deny this sport to the many people involved in it but prevent anyone in the future from participating in it.
      If the Bill is passed in its present form, for the first time a civilian will not be able to participate in a rifle competition with the Army's main infantry weapon. Until now, a civilian who passes strict criteria that are part and parcel of section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 can participate in shooting competitions with the Army's main battle weapon. If, God forbid, there were ever a conflict or war, we would rue the fact that we did not have a pool of civilian marksmen on whom to call.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has gone through the details of new clause 1. We are looking, not at the weapon, but at individuals and applying rigid criteria to individuals. Very few individuals will pass those strict criteria. However, some will and will carry on the growing sport of practical shooting. We debated this issue at considerable length in Committee. The Minister made it clear that he could not do anything about practical shooting, but was prepared to look very carefully at self-loading rifles with a limited magazine capacity of up to five. That would not completely protect the sport of

      153
      practical shooting, but it would mean that in competitions some shooters could use self-loading rifles with magazines holding up to five bullets.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries made clear, disabled people who cannot shoot with a bolt-action rifle on the ranges while deer-stalking or for vermin control will be able to possess a weapon for those purposes. Some people cannot use their right arms, or they may have no fingers on one hand. Paraplegics are similarly affected. If the Bill is passed and the Minister does not back his quasi commitment, those disabled people will be deprived of their sport. That would be very wrong.
      I remind my hon. Friend that we had conversations together on many occasions. I recall a dark night back in March when we were up together quite late. He said that if I supported him on clause I stand part he would do all that he possibly could to come up with a concession on self-loading rifles. I said that I would support him on clause I stand part if he came up with the concession. He knows as well as I do that if there had been a vote on clause 1 stand part in Committee he would have lost it. He gave us a commitment and I feel bad and appalled that he has not produced a suitable amendment on Report. That is very sad. He cannot be surprised if we feel very disappointed that he has not delivered on this crucial point.
      There is a way out. My hon. Friend can reconsider the matter now. We should like him to go all the way with new clause 1, but if not, we hope that he will go some way and adhere to what I believe was a semi-commitment that he made in Committee. He has the answer before him this evening and I hope very much that he does not want to destroy completely a sport and cause grave offence to many disabled people. I hope that he will consider this issue very seriously when he replies to the debate.
      Mr. Frank Cook: Hon. Members who served on the Committee on the Bill will recall that I arrived on the Committee without a particular opinion about the proposed legislative changes. I was conscripted to Whip the Committee and I had no opinions any particular way. However, I gradually realised what the proposals contained. I had to do something in Committee apart from prepare my Christmas cards, so I read the proposed legislation.
      It became apparent that the legislation was ill-thought out and ill-prepared. We have considered many different aspects, including the size of shot, possible modification of different weapons, the verification of how those modifications have taken place, whether they should be reversible, what kind of weapons cabinets should be used and how weapons should travel from gun club to grouse moor.
      We have gone into all kinds of detail, but behind it all there remains one unexplained—but I hope not inexplicable—aspect. This evening, the House heard a most moving contribution by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who spoke with feeling and real concern about the occurrences at Hungerford. There seems no doubt that the proposed legislation has come about as a direct result of the sad and tragic incidents of that day. No one denies that there is cause for deep concern and a need to find a way of dealing with circumstances such as those that arose at Hungerford.
      The hon. Member for Newbury reminded the House that eight of the Hungerford victims were shot with a
      154
      Kalashnikov self-loading rifle, but that eight others were shot with a Beretta 9 mm hand gun. What troubles me is why there should be so much concern about the self-loading rifle, which is a weapon difficult to conceal, troublesome to transport and not easy to use. The Bill appears to be deliberately structured to handle that class of weapon, and that class alone—or little else. However, the Beretta can be tucked into a waistband, slipped under an armpit or otherwise concealed and carried with great ease —yet it is not covered by the Bill.
      I support many of the points which have been made, such as harmonisation throughout all the police constabularies in the United Kingdom and the security aspects of keeping weapons.
      The question of locking mechanisms was brought to the attention of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). However, the question why the self-loading rifle should be covered by the Bill while the 9mm hand gun is excluded is crucial. I am not saying that SLRs should not be more tightly controlled; controls on all types of weaponry should be tightened. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why one class of weapon should be singled out for inclusion while another is left untouched.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: New clause 6 is defectively drafted, so we cannot pass it. It reads:
      "Before a Chief Constable issues a firearms certificate to a person who has never previously held a rifle or pistol".
      What on earth does that mean? I think that it was meant to mean, "who has never previously been authorised to possess a rifle or pistol", but that is not what it says. So I do not think that we need waste much more time on it.
      New clause I certainly has my support, but it would need an amendment in another place because it has one very obvious shortcoming. For instance, it would prohibit an instructor in small arms from the armed forces who has been serving abroad and who would not therefore hold a firearms certificate, because he would not be subject to a civilian police force in Britain or meet the qualifications for so doing. He probably will not belong to a rifle club if he is serving overseas—nor would he need to, because he would attend rifle meetings as a member of the armed forces.
      What needs to be added to any new clause of this kind —if necessary, in another place—is "who has been a member of Her Majesty's armed forces during the preceding three years." It is manifestly absurd that somebody who has been properly instructed in the armed forces, or indeed who has been instructing others, and who has participated in numerous rifle meetings in the armed forces, should be forbidden from holding a firearms certificate for a self-loading rifle that he has been using for years in competition as well as daily in the armed forces, because he has not held a firearms certificate for at least three years.
      Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in new clause I are not alternatives; they are all necessary conditions for holding a firearms certificate. Although the clause is certainly an improvement on what is in the Bill, and on that basis it will have my support if it is carried to a Division, it would need an amendment in another place. It is so easy to forget the needs of members of the armed forces—for council houses when they leave the forces., and for many other such

      155
      things. In drafting the new clause, my hon. Friend had in mind civilians, but not the position of those leaving Her Majesty's armed forces.
      12.45 am
      Mr. Marland: After hearing so many speeches in a similar vein, we cannot pretend that there is not considerable disappointment in the House at the state of affairs this evening. Not only have we had a very long Committee stage, but there seem to be so many loose ends in the Bill as it comes before us now, and there is so much dissatisfaction with it, that I cannot help wondering how much confidence it will inspire outside the House. After all, the object of a great deal of the legislation is surely to encourage those outside that the world will be safer as a result of its passage.
      I speak unashamedly in support of new clause 1. As I see it, the object of the legislation is to try to stop accidents. We want more safety, but without—as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said—being seen to be introducing a nanny state. In my view, paragraph (b) of the new clause would ensure competence in the operators, owners or users of firearms.
      My question to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) about how much instruction was given at Home Office-approved clubs has produced an interesting answer. The club rules state:
      "A minimum period of 6 weeks and maximum of 6 months probation including a minimum of 12 x ½ hours details shall normally be served by all Probationary Members. On the completion of the above period the secretary shall review the Applicant's number of attendances, depth of interest, apparent character and conduct."
      If, in the secretary's opinion, these are satisfactory, he is able to confer full membership on that person.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Unless I have misunderstood him, that seems rather different from what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) was saying. Did my hon. Friend refer to a minimum of six weeks' and a maximum of six months' probation? That is rather different from a six-month probationary period.
      Mr. Marland: The club rules lay down a minimum of six weeks' and a maximum of six months' probation, including a minimum of 12 half-hour details—which presumably means shooting lessons, or time in which the person is instructed in how to handle the guns.
      I believe that introducing legislation of this sort would go some way towards reassuring the public, which, after all, is what we are trying to do.
      I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) said about the practical shooters. I believe that it is wrong to deny British sportsmen the opportunity to go forward in a newly emerging sport so that they can compete on the world stage. I also agree with my hon. Friend that we must spare a thought for those who are disabled and unable to use any sort of rifle, other than a self-loader.
      I hope, like others, that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider new clause 1 very carefully, and possibly give it his support at the end of the debate.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: This has been a long debate and it has covered a range of subjects. At the heart of the debate is the Government's attitude to the self-loading rifle, and I shall therefore begin with that.
      I think it desirable that we should make plain what we are talking about. We are talking about whether it is right to allow private people to possess full-bore, fast-firing, paramilitary guns.
      Sir Hector Monro: No, no, no.
      Mr. Hogg: I hear my hon. Friend saying "No, no, no." It is perfectly true that both tonight and on other occasions he has limited his advocacy to self-loading rifles—five-shot and eight-shot—but that is not incorporated in new clause1. It is unlimited.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) made a strong case on behalf of practical shooters. I have had discussions with practical shooters, who say that the only equipment that will serve their sport is a large, detachable magazine, full-bore rifle. For practical shooters the integral self-loading rifle of the kind advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is useless. We have to be absolutely certain about what equipment it is that we are discussing. We are discussing fast-firing, full-bore, large-magazine, paramilitary guns.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend is referring to fast-loading paramilitary rifles because it suits him to do so, but we are referring to new clause 1. This has to be read in conjunction with the later group of amendments, which we hope will also be agreed to, which would limit rifles to the shotguns that we are discussing. When read in conjunction with the clause, that would produce the right effect.
      Mr. Hogg: There is a difference of view between us on this matter. I am prepared to accept that my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir H. Bonsor) and for Dumfries are concerned only to secure either a five-shot or an eight-shot integral magazine gun, but that is not the only argument on this side of the House. In order to sustain the case that he has made on behalf of practical shooters, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West must hold out for the large, detachable magazine, full-bore rifle. We cannot otherwise serve the interests of practical shooters. New clause 1 is unlimited in terms of the size of the magazine and the number of bullets that it can hold.
      I do not dispute for a moment that a self-loading rifle can be used for a variety of lawful pastimes—for deer stalking, culling deer and shooting foxes at night—but the question that we have to ask is not whether it can be used, but whether we need to use it. Is it necessary to use a full-bore large-magazine, fast-firing gun for those purposes? The answer is no.
      I agree that a self-loading rifle can be used for traditional target shooting, but the question is not whether it can be used, but whether it needs to be used. The answer, once again, is no. The National Rifle Association has made that clear on a number of occasions. The use of self-loading rifles for international, traditional target shooting is positively prohibited. It is interesting to note that at its Bisley meet the National Rifle Association provides a number of competitions in which self-loading rifles are used, but last year only five civilians participated.

      157
      It is true that those competitions are essentially for service men, but only five civilians participated in that class of sport.
      I now turn to practical shooting, the cause which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West has made his own. I agree that if we prohibit full-bore, fast-firing, large-magazine guns we shall destroy certain parts of practical shooting that rely on a self-loading rifle. We shall not destroy it entirely, because about 80 per cent. of its members use self-loading pistols, but I agree that it will destroy the sport for those who depend on the self-loading rifle. The question is whether the public interest requires us to do that. The House has to make that judgment, but I believe that it does.
      Mr. Corbett indicated assent.
      Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) shares my view on the matter.
      I shall now deal with my comments and undertakings in Committee. I have never tried to pretend otherwise to hon. Members: I am a settler, a compromiser. If I can reach a compromise, I like to do so. I make no apology for that. In Committee I made it plain that I thought there was no need for a self-loading rifle of the kind that I have described and that in my opinion there were insufficient numbers of self-loading rifles to justify their retention in clause 1. I said that I would look seriously and sympathetically at whether it would be right to retain them in clause 1 if they had integral magazines containing no more than 3, 4 or 5 rounds. That is what I did. I looked at it seriously, I challenged the issue and I reached what I consider to be a fair conclusion. I have described my conclusion tonight.
      Hon. Members who think that I misled the House in some way should look at Hansard. I recommend that they read columns 323, 324, 325, 330, 363 and 396. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West thought it right to recount to the House a conversation that I may have had with him—I do not recall it, but I do not dispute it—it would he profitable for him to read column 396. He said:
      "I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. We shall come back to this matter on Report … My hon. Friend has made it clear that he is prepared to accept that a class of self-loading rifles will remain in private hands."
      I replied:
      "I do not want to prolong the debate. What I have said is what I mean. I shall consider carefully the range of rifles to which I have referred. It is not a commitment, I have to clear it with colleagues. It is not a guarantee. My hon. Friend has heard what I have said and I propose to do what I have said. He must not try to enlarge on it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 March 1988; c 396.]
      I have made that statement in different words at different times in the debate. Anybody who says that I ratted on a commitment is wrong. I resent that imputation.
      The other thing that I said very strongly in Committee was that there was not a range of self-loading rifles of the kind now argued for—3, 4 or 5-shot integral magazines— sufficient to make the amendment sensible. That is what I argued in Committee, and that is the case. It may be of interest to the House to know some facts.
      I have a list of such guns, and I shall remind the House of them. The Ruger .44 is a sporting rifle. It has a four-shot tube and was last made in 1985. The Browning Sporting is still being made and has a detachable magazine containing
      158
      no more than three or four rounds. The Savage .170, a pump-action rifle, was made up to 1985. The Remington Gamemaster, with five shots, was made up to 1950. The Browning Sporting, with five shots, is so old that it can only be identified as old. The only relevant military rifle is the French St. Etienne, which was not made beyond 1918. There is only one gun which falls within the classification and is still manufactured. It does not seem to make much sense to found legislation on one gun.
      1 am
      The House has to come to a conclusion on this important issue. I share the view of the hon. Member for Erdington that we should not legalise self-loading rifles. There is no justification for doing so. The Government's stance on the matter is correct.
      The views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) are to be respected, and I entirely understand his concern. What the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said is, however, correct. There are a variety of reasons why people need a gun and do not necessarily belong to a club. The most notable reasons are vermin control and deer stalking. Such people do not belong to clubs, for the most part. That problem goes to the root of my hon. Friend's new clause 6, although I understand why he tabled it.
      In new clause 8, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) advocates a most complicated and bureaucratic form of appeal. He is a well-known enemy of bureaucracy, and I praise him for it. Section 44 of the Firearms Act 1968 provides for a perfectly sensible form of appeal on all the issues to which he referred, and there is no possible justification for building yet further on it.
      On new clauses 9 and 11, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East made important points regarding time limits and the notification of reasons. I find myself in complete agreement with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said on the matter, so it is not necessary to elaborate yet further.
      On new clause 10, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East suggested that we should ask a range of complicated questions. I have read the questions that he has asked, and I have to tell him that they would not prevent a madman obtaining a gun. Nor do they address the problem of the person becoming mad during the currency of the certificate.
      As for amendment No. 147 and the standard application form, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the firearms rules of 1969 already provide for a standard application form for the granting, variation and renewal of firearms certificates, and shotgun licences. To that extent, his anxiety is already met.
      In amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 146, the hon. Gentleman raised interesting questions about photographs. They are not necessary. As for the verification of photographs, why should the chief constable be involved? The rules already provide that a person of good standing is sufficient, and that is correct. We agree that there should be two photographs. We do not think that there should be three. The only justification for three is the existence of a computerised bank, and technology is capable of making as many reproductions of the second photograph as are necessary.
      As for amendment No. 80, I would not advise the hon. Gentleman to set out in rule form the type of territorial

      159
      conditions that he would like, because they would be too rigid. It must be possible to tailor a territorial condition to meet the circumstances of an applicant.
      This lengthy debate has covered a whole range of subjects. I commend new clause 12 to the House, but I am afraid that I cannot commend the other new clauses or amendments.
      Sir Hector Monro rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has addressed the House once.
      Sir Hector Monro: With the leave of the House. Hon. Members: No.
      Mr Deputy Speaker: The House has withheld leave.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      CONDITIONS ATTACHING TO THE POSSESSION OF SELF-LOADING RIFLES
      'No firearm certificate shall authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading or pump-action rifle to which section 5(2) (ab) of the principal Act applies unless that person—

      (a) has held a firearms certificate for at least three years, and

      (b) has been a full member of a rifle club for at least three years, and

      (c) is a member of a club which is affiliated to the National Rifle Association or the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association and which has been approved by the Secretary of State as a club suitable for target shooting with self-loading rifles, and has satisfactorily completed a course of service rifle or practical rifle shooting approved by either of these Associations, or

      (d) has a reason to possess such a gun because of disability or participation in vermin control or deer-culling.'.—[Sir Hector Monro]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-
      The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 217.

      Division No. 319]

      [1.5 am

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Beith, A. J.

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Bellingham, Henry

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Skinner, Dennis

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Wall, Pat

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Wallace, James

      Colvin, Michael

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Whitney, Ray

      Cryer, Bob

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Dixon, Don

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      McAllion, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Mr. Jerry Wiggins and Mr. Paul Marland.

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Ashby, David

      Allason, Rupert

      Atkinson, David

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Amos, Alan

      Baldry, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      160

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hayes, Jerry

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Heddle, John

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

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

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Bowis, John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Bright, Graham

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Irvine, Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Jack, Michael

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

      Janman, Tim

      Burns, Simon

      Jessel, Toby

      Burt, Alistair

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Butcher, John

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Butler, Chris

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Butterfill, John

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Knapman, Roger

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Cash, William

      Knowles, Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Lang, Ian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Latham, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Lawrence, Ivan

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

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Conway, Derek

      Lightbown, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Lilley, Peter

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Couchman, James

      Lord, Michael

      Cran, James

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Maclean, David

      Curry, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

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

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Day, Stephen

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Mans, Keith

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Dover, Den

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Dunn, Bob

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Durant, Tony

      Miller, Hal

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Mills, lain

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fallon, Michael

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Farr, Sir John

      Moate, Roger

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Moss, Malcolm

      Forman, Nigel

      Nelson, Anthony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Neubert, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Franks, Cecil

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Freeman, Roger

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      French, Douglas

      Page, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Paice, James

      Gill, Christopher

      Patnick, Irvine

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Pawsey, James

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Portillo, Michael

      Gorst, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Gow, Ian

      Raffan, Keith

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Redwood, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Renton, Tim

      Gregory, Conal

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Riddick, Graham

      Grist, Ian

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Ground, Patrick

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Ryder, Richard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Sackville, Hon Tom

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

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Harris, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      161

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Tracey, Richard

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Trotter, Neville

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Walden, George

      Speed, Keith

      Ward, John

      Speller, Tony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Watts, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wells, Bowen

      Squire, Robin

      Wheeler, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stern, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wilshire, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sumberg, David

      Wood, Timothy

      Summerson, Hugo

      Yeo, Tim

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thorne, Neil

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) wish to press new clause 6?
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: No, Sir.

    New Clause 8

      APPEALS IN CASES OF REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION
      '(1) An appeal under section 20, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, or 38 of the principal Act lies in England and Wales to the Firearms Appeal Tribunal and in Scotland to the Scottish Firearms Appeal Tribunal and an appeal from a decision of any such tribunal on a point of law shall lie in England and Wales to the Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice and in Scotland to the Court of Session.
      (2) The Home Secretary shall by regulations provide for the establishment of a tribunal or tribunals to determine appeals by persons in England and Wales aggrieved by any decision of a Chief Officer of Police under the principal Act or under this Act.
      (3) The Secretary of State for Scotland shall by regulations provide for establishment of a tribunal or tribunals to determine appeals by persons in Scotland aggrieved by any decision of a Chief Constable under the principal Act or this Act.
      (4) Regulations made by the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland may include provision for summoning persons to attend and give evidence and produce documents and for authorising the administration of Oaths to witnesses.
      (5) There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament any administrative expenses incurred by the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland for the purposes of the principal Act or this Act.
      (6) Section 14 of the Firearms Act is repealed.'.—[Mr. William Ross.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 232.

      Division No. 320]

      [1.16 am

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Dixon, Don

      McAllion, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Mr. Bob Cryer and

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Mr. Pat Wall.

      162

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Allason, Rupert

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Amess, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Amos, Alan

      Gorst, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Gow, Ian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Ashby, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Atkinson, David

      Gregory, Conal

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Baldry, Tony

      Grist, Ian

      Batiste, Spencer

      Ground, Patrick

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Beith, A. J.

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bevan, David Gilroy

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

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Harris, David

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hayes, Jerry

      Boswell, Tim

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Heddle, John

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bowis, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

      Brazier, Julian

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Bright, Graham

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Irvine, Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Jack, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Janman, Tim

      Butler, Chris

      Jessel, Toby

      Butterfill, John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Carrington, Matthew

      Knapman, Roger

      Cash, William

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Chope, Christopher

      Knowles, Michael

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

      Lang, Ian

      Colvin, Michael

      Latham, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Couchman, James

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Cran, James

      Lightbown, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Lilley, Peter

      Curry, David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

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

      Lord, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      Maclean, David

      Dorrell, Stephen

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Dover, Den

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Dunn, Bob

      Malins, Humfrey

      Durant, Tony

      Mans, Keith

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Marland, Paul

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fallon, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Farr, Sir John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Favell, Tony

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Miller, Hal

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Mills, lain

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Forman, Nigel

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Forth, Eric

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Franks, Cecil

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Freeman, Roger

      Moss, Malcolm

      French, Douglas

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gale, Roger

      Neubert, Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      163

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Page, Richard

      Sumberg, David

      Paice, James

      Summerson, Hugo

      Patnick, Irvine

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Portillo, Michael

      Thorne, Neil

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Raffan, Keith

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Tracey, Richard

      Redwood, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Renton, Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Riddick, Graham

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Walden, George

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Wallace, James

      Ryder, Richard

      Ward, John

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Watts, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wells, Bowen

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wheeler, John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wilkinson, John

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wilshire, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wolfson, Mark

      Speed, Keith

      Wood, Timothy

      Speller, Tony

      Yeo, Tim

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Squire, Robin

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Stern, Michael

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 11

      RENEWAL OF AND TEMPORARY CERTIFICATES
      'After section 26(1) of the principal Act (Application for, and grant of Certificates) there shall be inserted: —
      "(1B) When an application for the renewal of a firearm or shotgun certificate has been made in the prescribed form to the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which the applicant resides no less than twenty-eight days prior to the date of expiry of the existing certificate and subject to the certificate holder not having been served with a notice of revocation then the Chief Officer of Police shall either:—

      (a) grant a renewal of the firearm or shotgun certificate subject to subsection X below in either the terms of the expiring certificate, and/or

      (b) issue a temporary certificate in the same terms and conditions as the expiring certificate, subject to subsection X below, and/or

      (c) state in writing the reasons for refusal to grant the authority to possess each individual firearm/ammunition or shotguns and ammunition additionally stating the relevant section(s) of the Act in each case and notify the applicant of his right to appeal to Crown Court within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of such notification, subject to subsection X below, and/or

      (d) state in writing any difficulty for delay external to the Police Service preventing the granting or the formal refusal to the processing of the application, subject to subsection X below, to the issue of a certificate.

      (X) To be received by the certificate holder 48 hours prior to the expiry of the existing certificate".'.—[Mr. William Ross.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 13, Noes 220.

      Division No. 321

      [1.29 am

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Beith, A. J.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Wallace, James

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Corbett, Robin

      Dixon, Don

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McAllion, John

      Mr. Bob Cryer and

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Mr. Pat Wall.

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Dunn, Bob

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Allason, Rupert

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Amess, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Amos, Alan

      Fallon, Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Farr, Sir John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Favell, Tony

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Ashby, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Atkinson, David

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Forman, Nigel

      Baldry, Tony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forth, Eric

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Franks, Cecil

      Bellingham, Henry

      Freeman, Roger

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      French, Douglas

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Gale, Roger

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gill, Christopher

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Boswell, Tim

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gorst, John

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gow, Ian

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bowis, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gregory, Conal

      Brazier, Julian

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Bright, Graham

      Grist, Ian

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

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

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Burns, Simon

      Harris, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Butler, Chris

      Hayes, Jerry

      Butterfill, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Heddle, John

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Cash, William

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

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Chope, Christopher

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

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

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Irvine, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Jack, Michael

      Cran, James

      Janman, Tim

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jessel, Toby

      Curry, David

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Day, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      165

      Knowles, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Lang, Ian

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Latham, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lightbown, David

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lord, Michael

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Speed, Keith

      Maclean, David

      Speller, Tony

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Squire, Robin

      Mans, Keith

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marland, Paul

      Stern, Michael

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Miller, Hal

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mills, lain

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Thorne, Neil

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thurnham, Peter

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Tracey, Richard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinnick, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Trotter, Neville

      Neubert, Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Walden, George

      Page, Richard

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Paice, James

      Ward, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Pawsey, James

      Watts, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wells, Bowen

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wheeler, John

      Portillo, Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Raffan, Keith

      Wilshire, David

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Redwood, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Renton, Tim

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wood, Timothy

      Riddick, Graham

      Yeo, Tim

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Ryder, Richard

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 14

      REGISTER OF FIREARMS ETC
      'Each chief officer of police shall establish within three months of the coming into force of this Act and subsequently maintain on a daily basis, a register of shot guns, firearms and ammunition, and licences and certificates, reported lost or stolen which shall include a description of such weapons and ammunition with the name and address of the certificate holder entitled to possess the weapon, on a separate register, details of which shall be passed to the police national computer.'.—[Mr. Corbett.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Corbett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 17—Firearms officers—
      "Where in the opinion of the chief officer of police the number of firearm certificates and or shot gun licences warrants it, two officers, not below the rank of superintendent, shall be designated as firearms officers whose
      166
      duties shall include regular periodic checks upon the number and type of weapons and ammunition held by authorised dealers in the area of their police force.'.
      Mr. Corbett: It will probably be for the convenience of the House if I deal with the new clause briefly, although it is an important clause on an extremely serious topic. If the Government have anxieties about the time that Ministers and Conservative Back Bench Members go to bed tonight, they should reflect on the fact that they could have accepted the motion to recommit the Bill for further consideration in Committee, which would have been a better way to proceed. The Government had a choice.
      The purpose of new clause 14 is to require each chief officer of police to establish within three months a register of shotguns, firearms, ammunition, licences and certificates that are reported lost or stolen, and to ensure that it is maintained daily. It is amazing that no register in this form is maintained now.
      Paragraph 26 of the White Paper of December 1987 on proposals for the reform of firearms legislation states:
      "It is remarkable that the police at present have so little information either about individual weapons or about the number of shotguns legally held."
      I do not doubt that there were many within this place, and certainly outside it, who found that statement an admission of the most outstanding complacency. Everything that we heard on Second Reading and in Committee supported that view. The Government can only guesstimate the number of self-loading rifles that are knocking about. It is a frightening fact, and one that will bring no comfort to those who are properly concerned with public safety.
      If that is the position with legally held shotguns and firearms, I suspect that it is probably the case with weapons and ammunition that are reported lost or stolen. I suspect that in many instances weapons that are reported lost or stolen and not recovered find their way fairly easily into criminal hands, and are those that are more commonly used illegally and perhaps criminally. The most meticulous attention should be paid to lost or stolen weapons, ammunition or certificates. I know that thousands of replacement certificates, for example, are issued each year when the originals are reported lost or stolen. When I asked the Under-Secretary of State in February how many duplicate shotgun and firearm certificates were issued by each police force area in the last year for which figures were available, and the preceding year, I was told that the information that I had requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
      That means, if that phrase has any meaning, that those responsible for overseeing firearms control—Ministers take responsibility for this—do not have a clue about the number of legally held weapons that are knocking about and the number of duplicate certificates that have been issued. This is extremely worrying. There is ample scope for misuse because as things have stood since the Firearms Act 1968 was enacted certificates do not have to bear an up-to-date photograph of the holder. There can be few other countries beset by terrorist activities in one part of its boundaries that can behave in such a manner that is at best careless.
      The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that such a register is maintained and updated and the information passed to the national police computer so that the police can be more quickly helped to trace the lawful owner of a weapon which is used in violent crime. Everything that can

      167
      be discovered about the route between the lawful owner, and presumably the person who reports the weapon lost or stolen, and the weapon discovered at the scene of a crime can be extremely helpful to the police.
      1.45 am
      New clause 17 asks a question which has been asked before but which did not get a satisfactory reply. That is why it has been tabled. It provides that, where significant numbers of applications for firearms certificates and shotgun licences are dealt with, the police should be able to designate firearms officers whose only job is to handle these matters and, as important, to make periodic checks on the number and type of weapons and ammunition held by authorised dealers in their police force area.
      Suppose that there is a gun shop that employs two or three staff and that, at the end of every day's transactions, there is no physical check of the stock room, although someone may look through what has been sold that day. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone in the gun shop owner's employ could be approached and offered money to steal a weapon from those premises. It could be days, if not weeks, before that theft is uncovered by the owner. That should not and cannot be tolerated.
      As I have said repeatedly, we want to do our best to ensure that one of the Bill's ambitions—properly to look after the public safety aspects of our legislation—is achieved. The new clauses will help to do that.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: I agree with the spirit of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) seeks to achieve in new clause 14. I suspect that the measure is not necessary, because the police will do what he wants. It would not have been practicable for them to do so until this legislation, because previously firearms were not required to be described or numbered. The numbers of guns held by an individual did not all have to be contained on the certificate. The Bill will bring those details forward. From now on, it will be possible for the police to maintain the type of register that the hon. Gentleman seeks. I am not sure that it is necessary to require the police to do that by statute; I suspect that they will do it anyway.
      Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the police nationally maintain a stolen property index. As I understand it, it does not have a separate compartment for weapons and ammunition reported stolen. I assume that that index is computerised—if it is not, it should be. I am asking only for another two or three files to be opened in that record to identify those items separately more quickly.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: That may well be true, but in the past it was not practicable for the police to maintain such a register, because the details that the Bill prescribes were not available. It will be practicable to do so in future. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do, but I am not certain that it is necessary to prescribe it by statute.
      I oppose new clause 17. I am not sure that it is appropriate to prescribe the very high ranks of officers that the hon. Member for Erdington wishes to do this job. That would cost the country something like £4 million a year in additional policing costs.
      168
      With regard to both new clauses 14 and 17, it is not appropriate for the House to tell the police how to deploy manpower. That is an operational judgment. It is right that the law should indicate the will of Parliament, but it should not get into the details of prescribing the ranks of officers to be used or how they should be used. Those are operational matters for the chief officer to determine.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths).
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) moved the new clause briefly and was to the point. I agree that it is desirable that the police should have additional information of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Erdington and that that should be centrally stored.
      It is perhaps necessary to remind the House that a register of the kind proposed would not prevent crime. At the very best, it would facilitate the recovery of weapons, the tracing of owners and preparation to ensure better records. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that that should not be a mandatory requirement imposed by Parliament. It must be for the judgment of the police to determine where that particular suggestion ranks in order of priority and that is not a matter for Parliament.
      I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds about new clause 17. That is an operational matter for police forces. In particular, it is an operational matter to decide how many, and of what rank, the officers in question should be. The dealers are already under a duty to permit police who want to make inspections, and the memorandum of guidance urges the police to do just that. Although I understand the force of the arguments presented by the hon. Member for Erdington, I am afraid that I cannot commend new clauses 14 and 17 to the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 208.

      Division No. 322]

      [1.51 am

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Beith, A. J.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Wall, Pat

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Wallace, James

      Corbett, Robin

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Cryer, Bob

      Dixon, Don

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. John McAUion.

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Allason, Rupert

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Amess, David

      Bowis, John

      Amos, Alan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bright, Graham

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Ashby, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Atkinson, David

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Baldry, Tony

      Burns, Simon

      Batiste, Spencer

      Burt, Alistair

      Bellingham, Henry

      Butler, Chris

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Butterfill, John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Carrington, Matthew

      Boswell, Tim

      Cash, William

      169

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Chope, Christopher

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

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

      Harris, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Conway, Derek

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heddle, John

      Couchman, James

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Cran, James

      Hind, Kenneth

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Curry, David

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

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

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Day, Stephen

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Dover, Den

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Dunn, Bob

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Durant, Tony

      Irvine, Michael

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Jack, Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Janman, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Jessel, Toby

      Favell, Tony

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Forman, Nigel

      Knapman, Roger

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Forth, Eric

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Franks, Cecil

      Knowles, Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      Lang, Ian

      French, Douglas

      Latham, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Gill, Christopher

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Lightbown, David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Lilley, Peter

      Gorst, John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Gow, lan

      Lord, Michael

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Maclean, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gregory, Conal

      Malins, Humfrey

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Mans, Keith

      Grist, lan

      Marland, Paul

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      170

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Miller, Hal

      Speed, Keith

      Mills, lain

      Speller, Tony

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Squire, Robin

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Stern, Michael

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Stevens, Lewis

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Summerson, Hugo

      Neubert, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Taylor, lan (Esher)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Page, Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Paice, James

      Thorne, Neil

      Patnick, Irvine

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Pawsey, James

      Tracey, Richard

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Tredinnick, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Trotter, Neville

      Portillo, Michael

      Twinn, Dr lan

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Raffan, Keith

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Walden, George

      Redwood, John

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Renton, Tim

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Riddick, Graham

      Watts, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Wells, Bowen

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wheeler, John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Ryder, Richard

      Wilshire, David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Question Accoudingly negatived.
      Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr Douglas Hogg.]
      Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

  RAF Search and Rescue (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]
  1.59 am
  Mr. Bill Walker: This Adjournment debate is about the Royal Air Force search and rescue operation in central Scotland, which means that it is really a debate about the search and rescue helicopters at Royal Air Force Leuchars, Fife.
  Since June 1955, there has been a permanent 24-hour-a-day search and rescue helicopter standing by at RAF Leuchars. The bright yellow helicopter of B flight of No. 22 Squadron is easily the best-loved, and most highly regarded and respected, of the flying machines that can be seen around the east coast of central and north-east Scotland. The yellow helicopter brings hope and confidence to all who may find themselves in peril in the freezing cold and the cruel North sea, or who may be lost or injured in the mountains of central and northern Scotland.
  The skill, courage and professionalism of the helicopter crews have become a legend. The people of my constituency who are subjected daily to the noise of the low fast jets know that from RAF Leuchars they have a lifeline in the search and rescue helicopters. They know that in times of emergency, whether it is injured climbers or walkers, skiers or residents of the remote glens who are in need of hospitalisation, a Leuchars helicopter will be scrambled within 15 minutes. That is important. Response time for rescues in the North sea and in the mountains of Scotland can mean the difference between survival and death.
  The helicopters of 22 Squadron RAF Leuchars have made a total of 2,049 rescue flights. In 1987, 104 of the flights were to assist the civil population. Ten were for military purposes. Ninety-five people were rescued and only 10 were found to be dead. Time is of the essence in rescues. Longer flight times will increase the risk and reduce the chances of survival. So far this year the Leuchars helicopters have carried out 68 rescue missions, of which 18 were carried out at night.
  Leuchars is the main air defence base of the northern United Kingdom. The pilots and navigators who fly the Phantoms are highly skilled and expensively trained professional aviators. It costs £8 million to train a pilot to the required standard to fly Phantoms. Soon the Phantoms will be replaced by the Tornado F3, whose pilots will be the elite of fighter pilots. I submit that the helicopters will only have to rescue alive one pilot a year from the freezing North sea and from sub-zero mountain temperatures to justify the cost of maintaining the helicopter operation.
  I remind the House that in the winter and early spring during the period of the easterly gales a helicopter from Prestwick or from Lossiemouth, flying into the teeth of the gale, would take a long time to reach the east coast. A helicopter from Boulmer would take 47 minutes in still air. We all know that emergencies never occur in still air— quite the opposite. Most emergencies happen when weather conditions are at the margins for operations, so response time is increased.
  In March 1988 three crewmen were rescued by a Leuchars helicopter when their motor vessel went aground off Montrose. The water temperature at the time was so low that the rescue services knew that they had to complete
  172
  the evacuation beforethe men succumbed to the cold. If the helicopter had been unable to lift off the three men, a breeches buoy was the only very risky possible alternative. Fortunately, the RAF Leuchars helicopter flying at night arrived in time and executed the rescue. A helicopter from Prestwick or Boulmer would not have arrived in time.
  Ever since the news that Leuchars may lose its search and rescue helicopters became known, the people of Scotland have expressed their concern. Aviators, both service and civil, professional seamen, and fishermen, amateur sailors of all kinds, skiers, mountaineers and hill walkers, as well as police, coastguards, lifeboat men and ambulance men and mountain rescue teams have written, phoned or spoken to their respective Members of Parliament and councillors. There can be few issues that have united so many different groups. All of them are of the view that RAF Leuchars must retain its search and rescue helicopters.
  As an aviator, I have flown for a large number of hours, over many years, throughout the Highlands and the east coast of Scotland in the knowledge that the Leuchars search and rescue helicopters were on a 15-minute alert and that if I were unfortunate enough to get into difficulties the yellow helicopter would quickly arrive.
  I do not wish in this debate to be seen to be trying to second-guess the highly competent and capable people who have studied the deployment package of military search and rescue helicopters. However, I must draw attention to the experience that was obtained in Korea, where it was discovered that response time could make the difference between recovering highly skilled air crew alive or arriving to find them dead. Water and mountain conditions in Korea can be very like the conditions of Scotland in the winter.
  I am also unable to see the logic of having a clutch of Sea King units within 90 nautical miles of each other in the north-east of England when, if Leuchars is to lose its search and rescue helicopters, there will be a gap of 200 nautical miles between Boulmer and Lossiemouth. The Tay estuary is notorious for is treacherous sandbanks. Often surface ships cannot operate or carry out rescues. More than one lifeboat has been lost at the bar of the Tay. In such conditions the only hope of rescue is the helicopter from RAF Leuchars.
  I cannot believe that it is wise to have the major northern United Kingdom air defence base within this 200 nautical mile search and rescue helicopter gap. I remind my hon. Friend that the main runway at Leuchars points out towards the Tay estuary, and also that many of the malfunctions of systems or errors of judgment occur during take-off and landing. Ahead of the runway is the treacherous Tay estuary. I leave my hon. Friend to ponder on that.
  I wish to thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy in this matter. I should also like to thank him for his letters of assurance and for arranging the visit to RAF Leuchars for me and for the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). We were able to visit the helicopter facilities and see the superb new hangar and the crew accommodation, much of which was paid for by NATO, which obviously appreciates the work carried out by B flight crews and helicopters. I should also like to place on record my thanks for the way in which Group Captain Tony Bagnell and the members of 22 Squadron made our visit so interesting and instructive. I should also like to

  173
  thank them for the traditional RAF hospitality extended to us. I leave it to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East to say what was interesting about that.
  I also thank my hon. Friend for his letter, dated today, which I received today, which assured me that no final decisions have been taken. I do not expect my hon. Friend to give the final decision this evening, but I hope that he will take back to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to his Department the genuine concern that has been so clearly articulated and reported in the Scottish media. In particular, I hope that he will note the many well-informed articles which have appeared in the Dundee Courier and a number of other publications.
  I conclude by reminding my hon. Friend of the public relations aspect of the search and rescue helicopters. The RAF could not buy such massively good and positive public relations. If it spent all the money it spends on the helicopters it could not get such superb public relations. The image of the modern Air Force is of low, fast, noisy jets. Many of my constituents have to put up with that week in and week out. They do so because they are reminded by me and others that the yellow, life-saving search and rescue helicopters come from the same Air Force and often from the same airfield. If we lose the search and rescue helicopters at Leuchars and the response time is inevitably increased, the number of complaints will increase and it will be increasingly difficult for my hon. Friend to justify RAF expenditure. In a world of tightening budgets, any savings would be minute compared with the damage that could result from the loss of the good public relations generated by the yellow helicopters of B flight, 22 Squadron at RAF Leuchars.
  2.12 am
  Sir Hector Monro: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for allowing me two or three minutes in this important debate to support him and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) in his plea for the retention of the search and rescue capability at RAF Leuchars. It amazes me that it was ever in doubt, and I am sure that the final decision will be made in favour of that outstanding unit, coupled with the other Scottish unit at Lossiemouth with which I have much closer Royal Auxiliary Air Force connection.
  During the war, during the many hours of maritime reconnaissance flying, we would have loved to have thought a search and rescue helicopter squadron was not far away. Of course they were not available. We hoped, if we were lucky, to be picked up by a Walrus, which had the hazardous operation of landing in the open sea. Subsequently, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force was still awaiting the arrival of helicopter squadrons for search and rescue.
  Now that they have existed for many years, and, as my hon. Friend said, they have given outstanding service to the Royal Air Force, and to Scotland generally in terms of mountain rescue and other hazardous "outward bound" activities that happen in our country, the pilots, navigators and air crew of the squadrons involved deserve the highest praise from the Scottish people and from the United Kingdom.
  I cannot believe that it is seriously contemplated that the squadron should move from Leuchars, leaving an enormous gap from Lossiemouth to the English coast. The
  174
  squadron has a tremendous reputation for fine work, which will stand it in good stead during the deliberations in the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the decision will be to keep the squadron and search and rescue at Leuchars.
  2.14 am
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief speech.
  I count myself highly privileged to represent the constituency which contains a military air base of such significance as RAF Leuchars. Relations between the military personnel and the community have always been extremely good. A measure of that was the tremendous hospitality which was extended to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and me on Sunday. It happened to be my birthday. The commanding officer, having discovered the fact, caused it to be celebrated in an entirely appropriate way, but one which did not cause any of us who partook of the hospitality to be at any risk of breaking the law.
  The whole community supports the campaign. The district council, the regional council, all political parties and all interests, political or otherwise, are determined to do their utmost to ensure that the search and rescue capability remains at RAF Leuchars.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: In his fight to save this very important facility, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he has the support of the people of Angus, East, the fishermen of Arbroath, the lifeboatmen of Montrose, who have contacted me, and those who use the sea or the mountains for leisure or work? I hope that the Minister notices the cross-party and cross-constituency support for this important facility.
  Mr. Campbell: I am happy to note that support. It is reminiscent of the support that already exists in my constituency.
  I am sure that the Minister will not mind my saying that it is unfortunate that certain information suggesting that a decision had been taken has emerged in the past few weeks. I have the Minister's assurance that no decision has been taken at ministerial level. I am happy to accept that assurance, but I am sure that the Minister agrees that the fact that certain information was freely discussed in the constituency—to the effect that a decision had been taken —was bad for the morale of the crews and their families, and disturbing for the community.
  More than 2,000 missions have been flown since the search and rescue facility was established at RAF Leuchars, and more than 2,000 people have been rescued. Some 90 per cent. of those rescued have been civilians. Fishing, which is an important part of the economy of Fife, North-East, relies to a considerable extent on the fact that the Leuchars facility is available. Those who go to sea to fish have confidence in the fact that a proven service is available to them in the unhappy event of their finding themselves in difficulty. There is a tradition of co-operation between the search and rescue facility and the lifeboat at Anstruther and, no doubt, other nearby stations.
  As might be expected, I have had many letters from people who have an interest in this matter, but one has touched me more than all the others. It came from a constituent who told me that, but for the Wessex helicopters at RAF Leuchars, he would not be around to

  175
  write the letter and be part of the campaign to retain the facility. He had suffered a severe medical complaint, and was taken at short notice to Edinburgh where more sophisticated medical facilities were available.
  There is little doubt that the contribution made by Leuchars goes far beyond the military requirements and it is one that the civilian population value extremely highly. That service does the RAF great credit and it gives it a profile that all the low flying ever practised could never achieve. Quite simply, that base is regarded as part of the community. I hope that no ministerial decision will be taken that will deprive the community of that most important and significant service.
  2.21 am
  Mr. John McAllion: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for allowing me the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate and to lend my support to the campaign that is being waged by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) to try to stave off any decision to withdraw the sea and air rescue service at Leuchars.
  The threat to safety as a result of such withdrawal was brought home to me today when I received a copy of a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Michael Silvers of West Ferry, Dundee. He wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland on behalf of the Tay pilots to express their concern about the threat to safety that would ensue from such a decision. He said:
  "Should help have to come from Boulmer or some other base there would be too big a delay to help anyone in grave danger, perhaps shipwrecked or immersed in winter temperature seawater. In fact only last Friday all hands were removed from a grounded tug at the river mouth.
  We also feel that far-away crews could not have enough local knowledge to do rescue work to an acceptable standard."
  Mr. Silvers and the Tay pilots know what they are talking about. I hope that the Minister will consider their views when he replies.
  There is a strong case in Dundee for retaining the services at Leuchars. The Broughty Ferry lifeboat has a long, distinguished and heroic record of saving lives along the north-east coast of Scotland—a record that has been achieved at the cost of great loss of life among the crew of that lifeboat. In the past 30 years that lifeboat has worked in close relationship with the helicopter service at Leuchars. The helicopters and lifeboats often complement each other when they take part in combined operations to save stranded boat crews in peril at sea. In the future I believe that there will be an expanded scope for such operations.
  The Royal Tay yacht club at Broughty Ferry in Dundee continues to prosper and that means that there will be a continued demand for the protective cover that is provided by Leuchars. The hon. Member for Tayside, North has already said that such cover is especially needed, given the dangerous nature of the waters in the Tay estuary.
  The growing part that is played by tourism in the local economy of Dundee means that more and more holiday-makers will be attracted to the area. They will take part in water sports, hill walking, climbing and skiing and, therefore, there will be an increased need for the sea and air rescue service operation out of Leuchars.
  176
  All the evidence points towards a continuing and growing need for the rescue service at Leuchars. The spectrum of local opinion supports the retention of the service. I believe that it would be sheer folly and an act of supreme irresponsibility if the Government withdrew for financial reasons a service that has made a valued and effective contribution to civilian safety in the north-east of Scotland.
  If the Minister had been considering such a move I am sure that, having listened to the unanimity of opinion across all political parties and the entire community of the north-east of Scotland in support of the service, he will think again.
  2.23 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): This has been a well-attended Adjournment debate and it is an obvious indication of the high regard that the House has for the search and rescue service provided by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. It also highlights the specific concern there is about Scotland. I have listened carefully to the debate and I am sure that not only my ministerial colleagues, but officials from the Ministry of Defence will study the record of the proceedings tonight.
  I shall respond briefly to some of the points raised in the debate. It is a rather strange and refreshing experience to wind up an Adjournment debate by seeking to answer some of the points raised.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for his interest in the subject and for his support for the RAF search and rescue services and for mountain rescue services provided by six teams in the United Kingdom. We should not forget the mountain rescue teams which consist of volunteers. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North referred to the new hangar at RAF Leuchars. It is NATO-funded but I should put on record the fact that the excellent hangar and office facilities could well be used for a wide variety of tasks. I am not suggesting that it will be or would be but I felt that I should respond specifically to that point.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) referred to speculation within the RAF about the possible closure of the search and rescue flight —the two Wessex helicopters at RAF Leuchars. For the sake of the record, I repeat the fact that there was speculation about that within the RAF. I regret that it happened. No decisions have yet been made on the deployment of search and rescue helicopters in Scotland and the west coast of England. We have announced the new deployment for the east and south coasts of England. Any decisions for Scotland will be taken by Ministers alone, and no such decision has yet been taken. Therefore, the speculation to which the hon. and learned Member referred is nothing more than that. I regret the inconvenience and alarm that that caused.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East also raised the question of delay as did the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). If one had search and rescue facilities all round the coast at 15, 20 or 25-mile intervals, the delay in getting any aircraft, whether a Sea King or Wessex, to anyone in difficulties in the water or on land would be minimal. However, unfortunately, we cannot provide that sort of service. There will inevitably be some delay for a helicopter coming from Lossiemouth,

  177
  Leuchars, Prestwick or wherever to a particular incident. Therefore, because the deployment of the search and rescue helicopters is primarily for military purposes, we try to ensure that we meet, as a minimum, the criteria laid down by the helicopter coverage group, which reports to the Department of Transport. Therefore, in any redeployment of our facilities—this was the case with the east and south coast redeployments we announced to the House several weeks ago—we have to consult comprehensively the Department of Transport. The Department made a decision about augmenting the military cover at Lee-on-Solent.
  I remind the House that many RAF stations do not have helicopter search and rescue facilities. Even some of the RAF stations close to the coast do not have such facilities. Several in East Anglia suggest themselves immediately. Ideally, we would have such helicopters at all stations but, obviously, we cannot.
  The review that is still in process—Ministers have yet to reach a decision—will take account of the factors that have been mentioned in the debate and the written representations received. I am well aware of the interest of the fisheries industries, the local authorities and recreational interests, including mountain rescue.
  178
  I take the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North and Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about low flying. It is something about which the public is concerned. The extent to which search and rescue facilities are provided in a particular region or country to a certain extent militates against the criticisms of low flying.
  I am also grateful for having been reminded that sea survival in the north of Scotland is perhaps a little less than off the Welsh coast in terms of the impact on military or civilian casualties. The purpose of the fundamental review that is under way is to improve helicopter coverage. We have at our disposal the dedicated personnel of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy—do not let us forget the Royal Navy—and the combination of Sea King and Wessex aircraft. The new Sea Kings arriving for service with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force enable us to augment the service, particularly with night-time cover.
  This has been a helpful debate. Everyone has praised search and rescue. When our decisions are announced I hope that the House will agree that coverage of this excellent service will have been enhanced.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Mother and Baby Units)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women in prison mother-and-baby units on the most recent convenient date had not previously served a custodial sentence; what were their ages; and for what offences they had been sentenced.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Forty three women in mother and baby units on 13 May had not previously served a custodial sentence. Their ages are shown in table 1. They received custodial sentences for a wide range of offences and in many cases they were sentenced for more than one offence. Table 2 lists the primary offence in each case.

  Table 1

  Age

  Number of women

  16

  1

  18

  4

  19

  3

  20

  4

  21

  1

  23

  7

  24

  2

  25

  7

  26

  4

  27

  1

  29

  1

  30

  1

  31

  2

  32

  2

  33

  1

  35

  1

  36

  1

  Total

  43

  Table 2

  Offence

  Number of women

  Wounding

  1

  Aiding and abetting rape

  1

  Robbery

  3

  Burglary

  3

  Shoplifting

  2

  Theft

  7

  Illegal importation of drugs

  13

  Conspiracy to smuggle drugs

  1

  Obtain by deception

  4

  Handling

  3

  Conspiracy

  2

  Fraud

  1

  Grievous bodily harm

  1

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

  1

  Total

  43

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current state of civil defence planning in the areas covered by the joint fire and civil defence authorities with particular reference to south Yorkshire, as evidenced by those authorities' submission in response to his Department's circular dated 30 October 1986, entitled "A planned programme of implementation"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The initial submissions in response to the circular were in the form of preparatory information on how the planning requirements of the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 would be met. These indicated that in general progress was being made in civil defence planning. In April 1988 county level authorities, including joint fire and civil defence authorities, were required to submit the first group of operational plans: these are now being considered.

  Broadcasting Standards Council
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his statement of 16 May,Official Report, column 685, if he will specify the period of time for which he expects the Broadcasting Standards Council to be a non-statutory body.

  Mr. Renton
  We intend to introduce legislation for the Broadcasting Standards Council in due course, by which time I hope the council will have established satisfactory working arrangements with the relevant broadcasting and other agencies.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many strip searches were carried out on inmates, both sentenced and remand, and on female visitors to(a) Holloway, (b) Styal and (c) Durham prisons during the first three months of 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Strip searching is a routine security measure in prison establishments to which both male and female inmates, including those on remand, are subject. Comprehensive records of strip searches are available only in respect of category A women prisoners, of whom there were three in Durham prison during the period in question. Details of the numbers of occasions on which these prisoners were strip searched were given in my replies to questions from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 16 February, at column 546, and 21 April, at columns 525–26.

  If there is reason to believe that a visitor intends to smuggle drugs or other contraband into an establishment, it is the normal practice to call in the police to investigate the matter. Information is not available centrally regarding the action taken by the police in such cases.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the results of the ethnic monitoring survey of probation clients will be published.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information from the survey, which relates to individual probation areas, has already been
  3
  given to those areas. The preparation of a full report on the survey has been delayed, but a report will be published as soon as possible.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. William Shelton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were found

  Offenders found guilty at all courts or cautioned for gross indecency with children by sex of victim

  England and Wales

  Number of offenders

  Offence description

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Gross indency:

  with boys

  123

  141

  129

  107

  117

  138

  122

  119

  with girls

  147

  139

  118

  138

  138

  145

  206

  172

  Mr. William Shelton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were found guilty of, or cautioned for, the offence of indecency between males, for each year from 1967 to 1987, showing how many offences were committed against boys aged less than 16 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information collected centrally does not identify those cases where the offence involved boys under the age of 16. Details of offenders found guilty or cautioned for all offences of indecency between males are published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which are in the Library. The most recent figures, covering the years 1977 to 1986, can be found in table 5.14 of the issue for 1986 (Cm. 233). Data for 1987 are not yet complete.

  Firearms
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish in the Official Report details of the response he has had from the Advertising Standards Authority on the nature of advertisements for the sale of firearms by mail order.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: The Advertising Standards Authority was not convinced that a statutory requirement of the sort proposed at Committee stage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill on 10 March was practicable or would meet the concern expressed. The authority is considering whether the British code of advertising practice covering weapon advertising generally can be strengthened in some way.

PRIME MINISTER

  Private Security Companies
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister how many meetings have taken place from 1980 to the current date between Government Ministers or officials and representatives of the KMS private security company; and on which occasions Major (retd.) David Walker of KMS was present.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the replies which have been given to the many questions on this subject.
  4
  guilty of, or cautioned for, the offence of gross indecency with children, broken down by sex of the children for each year from 1967 to 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is shown in the table for the years 1979 to 1986. Comparable data are not readily available for the years prior to 1979 and information for 1987 is not yet complete.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Statistics
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the share of the top 100 private sector companies in(a) manufacturing employment, (b) net manufacturing output and (c) net capital expenditure in 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information requested is presented in the following table:

  Share of total manufacturing activity accounted for by the top 100 private sector enterprises in manufacturing1

  Per cent.

  Employment

  Net output

  Net capital expenditure2

  1984

  32

  35

  38

  1985

  32

  35

  36

  1986

  33

  37

  38

  1 Defined in terms of their employment in manufacturing.

  2 Excluding leased assets.

  Source: Annual Census of Production.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many private sector manufacturers were declared bankrupt in(a) England and Wales and (b) Great Britain in each year since and including 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  The information that is available for insolvencies in manufacturing is given in the table:

  Bankruptcies1 England and Wales

  Company Liquidations2 England and Wales

  Company Liquidations2 Great Britain

  1979

  137

  1,039

  1,103

  1980

  143

  2,095

  2,190

  1981

  192

  2,676

  2,806

  1982

  208

  4,058

  4,217

  1983

  263

  4,171

  4,298

  1984

  387

  4,457

  4,599

  1985

  3295

  4,837

  4,981

  1986

  277

  4,776

  4,884

  1987

  4202

  3,579

  3,700

  1 Bankruptcy orders, receiving orders and deeds of arrangement.

  2 Compulsory plus creditors' voluntary liquidations.

  3 Not comparable with earlier years because of changes in legislation effective from October 1984 which have reduced the number of bankruptcies.

  4 January to September only.

  5
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how may private building contractors were declared bankrupt in(a) England and Wales and (b) Great Britain in 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Maude
  The information that is available for insolvencies in the construction industry is given in the table:

  Bankruptcies1 England and Wales

  Company Liquidations2 England and Wales

  Company Liquidations3 Great Britain

  1985

  788

  1,975

  2,069

  1986

  801

  1,914

  2,018

  1987

  3487

  1,447

  1,520

  1 Bankruptcy orders, receiving orders and deeds of arrangement.

  2 Compulsory plus creditors' voluntary arrangements.

  3 January—September only.

  Retail Sales
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many firms accounted for the upper half of retail sales in the United Kingdom in 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is provisionally estimated that the largest 88 individual companies accounted for one half of retail sales in Great Britain in 1986. No estimate is yet available for 1987.

  Goods (Distribution)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has about the distribution of(a) capital goods and (b) consumption goods imported from abroad by region of destination.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy with regard to dealing with

  Gross United Kingdom multilateral aid through EC to SADCC countries 1980–86

  £ thousand

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Angola

  110

  340

  240

  390

  1,510

  1,290

  —

  Botswana

  660

  740

  260

  330

  1,180

  500

  —

  Lesotho

  510

  760

  1,010

  850

  1,300

  1,340

  —

  Malawi

  2,300

  1,520

  1,620

  890

  2,510

  1,970

  —

  Mozambique

  780

  1,150

  610

  2,280

  3,690

  4,560

  —

  Swaziland

  860

  280

  300

  700

  1,070

  360

  —

  Tanzania

  2,810

  4,420

  4,500

  4,160

  5,520

  5,380

  —

  Zambia

  2,260

  3,000

  4,530

  1,290

  4,140

  5,220

  —

  Zimbabwe

  1,100

  380

  1,540

  1,590

  4,470

  700

  —

  Total

  11,390

  12,590

  14,610

  12,480

  25,390

  21,320

  20,000

  Note: Figures for 1979 are not available; 1986 figures are not yet available in detail.

  Source: ODA estimates using OECD statistics.

  Gross United Kingdom multilateral aid through EC to SADCC countries 1980–86 at 1987 prices £ thousand

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Angola

  170

  460

  300

  470

  1,730

  1,400

  —

  Botswana

  1,000

  1,000

  330

  390

  1,350

  540

  —

  Lesotho

  770

  1,030

  1,270

  1,020

  1,490

  1,450

  —

  Malawi

  3,470

  2,060

  2,040

  1,060

  2,880

  2,130

  —

  Mozambique

  1,180

  1,560

  770

  2,720

  4,230

  4,940

  —

  Swaziland

  1,300

  380

  380

  840

  1,230

  390

  —

  6
  those individuals and bodies in Wales who wish to communicate with his Department through the medium of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: It is the practice of my Department's Companies Registration Office, Cardiff to respond in the Welsh language: more generally, my Department communicates in the English language except where it is considered appropriate and practical to do otherwise.

  Action for Cities Programme
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the total expenditure by the Central Office of Information on the Government's action for cities programme for each month since its inception.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 18 May 1988]: The only significant expenditure incurred by the Central Office of Information was approximately £34,400 for the launch of the action for cties programme on 7 March. This represents a very small part of the Government's expenditure of approximately £3,000 million each year on inner cities programmes.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Development Aid
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list United Kingdom contributions to each of the member states of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference through national, Commonwealth and European Community action in each year from 1979 to 1987 inclusive(a) in cash and (b) in 1987 prices.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  For bilateral aid I refer the hon. Lady to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave her on 13 May, at column 250. Figures for Commonwealth aid are not readily available in the form requested. The United Kingdom share of European Community programmes is as follows:
  7

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Tanzania

  4,240

  5,980

  5,660

  4,970

  6,320

  5,820

  —

  Zambia

  3,410

  4,060

  5,700

  1,540

  4,740

  5,650

  —

  Zimbabwe

  1,660

  510

  1,940

  1,900

  5,120

  760

  —

  Total

  17,200

  17,040

  18,390

  14,910

  29,090

  23,080

  21,000

  Note: Figures for 1979 are not available; 1986 figures are not yet available in detail.

  Source: ODA estimates based on OECD statistics using 1987 GDP deflator.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the level of official development assistance in 1987.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have today informed the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that in 1987 net official development assistance as defined internationally was estimated to be £1,151 million. As a proportion of GNP it was equivalent to 0·28 per cent.

  The net official development assistance figure for the calendar year 1987 compares with a net public expenditure provision for overseas aid of £1,247 million in the financial year 1987–88. The figure of net official development assistance as a proportion of GNP for 1987 reflects the strong growth in the United Kingdom economy last year and the fact that expenditure in the calendar year 1987 was lower than expected as a result of an unusually high proportion of financial year 1987–88 expenditure falling in the quarter ending 31 March 1988.

  Increases in the aid programme announced in this year's public expenditure White Paper mean that aid is now planned to grow in real terms. The aid budget for this financial year is £70 million higher than for last year—an increase of 5·7 per cent., which is considerably in excess of the expected rate of inflation. The planned aid budgets for 1989–90 and 1990–91 provide for increases of £140 million and £185 million respectively over the budget for last year.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Power
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his policy towards the development of nuclear power in the light of the report and recommendations of the Trades Union Congress review committee on nuclear power, published on 3 May, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government's policy on the development of nuclear power is as stated in the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 17 December 1987 and in the White Paper "Privatising Electricity" (Cm. 322). I welcome the recognition given by the Trades Union Congress review committee to the importance of nuclear power.

  Uranium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has given permission for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for the import of Namibian uranium since May 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has imported no uranium from Namibia during this period.
  8
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether(a) the Central Electricity Generating Board, (b) the South of Scotland Electricity Board, (c) British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. or (d) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has sought permission and safeguards arrangements for the import of uranium from (i) Namibia and (ii) the Republic of South Africa, either directly or through a second or third country, since May 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Uranium for the United Kingdom's civil nuclear programme has not been imported from South Africa since 1973 or from Namibia since 1984. British Nuclear Fuels plc receives uranium ore concentrate from overseas customers for processing and re-export. The origin of such uranium is a matter for its customers who remain the owners of the material.

  All uranium imported into the United Kingdom for these purposes is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement.

  Mersey Barrage Co. Ltd.
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the visit by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), to Liverpool to hold talks with the Mersey Barrage Co. Ltd.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I visited Liverpool on Tuesday, 17 May, to make a joint announcement with the Mersey Barrage Company of a £1·3 million extension to studies of a possible Mersey barrage. The money will be used to finance further work on the engineering, economic and environmental aspects of the proposed barrage. Funding will be on a 50/50 basis between the Government and the Mersey Barrage Company.

  Whilst in Liverpool I also took the opportunity to meet members of the Mersey Enterprise Forum and representatives of the shipping and environmental groups whose interests are likely to be affected by a barrage construction.

  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list in the Official Report the designed generating capacity for each advanced gas-cooled reactor, the actual outputs currently being achieved, the reasons for any differences and details of the timetables and actions planned to rectify current operating difficulties.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These are operational matters for the Central Electricity Generating Board, and I have asked the chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about the future of the coal industry social welfare organisation in the light of the Government's plans to privatise the coal industry.
  9
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government have no present plans to privatise the coal industry. The future of the coal industry social welfare organisation is one of the issues that would need to be considered in any such plans.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans there are for the discharge of low-grade nuclear waste into the sea from nuclear power stations after June.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans to change the current system of regulating discharges by authorisations issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Commonhold Tenure
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the responses he proposes to make to the conclusions reached by the Law Commission in its report of July 1987 on commonhold tenure proposals, "Strata Title."

  The Attorney-General
  The working group report Cm. 179, to which my hon. Friend refers, makes far-reaching recommendations. A decision on implementation will be taken when these have been fully considered.

  School name

  Number on roll as at January 1988.

  Capacity

  Empty places

  Alston, Samuel King's

  93

  177

  84

  Appleby Grammar

  548

  540

  -8

  Aspatria, Beacon Hill

  298

  451

  153

  Barrow, Alfred Barrow

  545

  972

  427

  Barrow, Sixth Form College

  531

  491

  -40

  Barrow, Parkview

  1,175

  1,637

  462

  Barrow, St. Bernard's

  744

  737

  -7

  Barrow, Thorncliffe

  873

  1,267

  394

  Barrow, Walney

  773

  1,004

  231

  Brampton, William Howard

  879

  1,269

  390

  Cleator Moor, Ehenside

  454

  578

  124

  Carlisle, Harraby

  530

  1,120

  590

  Carlisle, Morton

  1,216

  1,467

  251

  Carlisle, Newman

  602

  657

  55

  Carlisle, St. Aidan's

  783

  1,243

  460

  Carlisle, Trinity

  1,662

  1,747

  85

  Cartmel Priory

  339

  443

  104

  Cockermouth

  984

  1,303

  319

  Coniston, John Ruskin

  224

  258

  34

  Dalston, Caldew

  1,009

  1,101

  92

  Dalston, Dowdales

  660

  821

  161

  Carlisle, Eden

  293

  232

  -61

  Egremont, Wyndham

  1,106

  1,618

  512

  Kirkbie Kendal

  966

  1,051

  85

  Kendal, Queen Katherine

  1,170

  1,288

  118

  Keswick

  763

  842

  79

  Kirkby Lonsdale Queen Elizabeth

  601

  721

  120

  Kirkby Stephen Grammar

  379

  469

  90

  Longtown, Lochinvar

  252

  399

  147

  Maryport, Netherhall

  964

  1,332

  368

  Millom

  737

  1090

  353

  Milnthorpe, Dallam

  565

  700

  135

  Penrith, Queen Elizabeth Grammar

  567

  629

  62

  Penrith, Ullswater

  1,156

  1,364

  208

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Horniman Museum
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has undertaken about the future of the Horniman museum after the proposed abolition of the Inner London education authority; and when he now expects to be able to announce firm proposals.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has concluded that, after April 1990, both the Horniman and Geffrye museums should be established as independent charitable trusts. To ensure the future of the two museums he proposes that, in addition to support they are able to raise from local authorities and the private sector, they should receive a grant, in the first instance, from the London Residuary Body, and in the longer-term from the museums and Galleries Commission. We now propose to discuss the details of these proposed arrangements with the museums, with ILEA and with the local authorities whose residents enjoy the services of the two museums.

  School Rolls (Cumbria)
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the most up-to-date figures for school rolls at secondary schools in Cumbria, together with the number of unused places at each school.

  Mr. Dunn
  The numbers on roll in secondary schools in Cumbria in January 1988, the capacities based on the DES work station and the number of empty places were as follows:
  11

  School name

  Number on roll as at January 1988.

  Capacity

  Empty places

  Sedbergh, Settlebeck High

  199

  218

  19

  Silloth, Sol way

  254

  335

  81

  Ulverston Victoria High

  1,442

  1,613

  171

  Whitehaven

  1,664

  2,032

  368

  Whitehaven, St. Benedict's

  834

  917

  83

  Windermere, The Lakes

  796

  922

  126

  Wigton, Nelson Thomlinson

  889

  1,080

  191

  Workington, St. Joseph's

  499

  589

  90

  Workington, Southfield

  1,026

  1,219

  193

  Workington, Stainburn

  874

  1,128

  254

  (Workington sixth form)

  121

  —

  -121

  Totals

  33,039

  41,071

  8,032

  The above figures were provided by Cumbria county council.

  Portage
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what plans he has to develop portage; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of families with young children who need portage but do not obtain it.

  Mr. Dunn
  It is the responsibility of local education authorities to provide portage. Over the five-year period from 1986/87 the Department will have provided in excess of £8 million through the education support grant scheme for the development of portage. Every local education authority wishing to participate in this scheme has been offered support by the Department. It is up to local education authorities to consider future support once the ESG scheme comes to an end and to determine the number of families who would benefit from portage.

  Universities and Polytechnics (Scientific Equipment)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the Advisory Board for the Research Council survey commissioned to look at scientific equipment in United Kingdom universities and polytechnics has been completed; when the Government expects to receive a copy of the results; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils expects to receive the report of this survey around the end of this year. My right hon. Friend and I await with interest the information which is being collected and the ABRC's advice on its implications.

  Open University
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current financial position of the Open University in terms of(a) the development of new courses, (b) current course maintenance and updating and (c) research.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Open University is now conducting a thorough reappraisal of its existing plans and forecasts. Its conclusions are to be discussed with the visiting committee, and the committee will report to my right hon. Friend later in the year.

  Medical and Biological Research
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of post-doctoral posts in medical and biological research remain unfilled at present.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken by his Department to improve the career structure of post-doctoral researchers in medicine and biology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The terms of individual research contracts and the career structures available to post-doctoral researchers are matters for the employing institutions. The Government are, however, considering the recommendations of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, contained in "A Strategy for the Science Base" calling for the more explicit management of research manpower in universities.

  Research Studentships
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications were received by the Medical Research Council for research studentships; what was the number awarded during the last year for which full figures are available; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Jackson
  The MRC receives applications for research studentship places from academic departments and its own establishments; individuals apply to the department or establishment for a place. The following table gives the number of places sought and the numbers awarded:

  Places sought

  Places awarded

  1978–79

  1,045

  268

  1979–80

  1,010

  275

  1980–81

  1,011

  242

  1981–82

  952

  243

  1982–83

  1,003

  283

  1983–84

  1,059

  280

  1984–85

  1,120

  259

  1985–86

  1,146

  184

  1986–87

  1,212

  213

  Burnage High School, Manchester
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of 9 May,Official Report, columns 14–15, if he has now received a copy of the Macdonald report on Burnage high school, Manchester, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has not yet received a copy of the published report from Manchester city council.

  Disturbed Children (Research)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those representations he has received concerning his Department's decision to withdraw funding from the proposed research project into children with emotional and behavioural difficulties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  No funds have been withdrawn, because no funds had been committed. The Department had been considering the possibility of commissioning a research project in this field and representations have been received from the three researchers whose proposals had been short-listed for final consideration. Priority is being given to the enquiry into disruptive children chaired by Lord Elton and further consideration will be given to the problems of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties in the light of the outcomes of the report.

  Civil Servants (Outside Activities)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many civil servants in his Department are also directors or consultants in(a) public liability companies, (b) companies limited by guarantee, (c) building societies, (d) other friendly societies and (e) commercial undertakings other than the above; and what rules or instructions govern these activities with particular reference to remuneration.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not available. Full-time officers are not allowed to accept any post in the management of any society, firm or company which requires attendance at any time during working hours. They should not undertake any outside activity which might impair their usefulness as public servants or conflict with the interests of their department.

  Records of such directorships as are held within these rules are not kept.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans as to announce a city technology college for(a) Doncaster, (b) South Yorkshire and (c) Scunthorpe.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There are at present no plans to make any such announcements.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 260, he has received any recent representations from Dixons Plc on the site of the proposed city technology college; and if he will make a statement.
  14
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has not himself had any contact with Dixons since May 13, but officials have had discussions. Dixons is considering a number of possible locations. It would be premature for me to make a statement while it is doing so. I understand that Dixons has recently emphatically confirmed its commitment to sponsorship of a CTC and its belief in the importance of the programme.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Religious Education
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what recent representations the Church Commissioners have received about the role of religious education in Church schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  None. The commissioners have no direct responsibility for religious education in Church schools, although they do have some indirect responsibilities through their support for some aspects of higher education.

  Property (Restrictions)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what restrictions the Church Commissioners place upon the use of property for which they have responsibility.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what restrictions the Church Commissioners place on the use of Church buildings for which they have responsibility.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what restrictions the Church Commissioners place on the use of Church buildings for which they have responsibility.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what representations the commissioners have received about the restrictions placed by them on the use of Church buildings for which they have responsibility.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners do not normally carry responsibility for church buildings when they are in use for worship. The restrictions which they place upon the use of property for which they do have responsibility depend upon its nature. For example, when a redundant church is put to another use, restrictive and other covenants are included to safeguard the use and fabric.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what account the commissioners take when they are consulted about the future use of redundant churches of the uses to which those buildings have previously been put.

  Mr. Alison
  Under the Pastoral Measure 1983 the commissioners must be satisfied that an alternative use
  15
  proposed for a redundant church is "suitable". The commissioners interpret this to mean a use which has planning permission and which is consonant with the former use of the building as a place of worship and also with the building's historic and architectural qualities.

SCOTLAND

  Youth Training
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many youth training scheme trainees are currently in employment in the Monklands district; and if he will list the employers with which they are placed together with the number of trainees at each employer.

  Mr. Lang
  At 16 May 1988, 1,184 young people living in Monklands district were participating in YTS. Of these, 75 have employed status.

  Information is not held centrally on placement providers and the number of trainees each has. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for male and female unemployment in the Paisley travel-to-work area; and if he will list these in the Official Report.

  Mr. Lang
  Paisley is contained within the Glasgow travel-to-work area. Figures showing the number of male and female unemployed claimants in the Glasgow travel-to-work area and for the Paisley parliamentary constituencies on 14 April 1988 (the latest date for which information is available) are shown in the table.

  Males

  Females

  Glasgow travel-to-work area

  71,589

  26,276

  Paisley North Parliamentary Constituency

  3,341

  1,487

  Paisley South Parliamentary Constituency

  3,297

  1,307

  This information is available in the Library.

  Cereal Seeds (Testing)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the suitability of testing of the distinctness, uniformity and stability of cereal seeds for use in Scotland being carried out at Cambridge, and if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the recent review of plant variety testing and seed certification systems.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no agronomic or scientific reasons why seed of new varieties of cereals for production in any part of the United Kingdom should not be tested for distinctness, uniformity and stability at a single suitable location. The testing of all cereal varieties is currently shared between centres at Cambridge and Edinburgh at both of which the work is carried out adequately.

  The United Kingdom Agriculture Ministers agreed that the report on the plant variety testing and seed certification systems in the United Kingdom should be published and copies made available for comment by interested
  16
  organisations. Ministers will decide in the light of those comments what action should be taken on the many recommendations contained in the report.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the projected percentage increases in health expenditure for 1988–89 and 1989–90 as corrected for the gross domestic product deflator.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Provision for the NHS in Scotland in 1988–89 is some £2,451 million. This represents an increase over the provisional outturn for 1987–88 of 0·5 per cent. after allowing for forecast GDP inflation. In 1989–90 expenditure is planned to rise to around £2,560 million, an increase of 0·6 per cent. over and above forecast GDP inflation for that year.

  These figures do not take into account the additional £92 million allocated to the health programme in Scotland, as a result of the Government's acceptance of the NHS pay review bodies' recommendations. This will raise the increase for 1988–89 over forecast GDP inflation from 0·5 per cent. to 4·2 per cent.

  Mountain Rescue
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding is to be given to mountain rescue teams to replace existing radio equipment following the allocation of second radio frequency to 158·650 megaherz.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Assistance with equipment, including radio equipment, may be given to mountain rescue teams by police authorities, whose expenditure in this respect, provided it complies with established criteria, is eligible for police grant at the rate of 51 per cent. Where appropriate, rescue teams, desirous of moving to the new frequency, may wish to discuss their particular needs with the relevant police force in the first instance.

  Chatelherault
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to reply to correspondence from Hamilton district council addressed to the historic buildings section of the Scottish Development Department, relating to a request for comments on the studies about Chatelherault.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department responded to the district council on 16 May 1988.

  Council House Sales (Hamilton)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to reply to correspondence from Hamilton district council regarding the sale of council-built houses at Barncluith, Hamilton.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department is seeking further information from the council to enable a decision to be reached on the council's proposals.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were(a) the categories and (b) the

  17
  numbers of industrial doses of drugs administered to members of each prison in Scotland in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No records are maintained centrally of the categories or of the number of doses of drugs administered to inmates in Scottish prisons and this information could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Superannuation Benefit
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his practice to recover an overpayment of superannuation benefit when the overpayment was made as a result of errors on the part of the supperannuation division.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes. Irrespective of the reasons for an overpayment of superannuation benefits, recovery is sought but care is always taken to avoid hardship.

  Animal Disease Research (Wildy Report)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recommendations contained in the Wildy report on the future of animal disease research as they affect Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Wildy report to the Agriculture Ministers and the chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council reviewed current arrangements for R and D in farm animal diseases and made recommendations on the use of resources in the future. In Scotland it covered work at the Moredun research institute, the Rowett research institute, the veterinary investigation service of Scottish agricultural colleges and the Edinburgh and Glasgow veterinary schools.

  The report makes no specific recommendations about the programmes of research in Scotland but the recommendation on the establishment of an overall United Kingdom executive body will need further consideration.

  Regional Councils
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of regional councils.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no specific plans at present affecting the future of regional councils.

  Health Boards (Rates)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what percentage of the health budget was spent on rates bills in each health board in the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the total rates bill for each hospital in the latest year for which figures are available;

  (3) what was (a) the total rates bill for each health board, in the latest year for which figures are available, and (b) the number of establishments this covers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not held centrally on the amount of contributions paid in lieu of rates in 18
  relation to individual premises. The following table shows the total of payments made by each health board in 1986–87 in lieu of rates and the proportion which this represents of their gross recurrent expenditure on hospital and community health services.

  Health board

  Payments in lieu of rates1

  Proportion which (a) represents of total recurrent expenditure on HCH services

  (a)

  (b)

  £ thousand

  percentage

  Argyll and Clyde

  4,160

  4·1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2,467

  3·2

  Borders

  413

  1·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,010

  2·7

  Fife

  2,736

  3·7

  Forth Valley

  1,936

  2·8

  Grampian

  3,955

  3·0

  Greater Glasgow

  13,832

  3·6

  Highland

  1,491

  2·7

  Lanarkshire

  3,203

  2·7

  Lothian

  6,145

  2·6

  Orkney

  60

  1·5

  Shetland

  159

  3·2

  Tayside

  5,068

  3·7

  Western Isles

  182

  2·4

  Total

  46,817

  3·2

  1 Principally relating to hospital premises and administrative and community health buildings.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each local authority the revised levels of community charge from April 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  The levels of community charge for 1989–90 will be set by individual local authorities and will reflect their own spending decisions.

  Domestic Rates
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rate bill payable per household for 1988–89 in each local authority area in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The table shows estimates of the average domestic rate bill in each local authority area in 1988–89 calculated using the latest data available. The figures do not reflect the rate reduction of 5·6p proposed for Lothian regional council:

  Average domestic rate bill

  £

  Berwickshire

  355

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  358

  Roxburgh

  356

  Tweeddale

  379

  Clackmannan

  450

  Falkirk

  427

  Stirling

  585

  Annandale and Eskdale

  382

  Nithsdale

  398

  Stewartry

  399

  Wigtown

  355

  Dunfermline

  465

  Kirkcaldy

  459

  North East Fife

  525

  19

  £

  Aberdeen City

  432

  Banff and Buchan

  346

  Gordon

  393

  Kincardine and Deeside

  398

  Moray

  337

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  381

  Caithness

  313

  Inverness

  428

  Lochaber

  359

  Nairn

  423

  Ross and Cromarty

  365

  Skye and Lochalsh

  253

  Sutherland

  248

  East Lothian

  631

  Edinburgh City

  640

  Midlothian

  592

  West Lothian

  547

  Argyll and Bute

  446

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  887

  Clydebank

  468

  Clydesdale

  507

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  546

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  431

  Cunninghame

  514

  Dumbarton

  584

  East Kilbride

  570

  Eastwood

  791

  Glasgow City

  506

  Hamilton

  553

  Inverclyde

  515

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  485

  Kyle and Carrick

  579

  Monklands

  523

  Motherwell

  502

  Renfrew

  541

  Strathkelvin

  607

  Angus

  426

  Dundee City

  486

  Perth and Kinross

  465

  Orkney

  194

  Shetland

  392

  Western Isles

  226

  AVERAGE SCOTLAND

  500

  Forestry
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the forestry planting in Caithness and Sutherland undertaken by(a) the Forestry Commission and (b) Fountain Forestry has been of broadleaved trees in each year since 1 April 1981; and what proportion of the further planting proposals accepted for grant aid by him in the statement of 25 January will be of native broadleaved trees.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: The information for Forestry Commission planting is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Percentage of Total Area planted with Broadleaves

  1982

  0·5

  1983

  0·6

  1984

  0·7

  1985

  1·2

  1986

  0·4

  1987

  4·0

  1988

  5·2

  20
  Precise figures in respect of broadleaved planting undertaken by Fountain Forestry are not readily available. However, since the Government's broadleaves policy statement of July 1985, the Forestry Commission requires that all private planting schemes should contain at least 5 per cent. broadleaves, wherever it is practicable to do so.

  The planting prescriptions in the cases referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend in his statement of 25 January 1988 allow, on average, for over 5 per cent. broadleaves. Most of these broadleaves will be of native species.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names and areas of those parcels of land which were(a) submitted and (b) approved for forestry grant aid in the Dornoch forest district in 1987–88.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Cases submitted for grant aid

  Area scheduled for new planting or restocking within a 5 year period (hectares)

  Cnoc Bacach

  28·0

  Achany

  49·2

  Glencalvie Black Bank

  27·5

  Langwell

  1·0

  Dhonnadh

  92·4

  Jubilee Wood Shinside

  17·9

  Langwell Wood

  4·0

  Achany 2

  146·6

  Loubcroy

  202·0

  Forsie Farm

  315·9

  Tothelgill Wood

  28·7

  Coille a Chailleach

  10·7

  Coille a Fhithich

  5·5

  Dubh Chlais

  5·4

  The Brig

  131·0

  The Dale

  4·0

  Stroupster West

  79·5

  Bhaird

  2·6

  Crubag

  78·2

  Fasach

  8·6

  Leir

  2·2

  Talaheel

  249·0

  Casan

  10·0

  Imriche

  8·9

  Fideag

  0·4

  Coille nam Breac

  12·3

  Crocaich

  2·1

  Cutting

  94·8

  Loch Dubh

  21·3

  Thearaig

  5·3

  Abhainn Bheag

  5·1

  Gleann nam Beist

  4·3

  The Gunn

  19·3

  Mackay A Tuath

  9·9

  Bad Coille

  9·5

  Coille Buidhe

  146·2

  Coille nan Clach

  59·5

  Coille Fada

  23·6

  Coille Meadhonnach

  20·0

  Coille an Reidhe

  105·3

  Coille an Sealbach

  110·3

  Coille a Saobhidhe

  11·7

  Allton

  5·3

  Cnocan

  3·8

  Astle

  116·4

  Wester Shebster

  77·9

  Loubcroy 2

  1,057·6

  Loubcroy 3

  471·8

  Dunbeath Castle

  0·7

  Netherton

  19·6

  21

  Cases submitted for grant aid

  Area scheduled for new planting or restocking within a 5 year period

  (hectares)

  Widows Banks

  155·3

  Lochinver

  7·5

  Dunrobin

  14·0

  Old Calder

  35·2

  Langwell

  19·8

  Camster

  133·9

  Forss

  1·3

  North Fideag

  34·9

  Rowans

  132·3

  Forsinain North

  150·6

  Forsinain South

  59·1

  Glebeland at Farr

  38·6

  Bardacleay

  99·8

  Houstry

  53·0

  Acharole

  343·3

  Doira Chatha East

  50·2

  Doira Chatha West

  51·3

  Lower Camster

  107·5

  Craigy Call

  107·5

  Smerrie

  107·6

  Brabster Farm

  55·1

  Cnoc Bacach

  7·3

  Dunrobin Sutherland Trust

  2·7

  Sutherland Estate

  1·0

  Glencalvie

  12·6

  Amat Birchwoods

  6·8

  Dunbeath Castle Policy Woodlands

  2·9

  Langwell Glac An Sgreadain

  0·75

  Western Fearn

  3·7

  Lochinver Estate

  4·0

  Lybster Mains

  0·8

  Dalnawillan

  1·3

  Langwell Braemore Keepers

  0·9

  Langwell Coille Nah Easan

  3·3

  Dunrobin

  38·5

  Cases approved for grant aid

  Area scheduled for new planting or restocking within a 5 year period

  (hectares)

  Limekiln & Whitewell

  1,071·9

  Skitten

  0·9

  Tothelgill Wood

  28·7

  South Fideag

  0·4

  West Shebster

  77·9

  Old Calder

  35·2

  Camster

  132·9

  North Fideag

  34·9

  Lower Camster

  107·5

  Craigy-Call Camster

  107·5

  Smerrie Camster

  107·6

  3 Newport, Berriedale

  0·6

  Dunbeath Castle

  0·7

  Forss Plantation

  1·3

  Torrish

  155·8

  Clach Geala

  9·2

  Sciberscross

  790·0

  Navidale

  2·3

  Strathy East

  16·5

  Cnoc Bacach

  28·0

  Dhonnadh

  92·4

  Jubilee Wood

  17·9

  Langwell Wood (Ext.)

  4·0

  Coille A Chailleach

  10·7

  Coille A Fhithich

  5·5

  Dubh Chlais

  5·4

  The Brig

  131·0

  Bhaird

  2·6

  Fasach

  8·6

  Leir

  2·2

  22

  Cases approved for grant aid

  Area scheduled for new planting or restocking within a 5 year period

  (hectares)

  Casan

  10·0

  Imriche

  8·9

  Coille Nam Breac

  12·3

  Crocaich

  2·1

  Thearaig

  5·3

  Achainn Bheag

  5·1

  Gleann Nam Beist

  4·3

  The Gunn

  19·3

  Mackay A Tuath

  9·9

  Bad Coille

  9·5

  Coille A Saobhaidhe

  11·7

  Cnocan

  3·8

  Forsinain North

  150·6

  Forsinain South

  59·1

  Invercharron

  50·3

  Strathcarron (pt)

  279·7

  Doir A Chatha East

  50·2

  Doir A Chatha West

  51·3

  Loubcroy

  6·4

  Braelangwell

  486·8

  Lairg Estate

  1·5

  Ben Bhraggie

  41·0

  Glencalvie

  30·1

  Achany

  49·2

  Langwell

  1·0

  Achany (2)

  146·6

  Loubcroy (1)

  202·0

  Dunrobin

  14·0

  Craggans Woods

  8·8

  Strathmore Lodge Woods

  0·7

  Torigil

  2·9

  Ackergill Woods

  0·8

  Dunbeath Castle Pol

  2·9

  Lyster Mains

  0·8

  Dalnawillan

  1·3

  Airdens Innish

  0·8

  Migdale Mill Farm

  1·6

  Cnoc Bacach

  9·8

  Dunrobin Castle

  2·7

  Sutherland Estates

  1·0

  Amat Birchwood

  6·8

  Loch Dhu

  1·5

  Glac An Sgreadain

  0·7

  Dunrobin

  36·5

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Cash Dispensers
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will make an assessment of the practicability of installing a cash dispensing facility within the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am not aware that there is sufficient demand for such an assessment. The Post Office does, of course, already provide a cheque encashment service for Members and all staff working within the Palace of Westminster.

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what accommodation is provided within the House for briefings of the press by(a) the Prime Minister's press secretary and (b) other Government press officers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No accommodation is provided in the House specifically for this purpose. The Government
  23
  information service briefs the parliamentary lobby journalists at their invitation in their room in the Palace of Westminster.

  Private Members' Bills
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps further to review the arrangements for the consideration of private Members' Bills; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr.Wakeham
  No.

  Visits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will review the current arrangements for visits, tours and Gallery tickets for the House with a view to ensuring that Members can arrange a full visit by one telephone call to one Officer of the House.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to his written question on Monday 15 February at column 451.

  Abortion (Amendment) Bill
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received seeking the provision of additional parliamentary time for proceedings on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have received a very large number of letters from members of the general public on this subject, and representations, inside and outside the House, from a number of hon. Members.

  Telephones (Cleaning)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will issue advice to every right hon. and hon. Member, member of staff and Officer of the House that they are personally responsible for cleaning their own telephones; and if he will give details of how they can obtain the cleaning sachets provided for this purpose.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Information concerning the cleaning of telephones and the availability of cleaning materials for this purpose is published periodically in the "All-Party Whip".

  Members' Tea Room
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what instructions have been given to the engineers responsible for the refrigeration unit in the salad bar in the Members' Tea Room to ensure that the temperature meets the basic food requirements.

  Mr. Wakeham
  That action be taken to adjust its thermostatic control.

  Toilets
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he intends to provide rubbish bins in each of the ladies' toilets in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Many of the ladies' lavatories are provided with waste bins. I understand that where they do 24
  not already exist, the Serjeant at Arms is making arrangements for them to be provided. If the hon. Lady has a particular complaint in mind, may I suggest that in the first instance she writes to the Serjeant at Arms.

  Members' Dining Room
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council by what authority it is possible for tables in the Members' Dining Room to be reserved.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. Mr. Wakeham: Tables in the Members' Dining Room may not be reserved.

  Food Hygiene
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what advice is available to catering staff in the House on food handling; what percentage and how many of the existing staff have attended food handling courses; and what checks are made to ensure that food handled and cooked at the Palace of Westminster complies with the standards of food hygiene and inspection implemented by environmental health officers in food premises where Crown immunity does not apply.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Advice to staff on food handling is available from and given as necessary by heads of section and the management of the Refreshment Department. No record is kept of the numbers who have attended food handling courses; but the Department does comply with the standards of hygiene laid down in the Food Hygiene Regulations made under the Food Act 1984.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Laos
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to improve current arrangements for diplomatic representation in Laos; and if he will describe the present arrangements.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 24 March. Present arrangements work well and we have no plans at present to amend them.

  Swiss Law Reports
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the embassy in Berne receives copies of Swiss law reports on commercial cases.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No, but it is open to British missions to request copies of reports as appropriate.

  Disarmament
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has considered the proposal put forward in Stockholm by the six nations initiative leaders for a multilateral verification system within the United Nations; if he will support the proposal at the United Nations special session on disarmament; and if he will make a statement.
  25
  Mr. Mellor
  We consider that verification is an essential element of any arms control agreement. Verification is most effective when provisons for it are specifically tailored to a particular treaty. Detailed verification arrangements are thus best left to the parties to a treaty. We would therefore question the value of a United Nations verification agency.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made in the past six months to the Soviet ambassador concerning violations of human rights in the Soviet Union; and what plans he has for further such representations in the near future.

  Mr. Mellor
  We take every suitable opportunity to raise human rights violations with the Soviet authorities in Moscow and with the Soviet ambassador here. My right hon. and learned Friend did so during his talks with Mr. Shevardnadze in February. We shall be making further representations during bilateral human rights talks at official level in June.

  Nicaragua
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he or one of his Ministers intends to visit Nicaragua.

  Mr. Mellor
  No ministerial visits to Nicaragua are currently planned.

  Military Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's response to the proposals of the Warsaw treaty countries for a one or two-year moratorium on the growth of military spending of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw treaty states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  A freeze on the military spending of the two alliances would do nothing to eliminate the conventional imbalance in Europe that so favours the Warsaw pact and which lies at the heart of the region's security problems. Nor would it reduce the proportion of Soviet spending on defence which, according to our estimates, is in the order of 15 per cent. of GNP, as compared to 5 per cent. in the United Kingdom.

  Overseas Information Department
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many persons employed in each year in the overseas information department were previously employed in the information research department;

  (2) what are the terms of reference of the overseas information department;

  (3) how many members of staff are employed by the overseas information department; what are their responsibilities; and what are the department and section titles.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office overseas information department ceased to exist in 1980.26
  Its terms of reference were to provide guidance and background briefing on matters of general concern affecting Government policies. To research details on an annual basis of the redeployment of former information research department employees would involve disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Materials
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any of the three instances of violations of the declared purpose clause covering the safeguards of nuclear materials under Euratom treaty article 84, cited by Euratom safeguards director Wilhelm Gmelin in evidence before the Bundestag Enquiry Committee into nuclear materials in Bonn on 28 April, referred to nuclear materials in United Kingdom installations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  None of the three violations mentioned by Mr. Gmelin referred to nuclear materials in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to seek an early meeting with his counterpart in the Federal Republic of Germany to initiate a European Economic Community inquiry into the disappearance of nuclear materials in transit between European Economic Community states.

  Mr. Mellor
  No; the European Commission has already undertaken an investigation into the transfer of nuclear materials within the European Community. In addition, the European Parliament has set up a special committee of inquiry which we expect to report by the end of June.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during the next meeting of European Community Foreign Affairs Ministers, he will raise the matter of coal imports which come originally from South Africa or Namibia but are traded in Holland, Belgium or other European countries and its effects on the United Kingdom's coal mining industry.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No.

  PLO Official (Murder)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the answer of 28 April,Official Report, column 232, he will specify the information on which Her Majesty's Government base the suspicions of Israeli involvement in the murder of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation official Abu Iliad in Tunis; what attempt Her Majesty's Government have made to establish proof of such Israeli involvement; what weight he attaches in this regard to press briefings by Israeli Government sources acknowledging responsibility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Israeli spokesmen have neither confirmed nor denied widely reported allegations of Israeli involvement in the murder of Abu Jihad. The Israeli authorities have offered no comment in reply to our own inquiries on this matter.

  Information Research Department
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), to the hon. Member for Brent, East, on 3 May concerning the information research department.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am arranging for a copy of my hon. Friend's letter of 3 May to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Central America
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific measures will be proposed by Her Majesty's Government in the light of the adoption by consensus of United Nations General Assembly resolution A/42/L/49 regarding a special plan of economic co-operation for Central America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  As foreseen in the economic communique issued following the San José IV meeting in Hamburg, we shall be discussing with our European partners ways in which the substantial EC aid to the region can be co-ordinated with the objectives of the plan, and with the action of other countries and international organisations 0which are taking part in this effort. The Community's participation in various specific measures under the plan will be agreed jointly with the countries of the central American isthmus.

  Private Security Companies
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what payments have been made by his Department in each year from 1980 to date to Zeus and Lynx private security companies; and what was the nature of the work undertaken by these companies.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has employed Zeus but not the Lynx security company. Detailed information on this subject is not kept in a centralised form and can only be researched at disproportionate cost. Available records show that Zeus Security Guards Ltd. were employed on access control duties in Whitehall six years ago and on two further occasions in 1983.

  Ms. Susan Wescott
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State of Foreign Commonwealth Affairs if he has any information about the arrest of Ms. Susan Wescott, a British passport-holder, by the South African authorities on 8 May near Johannesburg; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are aware of the arrest, together with three other persons, of Mrs. Susan Donnelly (née Wescott) in South Africa on 8 May 1988. Her Majesty's consul at Johannesburg saw her on 16 May. No formal charges have yet been laid. Mrs. Donnelly's brother has engaged a lawyer to represent her.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training Programme
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to ensure that assessing agents on the employment training programme are aware of any particular needs of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls
  Training agents will be expected to demonstrate that they are able to deliver a full range of assessment and occuptional guidance services completely and professionally. This will include arrangements for participants who have special needs, including disabilities. In addition, the facilities of the employment rehabilitation service will be available to training agents to offer specialist or extended assessment to appropriate participants where the need is identified.

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how long he expects the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to take to complete its task.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The National Council for Vocational Qualifications was given the target date of 1991 to have the first four levels of its new system fully operational. It is making good progress, but whether it can complete this task by 1991 depends on the response of awarding bodies and employers, in particular on how quickly the leading industry bodies can set the standards on which national vocational qualifications must be based.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a breakdown of(a) female enrolment and (b) total enrolment in each youth training scheme course since 1985.

  Mr. John Cope
  There are currently around 5,000 individual schemes operating in YTS. At the end of March 1988 there were 389,100 young people in training on YTS, of whom 43 per cent. were young women. This proportion of young women has remained constant since 1985.

  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mines and Quarries Act 1954
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether he is able to publish the proposed regulations which will replace the Mines and Quarries Act 1954;

  (2) whether he is able to publish, in conjunction with the Health and Safety Commission, the codes of practice which are to replace the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Fifteen sets of regulations, each with a supporting approved code of practice, will replace the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and associated legislation. Five sets of proposed regulations together with the relevant proposed codes of practice have already been published. The subjects to be covered in the programme are:
  29

  Administration of Mines and Quarries

  *Electricity in Mines

  *Electricity in Quarries

  Explosives in Coal Mines

  Explosives in Miscellaneous Mines

  *Explosives in Quarries

  Health and Welfare Machinery

  *Mines (Safety of Exit)

  Respirable Dust

  *Shafts and Winding Special Hazards Support

  Tips and Structures Transport

  Ventilation and Firedamp Drainage

  *Subjects on which proposals have been published.

  New Businesses
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new businesses were started during 1987.

  Mr. Cope
  I regret that the information requested is not available. However, during 1986, the latest year for which we have figures, there was a net increase of 29,000 businesses registered for VAT.

  Civil Servants (Outside Activities)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil servants in his Department are also directors or consultants in(a) public liability companies, (b) companies limited by guarantee, (c) building societies, (d) other friendly societies and (e) commercial undertakings other than the above; and what rules or instructions govern these activities with particular reference to remuneration.

  Mr. Lee
  Comprehensive information is not available about the number of staff in the Department of Employment group who are also directors or consultants in outside organisations because there is no requirement to report these activities unless there is a real or potential conflict with the Department's business.

  Staff who engage in such activities are bound by the general rules of conduct that apply to all civil servants. They must not put their private interests before their duty, engage in activities which might involve a conflict of interest with the Department's business, or use their official position to further their private interests. They are not precluded from receiving remuneration. They are not permitted to accept directorships in any company holding a contract with the Department, except as a Government nominee or with express permission.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cereals
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements his Department is making for estimating the size of the cereals harvest in England and Wales in the current year.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I made it clear in October last year that, in the light of that year's experience and similar difficulties in 1985, I proposed to give serious consideration as to whether, on balance, we were right to release a harvest estimate before we had the initial results from our farm-based production survey.
  30
  Following discussions between my officials and representatives of the cereals industry, I have now decided to end the late August survey of yields in sample parishes and, weather permitting, to bring forward the more reliable cereal production survey so that its provisional results can be published in the last week of September. Further surveys of the level of cereals production will follow in the course of the year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Portavogie (Health Services)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which addresses in Portavogie National Health Service general medical practitioners hold their individual clinics; what accommodation facilities are used at each of these locations; and why there are no health and medical clinics in Portavogie.

  Mr. Needham
  The addresses are 2 and 5a Springfield road. The facilities at each consist of one room for waiting and another for consultation. Baby and chiropody clinics are held in Portavogie technical college and physiotherapy and occupational therapy services are provided on a domiciliary basis when needed.

  Irish Teacher's Certificate
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what percentage of student teachers graduated from teacher training colleges with teastas muinteora gaeilge/Irish teacher's certificate in each year of its existence;

  (2) why was the teastas muinteora gaeilge/lrish teacher's certificate discontinued.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This certificate has not been awarded by Northern Ireland teacher training colleges for at least 40 years.

  The required information is not available.

  Irish Language
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what qualification the Department of Education recognises as suitable for teaching Irish in primary schools;

  (2) why the Ministry of Education ceased to recognise certificates of competence to teach Irish in primary schools issued by voluntary Irish language colleges in Northern Ireland; and if he will reconsider establishing an arrangement whereby voluntary Irish language colleges would issue certificates of competence to teach Irish and the Department would give them full recognition.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Recognition as a qualified teacher in primary schools is dependent upon the successful completion of an approved course of teacher training. The award of recognition is not based on a single specific subject.

  It is a matter for the individual school authorities when appointing teachers to take account of any relevant specialisms.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what in-service training opportunities are available to primary teachers with no Irish who wish to teach Irish.
  31
  Dr. Mawhinney
  St. Mary's college is currently offering a part-time BEd in-service degree course with Celtic as a subject option. Proficiency in Irish, while desirable is not a prerequisite for entry to the course.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on the support of Irish in the education system in Northern Ireland in each academic year from 1980 to 1987, inclusive.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Details of the cost of supporting any subject in the curriculum, including Irish, are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will produce a discussion document on the role of Irish in the school curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: I have no plans to produce such a document.

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any proposals to improve the staying on rate in education after the age of 16 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have no proposals aimed specifically at improving the staying on rate in Northern Ireland secondary schools which is already significantly higher than the average for schools in England and Wales.

  Adult Training Centre, Glasvey
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he now expects to replace the present adult training centre at Glasvey, Ballykelly.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 May 1988]: This is a matter for the Western Health and Social Services Board.

  I understand that the board is aware of the deficiencies in the accommodation at Glasvey ATC and hopes to provide a new 75-place unit at Limavady as soon as possible.

  Road Works, Comber
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the present roadworks at High street, Comber, will be completed; what form of advance notice was given to occupiers in the High street; and if he will make a statement about the proposed Comber bypass.

  Table 1

  Appeals to County Court

  Total

  Settled out of court

  Findings upheld

  Findings overturned

  Result unknown

  Appeals by respondent under section 28(2)

  32

  18

  5

  9

  —

  Appeals by complainant under section 28(3)

  19

  3

  5

  1

  10

  Table 2

  Appeals by respondents against FEA findings of discrimination under section 28(2) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976

  Date appeals lodged

  Organisation involved

  Outcome of appeal (findings upheld or overturned)

  November 1977

  Civil Service Commission

  Overturned

  32
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 May 1988]: The roadworks at High street, Comber, are due to be completed by the end of October 1988.

  A letter giving details of the scheme and proposed traffic diversion was issued to all affected residents prior to the roadworks commencing.

  The proposed Comber bypass extension is included in the Department of the Environment's 6 to 15 years major works programme. The priority of the scheme within the overall programme is currently being reviewed.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many subscribers there have been in Northern Ireland to the register for equal opportunity employers and organisations for each quarter since 19 June 1986; and how many of such subscribers have been removed from the register each quarter since this date.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 20 April 1988]: The number of subscribers in each quarter is as follows:

  Quarter ended

  Numbers of subscribers

  31 July 1986 (from 19 June 1986 only)

  8,112

  31 October 1986

  8,270

  31 January 1987

  8,456

  31 April 1987

  8,667

  31 July 1987

  8,834

  31 October 1987

  9,031

  31 January 1988

  9,218

  30 April 1988

  9,438

  No subscribers have been removed from the register in this period.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number and type of cases referred under the Fair Employment Act (NI) 1976 to the county court, showing the number and type of findings upheld or overturned by the court, and the employers concerned; and if he will place in the Library copies of the judgments in each case.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 20 April 1988]: The tables provide details of cases heard by the county court. It is not normal practice to place judgments in the Library but they may be obtained on request from the county court, Courthouse, Crumlin road, Belfast.

  Date appeals lodged

  Organisation involved

  Outcome of appeal (findings upheld or overturned)

  December 1978

  Craigavon Borough Council

  1Overturned

  January 1979

  Newry and Mourne District Council

  Overturned

  May 1979

  Craigavon Borough Council

  Overturned

  September 1981

  Armagh District Council

  2 Upheld

  33

  Date appeals lodged

  Organisation involved

  Outcome of appeal (findings upheld or overturned)

  November 1981

  Lisburn Borough Council

  Upheld

  December 1984

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  Overturned

  December 1984

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  Overturned

  April 1985

  Derry City Council

  Overturned

  April 1985

  Northern Ireland Electricity Service

  3 Overturned

  February 1986

  Department of the Environment (NI)

  Overturned

  November 1986

  The Village Inn

  Upheld

  November 1986

  The Village Inn

  Upheld

  May 1987

  Ministry of Defence

  Upheld

  1 Original FEA findings upheld by Court of Appeal.

  2 Original FEA findings overturned by Court of Appeal.

  3 FEA appeal pending at Court of Appeal.

  Table 3

  Appeals by complainants against FEA findings of no discrimination under section 28(3) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976

  Date appeal lodged

  Respondent Organisation

  Outcome of appeal (findings upheld or overturned)

  June 1979

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Upheld

  July 1984

  Department of the Environment

  Upheld

  Respondent

  Date of settlement

  Date of payment

  Amount £

  Food, Drink and Tobacco

  22 September 1980

  7 October 1980

  750

  Textile and Clothing

  14 January 1982

  3 March 1982

  750

  Construction

  6 June 1981

  10 March 1982

  500

  Manufacturing

  11 June 1982

  18 July 1982

  5,500

  Local Authority

  6 August 1982

  26 August 1982

  1,000

  Other Employer

  14 September 1982

  16 September 1982

  550

  Health and Social Services Board

  27 August 1982

  22 September 1982

  4,350

  Local Authority

  30 November 1982

  22 December 1982

  3,000

  Other Public Body

  19 October 1983

  14 November 1983

  1,500

  Food, Drink and Tobacco

  25 October 1983

  17 November 1983

  1,500

  Local Authority

  20 October 1983

  2 December 1983

  1,500

  Other Public Body

  24 October 1983

  22 December 1983

  2,500

  Health and Social Services Board

  25 January 1984

  9 March 1984

  1,400

  Vocational Organisation

  7 March 1984

  3 May 1984

  10,000

  Education and Library Board

  8 June 1984

  12 October 1984

  1,500

  Vocational Organisation

  26 October 1984

  15 November 1984

  250

  Vocational Organisation

  26 October 1984

  15 November 1984

  250

  Vocational Organisation

  26 October 1984

  15 November 1984

  250

  Distributive

  6 December 1984

  14 December 1984

  350

  Other Employer

  1 May 1985

  2 May 1985

  1,000

  Food, Drink and Tobacco

  8 November 1985

  20 December 1985

  2,100

  Education and Library Board

  Not available

  11 April 1986

  2,000

  Engineering

  Not available

  15 October 1986

  507·50

  Engineering

  Not available

  15 October 1986

  510

  Other Employer

  Not available

  30 October 1986

  4,900

  Education and Library Board

  Not available

  18 November 1986

  4,759·04

  Education and Library Board

  Not available

  12 May 1987

  3,279·48

  Local Authority

  13 May 1987

  17 June 1987

  1,500

  Other Employer

  13 May 1987

  23 June 1987

  1,892·28

  Education and Library Board

  Not available

  13 October 1987

  2,035·26

  Local Authority

  Not available

  12 November 1987

  3,425·75

  Manufacturing

  16 November 1987

  19 November 1987

  2,350

  Manufacturing

  Not available

  28 November 1987

  5,000

  Construction

  Not available

  22 December 1987

  3,500

  Engineering

  5 January 1988

  5 January 1988

  2,000

  Health and Social Services Board

  Not available

  3 February 1988

  1,673·80

  Health and Social Services Board

  Not available

  29 March 1988

  4,000

  Other Employer

  Not available

  8 April 1988

  1,000

  Education and Library Board

  Not available

  14 April 1988

  3,541·09

  34

  Date appeal lodged

  Respondent Organisation

  Outcome of appeal (findings upheld or o verturned)

  October 1984

  F. A. Wellworth Co. Limited

  Upheld

  January 1985

  Anglo Irish Meats

  Overturned

  November 1985

  Short Brothers PLC

  Upheld

  April 1986

  NI Postal and Telecommunications Board

  Upheld

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which employers have made a compensatory payment to a complainant under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976; what have been the sums involved in each case, the original date of each settlement, the eventual date of payment from 1976 to the present.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 20 April 1988]: This is a matter for the chairman of the Fair Employment Agency. I understand that there have been 39 cases, the details of which are in the table. It would not be in the best interests of the work of the agency to release the names of parties involved in cases under section 24 of the Act.
  35
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints under section 24 of the Fair Employment Act (NI) 1976 of unlawful discrimination, the Fair Employment Agency has declined to pursue; and what reasons have been given in each case.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 20 April 1988]: I understand from the chairman of the Fair Employment Agency that the agency has declined to pursue 100 complaints under section 24 of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1976 for the reasons specified:

  Number

  (1) Adjudged frivolous

  34

  (2) Outside the time limits

  48

  (3) Outside the scope of the legislation

  12

  (4) Considered by another statutory body

  1

  (5) Failure by complainant to provide sufficient information

  5

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available the results of the Fair Employment Agency for Northern Ireland's monitoring of recruitment to the Belfast Telegraph since 1983.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 20 April 1988]: It would not be in the best interests of the work of the Fair Employment Agency to publish full details of the information obtained from its monitoring or recruitment by specific employers, but a summary of such information in respect of the Belfast Telegraph if contained in the 11th annual report of the agency, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Firearms
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of incidents in which firearms, previously in the possession of the security forces have been used by paramilitary groups.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: Weapons formerly in the possession of the security forces which have been stolen or otherwise improperly acquired could well fall into the hands of paramilitary groups and be used for terrorist purposes. However, only if these weapons are subsequently recovered can they be linked forensically with particular acts of terrorism. To provide details of all such cases would involve disproportionate costs and some details may be confidential, but if there are particular cases that the hon. Member has in mind and he could give me the details, I will look into them.

  Sexual Assaults
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available as to the current investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary into alleged sexual assaults on a 13-year-old boy at the Gleneyre and Burnside children's home; what information relating to such alleged assaults was made available to Sir George Terry during his investigation into Kincora and other children's homes in 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: The RUC fully investigated allegations of misconduct concerning
  36
  children in care in Gleneyre and Burnside children's homes, Craigavon. The papers were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) who directed no prosecution. However, in recent months, following further information received, this inquiry has been reopened and is currently under investigation by the RUC. I cannot comment on the information available to the police in the context of their current investigation.

  As far as the information available to Sir George Terry is concerned, I cannot add to what is said in his report (a copy of which is in the Library).

  Psychological Warfare
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes there have been in policy on psychological operations and psychological warfare as implemented by the security forces in Northern Ireland from 1979 to the current date.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: It is not the general practice to comment on detailed matters of security policy.

  Mr. Fred Holroyd
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as to why he has refused Mr. Fred Holroyd's request for the return of photographic material supplied by him to the police.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: No. I understand that the RUC has already made its reasons known to Mr. Holroyd.

  Kidnapping
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if any members of the security forces have paid civilians to kidnap individuals from the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: I am not aware of any such payments.

  Information Units
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was(a) the role, (b) the composition and (c) the years of operation of (i) the information policy unit, (ii) the information liaison unit, and (iii) the information planning unit, from 1971 to the current date.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: Various groups and committees of officials have met; often on an ad-hoc basis, to co-ordinate the work of the information departments within the security forces and the Northern Ireland Office. Detailed records have not been kept on their role and composition because it was judged neither necessary nor cost effective to do so.

  Murder Investigations
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as to the stage at which investigations have reached into the murders of
  37
  (a) Royal Ulster Constabulary Sergeant Joseph Campbell in February 1977, (b) Mr. John Francis Green in January 1975 and (c) Mr. John Turnley in 1980, and the shootings of (i) Captain William Black of the Ulster Defence Regiment in 1973, and (ii) the journalist Mr. Jim Campbell in 1984.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]:No.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new jobs have been created in the north-west during the last 12 months, as a result of contracts for his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Estimates of the number of jobs in the north-west related to new contracts placed by MOD in a particular year could not be derived except at disproportionate cost. In 1985/86, about 23,000 people are estimated to have been employed on work for my Department placed with main contractors in the north-west.

  British Military Advisory Team (Bangladesh)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of the British military advisory team in Bangladesh.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The team assists in the direction and teaching of staff courses for middle ranking officers at the Bangladesh defence services command and staff college in Dhaka.

  Tucano
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flying hours have been carried out on the Tucano aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Some 37.5 hours have been flown at the aircraft and armament experimental establishment, Boscombe Down, and some 200 hours have been flown on production aircraft at Short Bros.

  United States Aircraft
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United States very low frequency communication aircraft have ever been used, and are currently being used to provide communications with the United Kindom's Polaris fleet.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No.

  Glen Garry Transmitter
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Glen Garry extremely low frequency transmitter in Scotland is expected to be in operation; and if he will make statement on its progress.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is too early to say when the extremely low frequency transmitter at Glen Garry Forest is likely to be in operation. A notice of proposed development will probably not be submitted to the Highland regional council before the autumn and the start of construction work is unlikely before 1990.

  Trident
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the new Trident missile submarine programme is being complemented by improvements to the capabilities of existing submarine command, control and communications systems;

  (2) if the new Trident missile submarine programme is being complemented by efforts to reduce the vulnerability of elements of the existing submarine command, control and communications system;

  (3) if the new Trident submarine programme is being complemented by any new submarine command, control and communications system.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Communications system for Trident submarines will be fully effective on its introduction into service in the mid 1990s. I am unable to comment further for reasons of security.

  Submarines (Sabotage)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to increase manpower available to protect the submarine command, control and communications system from sabotage, in the light of lessons of the Brave Defender exercise in 1985.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Exercise Brave Defender was designed to test the plans for ground defence of vital United Kingdom installations and these have been amended where necessary in the light of post-exercise analysis. For good reasons of security, it is not our practice to discuss the details of such plans.

  Fylingdales Early Warning System
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the upgraded ballistic missile early warning system radar at Fylingdales moor will give the United Kingdom more advanced warning of nuclear attack.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The purpose of the modernisation of the ballistic missile early warning system at RAF Fylingdales is not to improve warning time—Official Report, 22 May 1986, columns 263–64—although it may marginally do so.

  Military Installations
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those military installations in Wales which are regarded as being support facilities rather than operational military units; and whether his Department has any plans for the closure or privatisation of these facilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are the following support facilities in Wales:

  RNADS Milford Haven and Trecwn, where a study has been carried out into the future roles and tasks of the depots. A consultative document will be issued in due course.

  RNSD Llangennech where a decision to close the facilities was announced in 1981. Other support facilities are located at HM Mooring and Marine Depot, Pembroke Dock, 39 District Workshop, Bridgend, RAC Sennybridge, ASU Brecon, RAF Sealand or RAF St. Athan. There are no plans for their closure or privatisation.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the criteria which objectively determine when an aircraft accident is a major or a minor one.

  Mr. Freeman
  Damage to aircraft is categorised as follows:

  Incidents

  (a) Category 1—the damage is repairable on site by established first line personnel.1

  (b) Category 2—the damage is repairable on site by established second line personnel.2

  Accidents

  (c) Category 3—the damage is repairable on site but is beyond unit technical resources. Assistance from a repair and salvage unit or civilian contractor is required.

  (d) Category 4—the damage is not repairable on site. The aircraft must be removed to an established depot or civilian repair organisation.

  (e) Category 5—the aircraft is damaged beyond repair or is missing, or, in accordance with current Ministry of Defence policy, is not worth repairing.

  A minor accident is defined as one where the aircraft damage is classifed as category 3. A major accident is defined as one where the aircraft damage is either category 4 or 5.

  1 First line personnel conduct before flight, after flight and turnround servicing including minor component changes.

  2 Second line conduct deeper servicing, including major component changes and structural repair.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what advice or instructions have been issued to servicemen and their families living in his Department's accommodation in Scotland with regard to the completion of any inquiry form issued by registration officers in connection with the community charge in Scotland;

  (2) what advice or instruction has been issued to servicemen and their families living in his Department's accommodation in Scotland with regard to (a) registration under the Abolition of Domestic Rates &c. (Scotland) Act 1987 and (b) payment of a community charge to the relevant local authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  Service personnel and their families living in public accommodation in Scotland have been instructed to comply with the normal legal requirement to complete community charge registration inquiry forms and return them to registration officers, and advised of their liability to pay the community charge in the area of their sole or main residence.

  Educational Institutions
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list and explain the basis on which educational institutions in the United Kingdom and abroad have been in receipt of funding from his Department from 1979 to the current date.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The MOD directly funds six defence lectureships at British universities and makes use of university and other higher educational facilities and courses to meet educational and training requirements. The majority of Ministry of Defence expenditure with educational institutions in the United Kingdom is, however, through research agreements and contracts 40
  placed on behalf of the defence research establishments. In addition, grants for work of relevance to defence are made under collaborative arrangements with the research councils, and the MOD and the Science and Engineering Research Council co-fund awards to certain students who are jointly supervised by their university and defence research establishments. Involvement with educational institutions overseas is minimal. All activities are in support of the defence programme.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) to the hon. Member for Brent, East on 18 April, about Mr. Colin Wallace and related matters.

  Mr. Freeman
  The text of my letter was as follows:"Thank you for your letter of 22 March. I can confirm that Mr. Wallace was granted a commission as a part-time member of the UDR in the rank of second lieutenant and granted the acting rank of captain with effect from 18 January 1972. His resignation of this commission took effect from 14 November 1975. As an acting captain, he would have been paid as a captain for all military duties carried out with the UDR, would have been entitled to wear the rank badges of a UDR captain, and in the course of his duties would have been addressed by the rank of "Captain"; all this is in accordance with normal Army practice. My reply to your Parliamentary Question of course referred to his substantive rank.
  It has not been possible to trace the memorandum to which you refer in your letter, and I cannot therefore comment upon it. There are no records available of what duties Mr. Wallace carried out with the UDR. I understand that Mr. Brian Parker was an Information Officer based at HQ UDR. and that he was responsible to the Commander UDR for public relations and all press matters affecting the UDR.
  You ask for assurances on a number of points. I am aware of no evidence whatsoever that explosives were supplied by a member or members of the UDR for the bombings in the Irish Republic on 17 May 1974; or that any serving member or members of the UDR were involved in the murder of John Francis Green or the bombing of a public house in Silverbridge; or that military intelligence personnel have ever supplied weapons or explosives to civilians for unlawful use in Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic; or that Robert Jackson has ever had any connections with military intelligence authorities."

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a decision was taken to deploy air-launched Cruise missiles on(a) North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and (b) Royal Air Force aircraft.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There are no plans to deploy air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) on any aircraft in Europe. ALCMs are deployed on strategic bombers of the United States air force. In his 1985 Montebello implementation proposals, SACEUR called for, inter alia, the deployment of a tactical air to surface missile (TASM); no decisions have yet been taken on how best to meet this requirement.

  Security Companies
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments have been made by his
  41
  Department in each year from 1980 to date to Zeus and Lynx private security companies; and what was the nature of the work undertaken by these companies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am not aware that the MOD has had any dealings with either of the companies quoted.

  Military Buildings, Woolwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of his efforts to preserve military buildings of historic interest in the Woolwich area.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: The Historic Military Buildings Committee visited Royal
  42
  Arsenal west and Connaught barracks on 14 January and had useful discussions about the options available for dealing with historic buildings at both sites. It has been decided to dispose of Connaught barracks once the remaining occupants have been relocated, and in formulating plans for disposal we shall be seeking to ensure that the historic interest and character of the site are respected. No decisions have yet been taken about the future location of the directorate general of quality assurance. However, I expect to outline our proposals for the vacant historic buildings at Royal Arsenal West not directly affected by any decision on the future location of the directorate general of quality assurance before the summer recess.

WALES

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on housing standards in the rural areas of Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The 1986 Welsh house condition survey shows that there have been significant improvements in the condition of Welsh housing. It does also highlight the problem areas. We will use the survey results to direct resources where they are most needed.

  National Museum
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what corrective measures have been taken in the light of the 15th report from the Public Accounts Committee, House of Commons Paper No. 38, to ensure that responsibility for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of public funds has been discharged in relation to the national museum of Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Measures to ensure the proper discharge of the Department's sponsorship responsibility for the national museum of Wales are being taken as described in the Treasury Minute published on 28 October 1987 (in response to the Fifteenth Report from the Public Accounts Committee). The financial management and policy review has been completed and the consultants' recommendations are in the process of being implemented. Action is also being taken in response to the internal audit report. A revised financial memorandum is now in operation. Corporate planning is being developed. There is close liaison between the Department and the museum on all these matters, and improved monitoring arrangements have been implemented by the Department.

  Farming Unions
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the farming unions in Wales; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I last met representatives of the National Farmers Union (Wales) on Wednesday 30 March and the Farmers Union of Wales on Tuesday 10 May. A full range of issues of concern to the unions was discussed.

  A55 (Signposting)
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy on signposting on the A55 of tourist attractions in Rhyl and Prestatyn and on the costs and future maintenance of the signs.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  To be eligible for signing from a trunk road an attraction must have over 25,000 visitors a year, be within 20 miles of the nearest junction, have adequate parking and be open for 50 days or more a year. My officials have recently written to Rhuddlan borough council agreeing to signs for Rhyl and Prestatyn at the A55/A525 junction.

  It is our policy that the full costs of tourist attraction signs, including on-costs such as maintenance, should be paid by the operators of attractions.

  Benefits
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the impact of recent changes in housing benefit and rate rebates on people in Wales who were previously in receipt of a 100 per cent. rate rebate.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is primarily a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Services. He has made clear in his recent announcement that the combination of changes in housing benefits and other allowances will mean that overall around nine out of 10 recipients of income-related benefits will have either gained or have no change in their cash benefits.

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

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

  Housing Starts
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many housing starts were made in the public sector in Wales during the last year for which full figures are available.

  Mr. Grist
  1,924 public sector dwellings were started in Wales during 1987.

  Manpower Services Commission Training Programme
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many agencies in Wales have so far declared that they will discontinue their agencies under the new Manpower Services Commission training programme which replaces the Manpower Services Commission community programme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Local Manpower Services Commission offices in Wales have recently written to potential training providers in their areas inviting them to indicate by 6 June if they intend to take part in employment training. I understand the initial response has been very favourable but full details will not be available until the consultation is complete.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the work to date of the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

  Mr. Grist
  During its first year the corporation has carried forward further technical, financial and ecological studies on the barrage proposal; it has also undertaken some significant environmental projects, commenced on a programme of acquiring strategically important land and buildings, and completed a study of the strategy for regenerating its designated area. That study will be the subject of extensive local consultation. A copy of the consultants' report will shortly be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sheep
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he discussed the state of the sheep sector in Wales during his recent meeting with representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Yes. When I last met representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales we discussed a wide range of agricultural matters including the state of the sheep sector.

  Housing
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on housing conditions in(a) Cynon Valley and (b) Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Grist
  The findings of our 1986 Welsh house condition survey show that significant improvements have been made in the condition of the Welsh housing stock but in a few areas much remains to be done. The Cynon Valley stands out as having a large proportion of unfit dwellings, many of which are in need of major repairs. I am disappointed that the significant improvements made in some other areas have not been mirrored in the Cynon Valley. I am, however, pleased that the borough council has now accepted the need for a strategic approach and has published a housing strategy. My officials are to meet the authority shortly and will discuss the approach they propose.

  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next hopes to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters he hopes to discuss.

  1981–82

  1983–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Current prices £ million

  41·375

  38·357

  44·849

  32·827

  23·750

  22·038

  1985–86 prices £ million

  51·348

  44·440

  49·627

  34·788

  23·750

  21·341

  £ percentage share of United Kingdom gross domestic product

  0·019

  0·016

  0·017

  0·012

  0·008

  0·007

  Windscale Fire
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what estimates he has of the numbers of people to have developed acute myeloid leukaemia in the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd as a likely consequence of the effects of the Windscale fire of 1957; and if he will make a statement:

  (2) what work has been carried out to ascertain the effects on the health of the population of north Wales of the Windscale fire of 1957; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I am advised that the level of radioactivity in Gwynedd and Clwyd as a result of the 1957 Windscale fire would have been too low to have had any detectable effect on the incidence of myeloid leukaemia in those counties. For this reason no epidemiological studies of the effects of the fire on the health of the population of north Wales have been carried out.

  Synthetic Index
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the European
  46
  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have no plans at present to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board although I am, of course, in touch with the board about its plans as these affect the Principality.

  Planning Appeals
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average time required for decisions in planning appeals; and what progress has been made in reducing the time taken over such appeals, during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Grist
  In the month of March 1988 inspectors' decisions were issued on 17 appeals which went to inquiry and 68 dealt with by the written method. Median times for these were 32 weeks and 19 weeks, respectively. For March 1987 the comparable figures were nine inquiry cases and 57 written representation cases with medians of 33 weeks and 22 weeks. Average times are not recorded by the Department.

  Council House Building
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure on local authority housebuilding for Wales for each year since, and including, 1979 to 1987 in terms of (i) current prices, (ii) 1986 prices and (iii) share of gross domestic prod uct.

  Mr. Grist
  Estimated capital expenditure outturn on housebuilding by Welsh local authorities is available only for the years shown:

  Commission concerning the way in which the synthetic index which ranks the regions of Europe in order of their problems is calculated with regard to Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Government's view that the synthetic index was flawed has been made clear from the outset and a statement to that effect was made at the regional policy committee meeting in April 1987 In putting forward the Welsh case concerning the review of the structural funds, my officials have made detailed submissions pointing to the shortcomings of the index.

  Integrated Operations Programme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made with regard to the application by Dyfed, Powys and Gwynedd county councils to the European Community for an integrated operations programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The integrated operations programme for Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys is under active comsideration in the European Commission and I hope that a decision will be reached shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions (Holding Answers)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many holding answers have been given to parliamentary questions for priority written answer to the Welsh Office since 25 April.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Thirty-one.

  Greencroft Hostel, Deeside
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the proposed closure of Greencroft hostel, Deeside, Clwyd, for the mentally handicapped; if he will meet the parent membership of Mencap, Deeside to discuss with them the care of their sons and daughters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The hostel is the responsibility of the Clwyd social services authority and we have received no representations in respect of it.

  Patient Treatment Statistics
  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of patient treatment in Welsh hospitals consisted of re-admission in the five years 1982 to 1987.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on re-admission to National Health Service hospitals and units is available only in the case of mental illness and mental handicap, for which the latest data are given in the following table:

  Re-admissions as a percentage of total admissions

  Year

  Mental illness hospitals or units

  Mental handicap hospitals or units

  1982

  66·5

  90·5

  1983

  68·2

  95·6

  1984

  69·3

  95·7

  1985

  71·1

  96·9

  1986

  73·3

  98·2

  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the statistics for hospital patient treatments in Wales includes re-admission of patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Statistics for in-patient treatment in National Health Service hospitals in Wales are collected upon discharge. Consequently the emphasis is on the current diagnosis and treatment and not the previous history of the patient. Data about the number of re-admissions are not collected centrally other than in the specialties of mental illness and mental handicap.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 18 May, whether the £27·41 million for nurses' pay is to be paid out of the existing Welsh Office budget.

  Mr. Grist
  The resources to be provided to district health authorities to meet the estimated additional costs of the nurses' pay award this year will come from non-recurrent funds made available to the Department from the contingency fund. Provision for future years will be determined in the course of drawing up spending plans for 1989–90 and subsequent years.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) of 10 May,Official Report, column 72–3, he will give the average domestic rate bill payable per household for 1988–89 in each local authority area in Wales and the initial safety-netted community charge payable.

  Mr. Grist
  Illustrative figures are given in the following table. The figures shown for each district area include the county council and community council precepts. Each county figure is the average of the total precepts of all the councils in that county area.

  Average domestic rate bill per household and initial safety-netted community charge per adult for each Welsh district 1988–89

  Average Domestic Rate Bill per household

  Initial Safety Netted Community Charge

  £

  £

  (1)

  (2)

  Alyn and Deeside

  352

  176

  Colwyn

  351

  198

  Delyn

  344

  176

  Glyndwr

  287

  155

  Rhuddlan

  339

  170

  Wrexham Maelor

  313

  162

  Carmarthen

  243

  123

  Ceredigion

  257

  136

  Dinefwr

  213

  110

  Llanelli

  262

  137

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  239

  126

  South Pembrokeshire

  280

  152

  Blaenau Gwent

  221

  116

  Islwyn

  249

  127

  Monmouth

  340

  167

  Newport

  349

  185

  Torfaen

  297

  154

  Aberconwy

  324

  173

  Arfon

  222

  129

  Dwyfor

  247

  160

  Meirionnydd

  246

  158

  Ynys Môn

  279

  154

  Cynon Valley

  200

  108

  Merthyr Tydfil

  235

  124

  Ogwr

  308

  151

  Rhondda

  159

  85

  Rhymney Valley

  274

  139

  Taff Ely

  289

  145

  Brecknock

  255

  131

  Montgomeryshire

  236

  138

  Radnor

  237

  135

  Cardiff

  354

  179

  Vale of Glamorgan

  343

  166

  Port Talbot

  296

  154

  Lliw Valley

  274

  142

  Neath

  298

  154

  Swansea

  381

  192

  Clwyd

  331

  172

  Dyfed

  250

  131

  Gwent

  300

  154

  Gwynedd

  266

  154

  Mid Glamorgan

  253

  129

  Powys

  243

  131

  South Glamorgan

  350

  175

  West Glamorgan

  335

  172

  Total Wales

  286

  150

  (1) These figures are provisional, and will be updated in due course with better information which has now been received from all local authorities. No allowance has been made for the transitional safety-net arrangements. The calculations are based on present needs assessments which are under review.
  49
  (2) Average rate bills per household are on a basis comparable with the community charge figures and exclude any use of balances. Households are defined, for this purpose, as domestic hereditaments.

  Assisted Consultancies
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications have been received from companies in Wales for assisted consultancies under the enterprise initiative.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Up to 30 April there had been 230 applications. This amounts to 4·8 per cent. of the total applications from all companies which I am pleased to say is higher than the proportion of VAT registered companies which are in Wales (4·4 per cent.).

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what change took place in the numbers of(a) unemployed and (b) employed in Wales in the four years to July 1987.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: The available information is as follows:

  ( Thousands at mid June)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Unemployed claimants1

  163

  173

  174

  151

  Employees in employment

  886

  877

  861

  863

  Self employed

  144

  146

  154

  148

  Source: Department of Employment

  1 Because of a change in the compilation of the unemployment statistics unadjusted figures from February 1986 are not directly comparable with earlier figures.

  Latest figures show a further decrease of 11,000 for unemployed claimants (unadjusted, April 1988) an increase of 700 for employees in employment (December 1987).

  The current unemployment figure is now the lowest since 1981.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to prohibit any information collected for tax purposes being disclosed to a community charge officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  With a few statutory exceptions which would not be relevant in this instance, the Inland Revenue is not permitted, under the law as it now stands, to disclose to a third party information about a taxpayer's affairs without his express consent. The present rule would apply in the case of a community charge officer. My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce legislation to change this position.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider methods of encouraging workplace nursery places.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is for individual employers to decide what child care support is appropriate for their staff.

  Self-employed Workers
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) 714 and (b) 715 certificates were issued or refused during 1987 to self-employed workers.

  Mr. Lawson
  In the 1987 calendar year 232,539 714 exemption certificates were issued and 13,070 applications were refused. 715 vouchers—which must be tendered to contractors in return for gross payment—are issued to those who hold valid exemption certificates. The vouchers come in books of 25 and 415,283 books were issued during 1987.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether manpower or other constraints impose any limitation on the ability of Inland Revenue officials to deal with the growing number of self-employed workers.

  Mr. Lawson
  No. The Revenue's resources are decided on a basis which takes account of the growth of the numbers of self employed.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases in which employed or self-employed status was in dispute came to the attention of Inland Revenue officials in 1987.

  Mr. Lawson
  The Inland Revenue and Department of Health and Social Security introduced new procedures in April 1987 to help those who were uncertain of their employment status. Each local tax and DHSS office now has a designated officer responsible for advice and decisions on employment status. A decision made by one Department will be accepted by the other provided all the relevant facts were accurately and clearly given at the time and the circumstances remain the same.

  Since those new arrangements were introduced the designated officers in tax offices have handled some 15,000 inquiries and decisions on employment status. The n umber of these cases in which a decision was disputed is not known. Normally any dispute would be resolved in the course of further discussions with the tax office; but if agreement cannot be reached the taxpayer can appeal to the general commissioners (the independent local appeal body). During the same period only 22 cases directly involving employment status disputes were heard by the general commissioners.

  Schedule D Accounts
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made with the computerisation of Inland Revenue schedule D accounts.

  Mr. Lawson
  Computerisation of schedule D assessing was introduced by the Inland Revenue in two of its 15 regions in April 1987. This proved to be a successful pilot exercise and in April of this year, on schedule, the system was introduced nationally.

  External Financing
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the 1981 Ryrie guidelines on external financing by nationalised industries and similar organisations.

  Mr. Major
  The Ryrie rules are an appendix to the Treasury paper entitled "Private Finance in Public Expenditure" which I placed in the Library of the House on 18 February. (Official Report, column 724 refers).

  Building Societies
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of(a) registered building societies and (b) building societies authorised to accept shares and deposits at the end of 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Lilley
  The following table shows the number of building societies registered and the number of those societies which are also authorised in the United Kingdom at the end of the years shown.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Number of Building Societies:

  Registered

  171

  151

  137

  Authorised to accept shares and deposits

  153

  137

  124

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the share as a percentage of gross domestic product of(a) general Government expenditure and (b)general Government expenditure on goods and services in 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Major
  The following table shows general Government expenditure and general Government expenditure on goods and services as a percentage of gross domestic product:

  Percentage

  1985–86

  1986–87

  General Government expenditure

  43¾

  42¾

  General Government expenditure on goods and services

  23

  22¾

  Gross National Product
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the gross national product for the United Kingdom in 1987.

  Mr. Major
  Provisional estimates suggest that in 1987 gross national product, at current market prices and based on the average measure, was £419·9 billion.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government have any plans to allow the Central Office of Information to expand its activities in advertising or otherwise publicising Government services, programmes or any other information on BBC radio and television; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have nothing to add to the answer my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 2 December 1987, at column 543, which applies to radio as well as television.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number and subject of commercials planned by the Central Office of Information over the period until the end of June.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 18 May 1988]: The number and sbject of TV commercials used in Government
  52
  advertising campaigns is a matter for departmental Ministers, who draw on COI's experience to advise on their publicity requirements.

  VAT
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the regulations to implement the VAT annual accounting scheme under section 11(1) of the Finance Act 1987 will be laid before the House.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Value Added Tax (Annual Accounting) Regulations 1988 have been made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise on 16 May 1988 and are being laid before the House today, to come into force on 1 July 1988. This follows a consultation exercise with trade and professional bodies initiated by Customs and Excise, which is now complete.

  Taxes
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the manner of his reply on 19 April,Official Report, columns 417–18, he will publish a table showing the proportion of gross income paid in income tax, national insurance contributions, domestic rates, and other indirect taxes by (a) a single person, (b) a married couple with one earner and (c) a married man with a non-earning wife and two children, at half, one, one and a half, two, five and 10 times average male earnings in 1988–89; and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on 17 May, at columns 423–30.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the manner of his reply given on 29 February,Official Report, columns 443–45, he will update and publish the table detailing the breakdown on the costs or yields of reinstating the 1978–79 tax regime, taking the 1988–89 tax base.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: The information is in the table.

  Reductions in income tax liabilities in 1988–89 compared with the indexed 1978–79 tax regime

  Source of income tax reduction(-) increase (+)

  Amount

  £ million

  Increase in personal allowances

  -5,190

  Abolition of reduced rate band

  +2,970

  Decrease in basic rate

  -11,820

  Increase in higher rate threshold

  -400

  Abolition of higher rates above 40 per cent.

  -4,410

  Abolition of investment income surcharge

  -1,140

  Total

  -20,000

  In the table, the effect of each change has been calculated on the assumption that each of the previous changes has already been made. The figures are based on the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes projected to 1988–89 and are therefore provisional.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a distributional analysis of all income tax reductions since 1979 taking the gains to the top 1 per cent., top 2 to 5 per

  53
  cent., 6 to 10 per cent., top 11 to 20 per cent., top 21 to 30 per cent., top 31 to 50 per cent. and bottom 50 per cent giving the number of tax units for each group, the reduction in income tax for each group compared with 1978–79, and the average per tax unit, in the manner of his reply on 24 July 1987, Official Report, columns 566–67.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: The tables show the latest estimates of reductions in income tax liabilities at 1988–89 income levels of the

  Reductions in income tax liabilities in 1988–89 compared with 1978–79 indexed tax regime

  Point of income distribution in 1988–891

  Number of units2 paying tax in 1988–89

  Reduction in tax

  Average3 reduction in income tax compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime

  millions

  £ billion

  £ per year

  Top 1 per cent.

  ·21

  4·7

  22,680

  Top 2 to 5 per cent.

  ·84

  2·8

  3,350

  Top 6 to 10 per cent.

  1·0

  1·8

  1,770

  Top 11 to 20 per cent.

  2·1

  2·6

  1,220

  Top 21 to 30 per cent.

  2·1

  1·9

  910

  Top 31 to 50 per cent.

  4·2

  2·8

  680

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  10·5

  3·4

  290

  All

  20·9

  20·0

  910

  1 Based on 20,900,000 single people and married couples expected to pay tax in 1988–89 and excluding 1,100,000 who would pay tax undei the revalorised 1978–79 regime.

  2 All information is in terms of tax units, ie married couples are counted as one and their incomes combined.

  3 Based on taxpayers expected to pay tax under a revalorised 1978–79 regime.

  PAYE (Overpayments)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to ensure that interest is paid to businesses and organisations whose pay-as-you-earn returns upon checking reveal that overpayments have been made.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: Clause 120 of the current Finance Bill proposes amendments to section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which will pave the way for payment of interest on repayments of pay-as-you-earn tax to employers made more than one year after the end of the tax year concerned. This change will not come into effect until the necessary computer support is in place, which will

  Higher rate taxpaying units

  Total income tax liability

  Region

  Number

  As per cent, of total taxpaying units

  All taxpaying units

  Higher rate tax-paying units

  000s

  Per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  North

  30

  2·7

  1,870

  280

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  55

  3·3

  2,900

  530

  North West

  75

  3·5

  3,750

  680

  East Midlands

  40

  3·0

  2,490

  460

  West Midlands

  60

  3·2

  3,040

  590

  East Anglia

  35

  4·8

  1,400

  370

  South East

  480

  7·2

  15,700

  5,500

  South West

  70

  4·4

  2,930

  700

  Wales

  30

  3·4

  1,440

  270

  Scotland

  75

  4·3

  3,420

  730

  Northern Ireland

  20

  4·0

  760

  160

  54
  1988–89 income tax regime compared with an indexed 1978–79 regime. The comparison thus allows for budgetary changes in tax rates, thresholds and allowances but not for any change in the definition of the tax base. The 1978–79 allowances and threshold have been indexed in line with the increase in the retail prices index between December 1977 and December 1987. As child tax allowances were being phased out in 1978–79 they have been excluded from the comparison.

  not be before 1992. A general interest charge on late payments of pay-as-you-earn by employers will be introduced at the same time.

  Higher Rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of taxpayers liable to tax at the higher rate as a percentage of total taxpayers region by region; and what will be the total tax gain in cash terms for each region.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: The latest information available by region relates to 1985–86. In the table, married couples are counted as one unit, members of Her Majesty's forces and the Merchant Navy are excluded, and tax liability is measured before allowing for mortgage interest relief at basic rate given at source.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy with regard to dealing with individuals and bodies in Wales who wish to communicate with his Department through the medium of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Peter Brooke
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: When the need arises for interpretation or translation from another language the Treasury either uses a member of its own staff proficient in the language concerned or if necessary calls on the specialist resources in other departments, for example the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, we are not aware of any occasions so far where it has been necessary to communicate in Welsh.

  Firearms
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firearms have been seized by customs officials annually over the past five years; and how many of these weapons have subsequently been claimed by their owners.

  Mr. Peter Lilley
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: The number of firearms seized by Customs during the five years 1983 to 1987 are given in the table:

  Year

  Firearms

  Shotguns

  Other

  Ammunition (Rounds)

  1983

  1,003

  5

  122

  7,998

  1984

  172

  12

  142

  14,908

  1985

  263

  19

  245

  13,069

  1986

  310

  24

  317

  10,363

  1987

  215

  3

  578

  11,829

  Records of the number of owners subsequently claiming release of seized weapons are only kept at individual ports and airports and could not be collated centrally except at disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  Car Phones
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has made of the road safety factor arising from the use of car phones by drivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None.

  We fully recognise the risks involved in using hand-held telephones on the move. That is why the revised "Highway Code" now says hand-held microphones or telephone handsets should not be used when driving.

  Legislation places clear responsibility on all drivers to have proper control of their vehicles at all times. Drivers who can afford car telephones, can afford models which do not have to be held.

  London Airspace
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to how many times in the last year the helilanes into London airspace have been closed without warning to those using them.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority says that advance warning is given where possible by 56
  means of a notice to airmen (NOTAM). Detailed information for the period 1 January 1988 to 23 April 1988 indicates that advance notice was given in each of the 22 closures that occurred during that period.

  A17 (Sutton Bridge)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to warn the public about the closure of Sutton bridge on the A17; and whether he will make a statement about the number of times the bridge is to be closed in the future and their duration.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Since refurbishment began in October 1987, advance notice of closures, one-way working, and height restrictions have been given by local weekly and daily press, on local television and radio, and in the motoring press. In the case of the complete closures over two weekends in April, publicity included details of alternative routes. These were also signed for motorists.

  Two-way working across the bridge was restored on 22 May. It will be maintained throughout the summer months. An announcement will be made shortly.

  It will be necessary to revert to one-way working in the autumn. Complete closures of the bridge from then until the end of the contract may again be needed from time to time. The public will be informed in advance.

  In addition, the bridge is closed to road traffic from time to time to permit the passage of vessels to and from the port of Wishbech. These and other short closures associated with the bridge alterations cannot be predicted in advance. Every effort is made to keep inconvenience to motorists and the local public to a minimum.

  Motor Cycles (Noise)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent representations he has received on noise emissions from motor cycles; and whether he expects to bring forward any further controls;

  (2) what recent representations he has received on noise nuisance from motor cycle engines; and whether he has any plans to seek to amend the legislation on pollution as a consequence.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department regularly receives letters about motor cycle noise. Some complain about the nuisance it causes. Few complain that the regulations we propose to introduce will be too stringent.

  We are currently consulting interested parties on draft regulations made under the Motor Cycle Noise Act. These will control the quality of replacement silencers and exhaust systems for motor cycles when they are offered for sale.

  We are also preparing regulations to implement the stricter noise limits for motor cycles contained in Community directive 87/56/EEC.

  King's Cross Inquiry
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the action list submitted by London Underground to the King's Cross inquiry indicating (i) which programmes have been implemented, which planned and which considered, (ii) which of these items had previously been considered prior to that fire and
  57
  the reasons for non-implementation of that stage and (iii) which items had been suggested prior to the fire by outside bodies as needing action and the source of the suggestion.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  These are matters for the board of London Regional Transport as falling within its statutory responsibilities.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, columns 677–84, whether the offer of a British Rail dowry extends to the Blackburn-Hellifield line; whether running rights over British Rail lines between Hellifield and Settle junction will be granted to any potential purchaser; and whether the use of such facilities has been discussed with British Rail.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  These are matters to be negotiated in the first instance between British Rail and any prospective purchaser.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, columns 677–84, how much of the costs of promoting any private Bill required for the private operation of the Blackburn-Hellifield and Settle-Carlisle railways will be met by (a) British Rail and (b) the Exchequer; and what advice he will be giving to prospective purchasers as to the applicability of the Light Railways Act to any future private operation of these railways.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is for any private operator to choose which form of statutory authority is most

  Reportable Fires on the London Underground

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988 (May)

  Station and tunnel fires

  3

  2(2)

  11(6)

  10(5)

  10(7)

  11(1)

  Train fires

  1

  1(1)

  —

  —

  1(1)

  —

  The figures in brackets denote the incidents where it was reported that passengers were evacuated

  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department submitted its report to the International Maritime Organisation on stability, load lines and fishing vessel safety; and if he will place a copy in the Library, together with any response which has been received.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  13 April 1988, assuming that the report referred to is the information paper submitted to the maritime safety committee concerning the residual damage stability of passenger ships. A copy of that document has been placed in the Library in response to the question from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 19 May 1988, at columns 524–25. The report of the maritime safety committee has not yet been published, but a copy will be placed in the Library when it is available.

  Ferries (Safety)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many roll-on/roll-off ferries failed the
  58
  appropriate for the type of operation they have in mind. The cost of any private Bill—if necessary—must fall on its promoters, not on the Exchequer.

  EC (Maritime Policy)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he will be making in relation to European Community maritime policy at the meeting of Ministers on 20 June with respect to the employment of non-European Community nationals in Community flagged-ships, and to the establishment of offshore international ship registers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have no plans to make proposals with respect to these two matters. I would expect there to be proposals from the Commission on this or related issues well in advance of any substantive discussion in the Council.

  London Underground (Fires)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report such information as he has on the fires which have taken place on London Underground over the last five years which (a) were not serious and (b) did not require evacuation of passengers; and if he will give details of all other fires.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  London Underground Ltd. is riot required to report every fire to the Department. The statutory reporting order requires fires, which interrupt the operation of the railway for more than 30 minutes, to be reported.

  stability test specified in his Department's report to the International Maritime Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report the study on international safety standards on roll-on/roll-off cross-Channel ferries carried out at the request of the International Maritime Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 19 May 1988, at columns 524–25.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has made any changes to the inspection and survey of passenger ferries as a result of the P and O dispute;

  (2) if he has made any changes in the process certifying seamen as competent with respect to safety procedures on passenger ferries during the P and O dispute.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The answer to both questions is no.
  59
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the ability of current roll-on/roll-off ferry design to meet the passenger ship safety regulations with respect to evacuation of passengers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None, but one organisation has questioned the possibility that passengers may not be safely evacuated in a very short time. We have commissioned a research programme to look into additional escape arrangements from roll-on/roll-off passenger ships.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the statement of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects on the safety and vulnerability on roll-on/roll-off ships of 21 March.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for Aviation and Shipping met representatives of the institution, including their president, on 21 March to discuss their proposals to improve the safety of ro/ro ships. There was a great deal of common ground and indeed the research programme into possible fundamental design improvements that will be undertaken by my Department includes an investigation of basic design changes as suggested by the Royal Institution of Naval Architects.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes to implement the safety standards requested by the International Maritime Organisation on cross-Channel roll-on/roll-off ferries.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Regulations are already in force that implement the improved safety standards for ro/ro passenger ships that were recently adopted by the International Maritime Organisation and which will come into effect internationally from 1989.

  Marine Surveyors
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of marine surveyors in his Department; and what were the comparable figures over the last five years.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The information is as follows:

  Marine surveyors in post

  Number

  1988

  208

  1987

  233

  1986

  246

  1985

  264

  1984

  279

  1983

  281

  The number of ships of over 500 gross tons on the United Kingdom register decreased from 866 in 1983 to 509 in 1987 (the latest figure available). Since 1983 the ratio of marine surveyors to merchant ships of this size has increased.

  Air Miss (Birmingham)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the near miss in the flight path into Birmingham airport on the 60
  afternoon of Wednesday, 18 May, involving two aircraft at approximately the same altitude and at a short distance apart laterally.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand from the Civil Aviation Authority that the incident occurred 3 miles east of Warwick at about 5,000ft and involved two British Airways BAC1–11 aircraft, one descending into and the other departing from Birmingham airport. Full details are not yet known. It appears that the aircraft were separated by about a quarter of a mile laterally and no avoiding action was taken.

  The incident will be investigated by the independent joint airmiss working group. The report will be published. It will be the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority to take any necessary safety action; this need not wait until the report is published.

  A40 (Improvement)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedure for conducting cost-benefit analysis of an on-line solution was adopted by his Department when considering the Western avenue A40 junction improvement at Long lane, Hillingdon; and if he will place details in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]:Both the Department's published scheme and the on-line alternative, which was put forward at the public inquiry into the proposals, were evaluated using COBA9, a computer-based system for the cost-benefit analysis of road schemes. Copies of relevant documents from the public inquiry are being placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Unfit Houses (Compensation)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to review the Land Compensation Act 1973 in general and the code for site value compensation in particular.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the normal course of business we monitor the operation of the Land Compensation Act 1973. We recognise that the present arrangements under the Housing Act 1985 providing compensation for the compulsory acquisition of unfit houses, currently payable at site value, can give rise to anomalies and we intend to introduce legislation as soon as possible to provide for full market value compensation to all house owners.

  Inward Migration (South-East)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his Department's latest forecast, based on the Serplan forecasts, for net inward migration to the south-east region, excluding London, in the last decade of the 20th century;

  (2) what has been the level of net inward migration to the south-east region, excluding London, in the periods 1957 to 1967, 1967 to 1977 and 1977 to 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The available information is as follows:
  61

  Net inward migration into south-east England (excluding London): Estimates and projections1

  Thousands

  Estimates

  Projections

  1961–71

  1971–76

  1976–81

  1981–86

  1986–91

  1991–96

  1996–2001

  Total

  3

  +1602

  +2102

  +2152

  +176

  +149

  +138

  Annual average

  3

  +32

  +42

  +43

  +35

  +30

  +28

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys: official estimates and projections.

  1 Figures include international migration.

  2 Figure rounded to nearest 5,000.

  3 It is estimated that the corresponding figures for 1961 to 1971 are: (total) in excess of +900,000 and (annual average) in excess of +90,000.

  In the years for which information is available net migration from London into the rest of the south-east more than accounted for the net migration into the area. Migration between the south-east excluding London and areas outside the south-east shows net outflows as follows:

  Thousands (per annum)

  1976–81

  1981–86

  -14

  -5

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys: official estimates and projections.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many acres of public sector freehold land the Property Services Agency has responsibility for in the civil estate;

  (2) how many acres of leasehold land the Property Services Agency has responsibility for in the public civil estate;

  (3) how many square metres of buildings the Property Services Agency has responsibility for in the civil freehold estate;

  (4) how many square metres of buildings the Property Services Agency has responsibility for in civil leasehold estate with leases of over five years to run;

  (5) how many acres of civil freehold land under the Property Services Agency's control are surplus to requirements or are currently not being used for operational purposes;

  (6) how many square metres of buildings in the civil freehold estate are surplus to requirements or not currently being used for operational purposes;

  (7) how many square metres of buildings are surplus to requirements or not being used for operational purposes in the Property Services Agency's civil leasehold estate.

  Mr. Chope
  The following statistical table shows the position at 31 March 1988:

  Total

  Surplus

  Land

  Freehold1

  24,959 acres

  201 acres3

  Leasehold1

  762 acres

  —

  Buildings

  Freehold

  6·026 million square metres

  144,000 square metres3 (2·4 per cent.)

  Leasehold2

  4·103 million square metres

  58,000 square metres (1·4 percent.)

  1 Includes area of land covered by buildings.

  2 Buildings with leases of over five years to run.

  3 Includes land and buildings currently being disposed of as well as property currently not being used for operational purposes.

  62
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many acres of freehold land the Property Services Agency has responsibility for in the Government's military estate;

  (2) how many square metres of buildings the Property Services Agency has responsibility for in the military freehold estate;

  (3) how many square metres of buildings the Property Services Agency has responsibility for in the military leasehold estate with buildings with leases of more than five years to run;

  (4) how many acres of freehold land are surplus to requirements or not being used for operational purposes in the Property Services Agency's military estate;

  (5) how many square metres of freehold buildings are surplus to requirements or not being used for operational purposes in the Property Services Agency's military estate.

  Mr. Chope
  Management responsibility for the Government's military estate is divided between the Ministry of Defence, which owns it, and the Property Services Agency, which acts as MOD's agent and adviser in its day-to-day management. As at 31 March there were 554,012 acres of freehold land on the defence estate in the United Kingdom of which 4,022 acres were surplus to defence requirements and with PSA for disposal. A great deal of information about buildings on the freehold and leasehold estate is held locally but could not be collated centrally other than at disproportionate cost. The responsibility for any land and buildings which may not be being used for operational purposes lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many sq m of central London offices are occupied for public sector purposes within the Property Services Agency's leasehold and freehold estate;

  (2) how many sq m of central London offices, leasehold and freehold, were occupied by Government Departments and other public sector bodies within the property Services Agency estate in 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  Approximately 1.6 million sq m of office space are currently occupied for public sector purposes within the PSA's estate in the following central London postal districts: WC1 and 2, WI, SW1, SE1 and EC1–4. Equivalent figures for these postal districts are not available for 1979. As a comparison, however, the total amount of office space occupied in Greater London as a whole in 1979 was 2.9 million sq m compared with 2.2 million sq m today.

  Floor Space (London)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average floor space per civil
  63
  servant in the central London estate, and what information he has on the average floor space per employee in the London financial district.

  Mr. Chope
  Information on the average floor space per civil servant in central London is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. For Greater London as a whole the total floor space in offices on PSA's estate works out at an average of 18.8 sq m per non-industrial civil servant. No information is held on the average space per employee in the London financial district.

  Water Supply
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of disconnections carried out in each of the last five years in the Thames water authority area.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The table shows the number of disconnections carried out by the Thames water authority for non-payment of bills in each of the last five years. The Department does not hold statistics for disconnections on other grounds, or for disconnections carried out by statutory water companies.

  Year

  Number

  1983–184

  1,794

  1984–85

  992

  1985–86

  255

  1986–87

  599

  1987–88

  1,819

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has any information about the dangers of water contamination by pesticides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Water undertakers have been asked to monitor water supplies for pesticides which are regularly used in their area. I am not aware of any public water supplies containing traces of pesticides at levels which would constitute a health risk.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of all types of test carried out to detect contamination and pollution of water supplies, including the frequency of the tests.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Water undertakers test public water supplies at treatment works, service reservoirs, in the distribution system and at consumers' taps. They test for the parameters in the following list, some of which are contaminants. They also test for other substances if there is any suspicion of contamination. The frequency of the tests varies according to the parameter and the situation but is usually considerably greater than the minimum frequencies laid down in the EC directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption. In no case is the frequency less than the minimum specified in the directive.

  Colour

  Turbidity

  Odour

  Taste

  Temperature

  pH

  Conductivity

  Chlorides

  64

  Sulphates

  Ammonium

  Kjeldahl Nitrogen

  Oxidisability

  Total Organic Carbon

  Hydrocarbons

  Phenols

  Boron

  Surfactants

  Trihalomethanes

  Silver

  Arsenic

  Cadmium

  Cyanides

  Chromium

  Mercury

  Nickel

  Lead

  Antimony

  Calcium

  Magnesium

  Potassium

  Aluminium

  Total hardness

  Dry residues

  Nitrate

  Nitrite

  Iron

  Manganese

  Zinc

  Phosphorus

  Fluoride

  Suspended solids

  Residual Chlorine

  Barium

  Selerium

  Pesticides in common use

  Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

  Total Coliforms

  Fecal Coliforms

  1 Fecal Streptococci

  1 Sulphate reducing Clostridia

  Total bacteria

  1 As necessary.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on consumer choice with regard to fixed charges or metering of water supplies.

  Mr. Moynihan
  At present all water authorities and companies operate a meter option scheme, whereby customers can choose to pay to have a meter installed, and so be charged by measure rather than by rateable value. Following the abolition of domestic rateable values it will be for each water undertaker to decide how to charge customers at present assessed on RVs for their water services, including whether customers should have the choice of being metered.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a breakdown of the costs involved(a) to the relevant authority, and (b) to the consumer, in the current water metering trials.

  Mr. Moynihan
  One of the objectives of the metering trials is to obtain information on the cost of installing and reading meters in an area, rather than in individual properties. So it is not yet possible to provide reliable estimates of the cost of each proposed trial, the details of which have yet to be submitted for consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under section 4 of the Public Utilities Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988. However, preliminary estimates by the water undertakers concerned suggest that the cost of the proposed large scale
  65
  trial on the Isle of Wight may be in the region of about £9 million and each of the 10 smaller trials between £200,000 to £600,000, depending on the location of the meters and the equipment to be used. These costs are in addition to the cost of some preliminary work in the trial areas on monitoring overall consumption for which the Government agreed to pay last year.

  The Government have also agreed to contribute 50 per cent. of the approved costs of the proposed trial on the Isle of Wight and the ten smaller trials, together forming a co-ordinated programme prepared by the water industry. The remaining share of the costs of the trials will be spread across the generality of each water undertaker's consumers, not only those consumers in the trial areas.

  Derelict land grant paid to local authorities in Staffordshire

  Grant paid £

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Cannock Chase

  88,057

  69,940

  389,482

  1,700,310

  809,156

  698,512

  246,276

  East Staffordshire

  —

  —

  4,750

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lichfield

  100,292

  —

  199,361

  156,879

  186,591

  18,117

  262,500

  Newcastle under Lyme

  40,123

  259,096

  162,138

  82,954

  274,635

  157,978

  49,196

  Stafford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Staffordshire

  742,771

  277,892

  355,844

  592,260

  170,807

  89,900

  28,014

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  21,388

  —

  47,563

  317,126

  —

  81,807

  5,943

  Stoke-on-Trent

  554,393

  1,740,263

  2,728,589

  4,122,995

  1,882,240

  323,842

  297,339

  Tamworth

  1,226

  11,458

  40,427

  6,955

  15,205

  6,955

  94,361

  STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

  206,725

  326,549

  150,549

  949,672

  267,667

  1,016,554

  642,383

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Water Companies Association to discuss the privatisation of the water industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on 20 April 1988, at column 489.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from parties with an interest in fresh water angling with regard to the privatisation of the water industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In response to the consultation paper on the National Rivers Authority issued in July 1987, we received comments from the following bodies:

  National Anglers Council

  Institute of Fisheries Management

  Wye Salmon Fishery Owners Association

  National Association of Specialist Anglers

  Hereford and District Angling Association

  Dee Fishery Association

  Commercial Fisheries Association

  Welsh Salmon and Trout Association

  Tamar and Tributaries Fisheries Association

  United Usk Fishermen Association

  Wear and Tees Fisheries Consultative Association

  Atlantic Salmon Trust

  The Angling Foundation

  Sussex Anglers Consultative Committee

  Cannarthenshire Fisheries Federation

  River Ouse Fisheries Consultative Association

  Thames Fisheries Consultative Council

  Salmon and Trout Association

  Welsh Anglers Council

  Welsh Federation of Coarse Anglers

  Since the end of the consultation period we have received a number of further representations and I have

  Local Authorities (Grant-aid)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much grant-aid has been given to each local authority in Staffordshire since 1982 under the development land grant and associated programmes.

  Mr. Trippier
  The amounts of derelict land grant paid to individual local authorities in Staffordshire since 1982 are given in the following table. Figures are not yet available for 1988–89.

  No grant-aid has been given to the authorities under the urban development grant or urban regeneration grant.

  met representatives of the National Anglers Council arid the Leicestershire Angling Federation. The vast majority of these organisations have supported our proposal to create a National Rivers Authority with responsibility for fisheries management.

  Storm Sewers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate his Department has made of the cost of repairing storm sewers in each water authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I do not have the information on which to base an estimate.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the effect of switching from historic cost accounting to current cost accounting on profit targets set by the Government for each water authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Profit targets for water authorities have been set in current cost terms since their introduction in 1981–82.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the currently estimated value of the assets of each water authority; what was the figure during the financial year 1983–84; what it will be in 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Figures for assets for 1981–82 to 1986–87 are published in the water authorities' accounts for 1986–87. The figures for 1987–88 will be available shortly when the 1987–88 accounts are placed before Parliament. Figures for later years are not available.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current income of each water
  67
  authority from sources other than water rates; what is the current expenditure of each on assets not directly connected with the maintenance of the water supply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested by the hon. Member is published in the water authorities' annual accounts which are laid before Parliament. The 1987–88 account will be available shortly.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent by each English water authority in 1987–88 on(a) water quality regulation, (b) water resources, (c) water supply, (d) land drainage and flood protection, (e) recreation, amenities, fisheries and navigation, and (f) sewage collection, treatment and disposal.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested by the hon. Member will be published in the annual accounts of the water authorities, which will be laid before Parliament in July.

  Water Pipes (Corrosion)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has, for each water authority, as to the approximate number of homes supplied through piping which suffers from what the relevant water authority considers an unacceptable level of corrosion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally.

  Lost Water
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has for each water authority for each year since 1980, as to the percentage of water which enters the mains pipes which is lost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally.

  Planning Permissions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will instigate an inquiry into the number of cases where the granting of agricultural licences has been followed by granting of planning permission for dwellings in the green belt areas; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many planning permissions for dwellings were given to owners of agricultural smallholdings in the years 1986–87 and 1987–88;

  (3) if he will instigate an inquiry into the number of cases where the sale of agricultural holdings has been used to obtain planning permission for a dwelling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Ninety eight per cent. of planning permissions are granted by local planning authorities. Information collected by my Department does not separately identify cases of the kind mentioned in the hon. Member's questions. Existing planning guidance about agricultural dwellings is in the annex to DoE circular 24/73.

  Rivers and Lakes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated total length of 68
  riverways and total surface area of freshwater lakes administered by each of the English regional water authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The lengths of rivers administered or controlled by water authorities vary for different functions and responsibilities. For example, the lengths of designated main rivers under the English water authorities' management for the purposes of the Land Drainage Act 1976 are:

  Authority

  km

  Anglian

  6,518

  Northumbrian

  1,459

  North West

  5,807

  Severn Trent

  3,548

  Southern

  2,757

  South West

  1,465

  Thames

  5,072

  Wessex

  2,242

  Yorkshire

  1,806

  Total

  30,674

  The lengths of rivers surveyed for the purposes of the river quality survey 1985 were:

  Authority

  km

  Anglian

  4,328

  Northumbrian

  2,784

  North West

  5,323

  Severn Trent

  5,150

  Southern

  1,992

  South West

  2,941

  Thames

  3,546

  Wessex

  2,467

  Yorkshire

  5,767

  Total

  34,298

  Information about the surface areas of freshwater lakes within a particular water authority's area would only be obtainable from the water authority in question.

  Housing Associations
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals for the role of local authorities in enabling housing associations to provide dwellings in their areas.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Under the provisions of the Housing Bill, the Housing Corporation will become the sole channel for the payment of Exchequer grants to housing associations. Last September, in its policy paper "Finance for Housing Associations: The Government's Proposals" the Government said that they considered there were advantages in precluding the payment of housing association grant towards housing association schemes funded by local authorities. In the light of representations made to them, however, the Government have concluded that it would be wrong to deny Exchequer support to schemes promoted in this way. Collaborative working between associations and local authorities is of considerable importance and some authorities have funded associations under long standing arrangements. The Government have therefore decided that the Housing Corporation should be authorised to pay housing association grant on schemes supported by local authority loans. We intend that the entire costs of such schemes
  69
  should count against local authority housing investment programmes, and my officials will be consulting the local authority associations, the Housing Corporation and the National Federation of Housing Associations on the detailed arrangements.

  Greater Manchester Residuary Body
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Greater Manchester residuary body to be wound up and the assets and liabilities transferred to the metropolitan boroughs.

  Mr. Chope
  I expect the Greater Manchester residuary body to be wound up well within the five-year period allotted for the completion of its task.

  Grant-related Expenditure
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total rateable value grant-related expenditure assessment from 1981–82, population, total expenditure and rateable value per head, in total, for local authorities in each economic planning

  1981–82 Rate Support Grant Fourth Supplementary Report Data by Economic Planning Region

  Grant-related expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Gross rateable value

  Population for block grant purposes

  Rateable Value per head

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  million

  £

  Inner London

  n/a

  n/a

  1,094

  2·4

  451

  Outer London

  n/a

  n/a

  806

  4·4

  181

  Greater London

  3,217

  3,923

  1,901

  6·9

  276

  South East

  3,346

  3,369

  1,505

  10·0

  151

  East Anglia

  616

  609

  242

  1·9

  130

  South West

  1,446

  1,462

  520

  4·3

  121

  West Midlands

  1,872

  1,929

  710

  5·2

  138

  East Midlands

  1,328

  1,335

  459

  3·8

  122

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,762

  1,946

  509

  4·9

  104

  North West

  2,465

  2,692

  775

  6·5

  120

  Northern

  1,142

  1,299

  333

  3·1

  108

  England

  17,194

  18,566

  6,954

  46·4

  150

  1982–83 Rate Support Grant Third Supplementary Report Data by Economic Planning Region

  Grant-related expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Gross rateable value

  Population for block grant purposes

  Rateable value per head

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  million

  £

  Inner London

  n/a

  n/a

  1,108

  2·4

  458

  Outer London

  n/a

  n/a

  813

  4·4

  183

  Greater London

  3,486

  4,111

  1,921

  6·8

  280

  South East

  3,569

  3,541

  1,536

  10·0

  153

  East Anglia

  661

  659

  248

  6·9

  132

  South West

  1,545

  1,549

  530

  4·3

  122

  West Midlands

  2,005

  2,015

  721

  5·2

  140

  East Midlands

  1,417

  1,478

  466

  3·8

  123

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,867

  2,146

  517

  4·9

  106

  North West

  2,598

  2,836

  786

  6·5

  122

  Northern

  1,208

  1,402

  337

  3·1

  109

  England

  18,358

  19,737

  7,061

  46·5

  152

  1983–84 Rate Support Grant Fourth Supplementary Report Data by Economic Planning Region

  Grant-related expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Gross rateable value

  Population for block grant purposes

  Rateable value per head

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  million

  £

  Inner London

  n/a

  n/a

  1,128

  2·4

  475

  Outer London

  n/a

  n/a

  818

  4·5

  183

  Greater London

  3,611

  4,677

  1,946

  6·8

  284

  South East

  3,740

  3,691

  1,561

  10·2

  153

  East Anglia

  693

  675

  252

  1·9

  133

  South West

  1,595

  1,595

  540

  4·4

  124

  West Midlands

  2,119

  2,126

  728

  5·2

  141

  East Midlands

  1,489

  1,523

  474

  3·8

  123

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,947

  2,165

  523

  4·9

  107

  North West

  2,696

  2,921

  792

  6·5

  123

  Northern

  1,266

  1,438

  341

  3·1

  110

  England

  19,156

  20,810

  7,156

  46·8

  153

  1984–85 rate support grant fourth supplementary report data by economic planning region

  Grant-related expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Gross rateable value

  Population for block grant purposes

  Rateable value per head

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  million

  £

  Inner London

  n/a

  n/a

  1,124

  2·3

  486

  Outer London

  n/a

  n/a

  818

  4·5

  184

  72
  region, showing separately Greater London, inner London and outer London in each year from 1979–80 to 1988–89, estimate.

  Mr. Chope
  The following tables list the data requested for each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89: comparable data are not available for the period before the introduction of the present rate support grant system in 1981–82.
  73

  Grant-related expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Gross rateable value

  Population for block grant purposes

  Rateable value per head

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  million

  £

  Greater London

  3,739

  4,974

  1,942

  6·8

  287

  South East

  3,919

  3,768

  1,581

  10·2

  154

  East Anglia

  730

  693

  256

  1·9

  134

  South West

  1,676

  1,613

  545

  4·4

  124

  West Midlands

  2,214

  2,146

  727

  5·2

  140

  East Midlands

  1,569

  1,528

  479

  3·9

  124

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,047

  2,181

  525

  4·9

  107

  North West

  2,807

  2,954

  792

  6·4

  123

  Northern

  1,304

  1,429

  343

  3·1

  110

  England

  20,003

  21,285

  7,191

  46·8

  154

  1985–86 rate support grant third supplementary report data by economic planning region

  Grant-related expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Gross rateable value

  Population for block grant purposes

  Rateable value per head

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  million

  £

  Inner London

  n/a

  n/a

  1,130

  2·3

  489

  Outer London

  n/a

  n/a

  818

  4·4

  184

  Greater London

  3,927

  4,735

  1,948

  6·8

  288

  South East

  4,128

  3,935

  1,596

  10·3

  155

  East Anglia

  773

  721

  260

  1·9

  135

  South West

  1,791

  1,683

  551

  4·4

  125

  West Midlands

  2,343

  2,242

  729

  5·2

  141

  East Midlands

  1,659

  1,577

  484

  3·9

  126

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,192

  2,269

  527

  4·9

  107

  North West

  3,033

  3,084

  791

  6·4

  123

  Northern

  1,409

  1,473

  346

  3·1

  111

  England

  21,255

  21,719

  7,233

  46·9

  154

  1986–87 rate support grant third supplementary report data by economic planning region

  Grant-related expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Gross rateable value

  Population for block grant purposes

  Rateable value per head

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  million

  £

  Inner London

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1,139

  2·3

  492

  Outer London

  n.a.

  n.a.

  825

  4·4

  186

  Greater London

  4,313

  5,114

  1,964

  6·8

  291

  South East

  4,392

  4,205

  1,621

  10·4

  157

  East Anglia

  829

  776

  266

  1·9

  137

  South West

  1,925

  1,878

  560

  4·5

  125

  West Midlands

  2,541

  2,378

  735

  5·2

  142

  East Midlands

  1,774

  1,754

  489

  3·9

  126

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,339

  2,557

  531

  4·9

  108

  North West

  3,286

  3,430

  797

  6·4

  125

  Northern

  1,524

  1,663

  347

  3·1

  112

  England

  22,924

  23,757

  7,310

  47·0

  156

  1987–88 rate support grant supplementary report data by economic planning region

  Grant-related expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Gross rateable value

  Population for block grant purposes

  Rateable value per head

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  million

  £

  Inner London

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1,155

  2·3

  497

  Outer London

  n.a.

  n.a.

  832

  4·4

  187

  Greater London

  4,569

  5,433

  1,986

  6·8

  294

  South East

  4,612

  4,654

  1,649

  10·4

  158

  East Anglia

  880

  869

  271

  2·0

  138

  South West

  2,030

  2,058

  569

  4·5

  126

  West Midlands

  2,685

  2,704

  739

  5·2

  143

  East Midlands

  1,871

  1,952

  495

  3·9

  127

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,483

  2,693

  534

  4·9

  109

  North West

  3,477

  3,708

  803

  6·4

  126

  Northern

  1,596

  1,778

  349

  3·1

  113

  74 75

  Grant-related expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Gross rateable value

  Population for block grant purposes

  RV per head

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (million)

  (£)

  England

  24,202

  25,847

  7,395

  47·1

  157

  1988–89 Rate support grant settlement report data by economic planning region

  Grant-related expenditure

  Budgeted total expenditure

  Gross rateable value

  Population for block grant purposes

  Rateable value per head

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  million

  £

  Inner London

  n/a

  n/a

  1,170

  2·3

  503

  Outer London

  n/a

  n/a

  839

  4·4

  189

  Greater London

  4,882

  5,578

  2,009

  6·8

  296

  South East

  4,980

  5,088

  1,678

  10·5

  160

  East Anglia

  953

  943

  276

  2·0

  139

  South West

  2,193

  2,227

  579

  4·5

  127

  West Midlands

  2,883

  2,949

  747

  5·2

  144

  East Midlands

  2,019

  2,123

  504

  3·9

  128

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,675

  2,903

  542

  4·9

  111

  North West

  3,710

  3,944

  809

  6·4

  127

  Northern

  1,711

  1,878

  352

  3·1

  114

  England

  26,006

  27,633

  7,497

  47·3

  159

  Note: London-wide authorities, such as the Metropolitan police, mean that it is not possible to produce total GRE and total expenditure figures for inner and outer London separately.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of local authorities which spent, respectively, above or below(a) their

  Number of local authorities spending

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  above GRE

  241

  211

  173

  181

  178

  171

  308

  320

  below GRE

  173

  203

  241

  233

  233

  255

  118

  105

  above target

  367

  244

  164

  178

  174

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  below target

  46

  166

  213

  175

  166

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes

  1.All expenditure figures are those used in the latest supplementary report for the relevant year, or for recent years the figures used for grant payment purposes.

  2.In calculation whether an authority spent above or below the expenditure guidance (or target) issued to it, no account has been taken of any amounts or descriptions of total expenditure disregarded for the purpose of calculating liability to grant abatement ("holdback").

  3.For 1986–87 and later years no expenditure targets were set.

  Council House Building
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of council house building in(a) England and Wales excluding Greater London, (b) Greater London and (c) Scotland was represented by (i) public direct labour schemes and (ii) private contractors' schemes in 1985, 1986 and 1987, respectively.

  Mrs. Roe
  Following is available information which is about construction output in new housing for the public sector including council housing.

  New public sector housing: construction output Great Britain

  1985

  1986

  1987

  £ million (current prices)

  918

  842

  932

  of which: direct labour (%)

  3·8

  3·9

  3·4

  contractors (%)

  96·2

  96·1

  96·6

  Reliable estimates for sub-divisions of Great Britain are not available.
  76
  grant-related expenditure assessment and (b) any expenditure target set in each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89, estimate.

  Mr. Chope
  The table lists the number of authorities in each of the categories requested:

  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total expenditure on local authority housebuilding for 1986–87 in terms of (i) current prices, (ii) 1986 prices and (iii) share of gross domestic product.

  Mrs. Roe
  Capital expenditure on house building by English local authorities in 1986–87 is estimated to have been £493 millions (0·13 per cent of GDP) and equivalent to £477 millions at 1985–86 prices. The figure for 1985–86 given in reply to the hon. Member in March 1987 has since been revised to £579 million in current (1985–86) prices, still 0·16 per cent. of GDP.

  Walker Park Project, Newcastle
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department has made towards the funding of the Walker park project in Newcastle; and whether Newcastle city council has advised him of who has been invited to open it.
  77
  Mr. Trippier
  I understand that Newcastle city council has invited the right hon. Member, the Leader of the Opposition, to be the principal guest at the ceremony to commemorate the centenary of Walker park and the completion of the project to improve its facilities. I am glad to see him supporting a project which has received approval for urban programme grant of £942,000, to which my Department has contributed £634,500 for capital expenditure and £72,000 for revenue expenditure as against £211,500 capital and £24,000 revenue from the local authority.

  Civil Servants (Outside Activities)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants in his Department and the Property Services Agency are also directors or consultants in(a) public liability companies, (b) companies limited by guarantee, (c) building societies,(d) other friendly societies and (e) commercial undertakings other than the above; and what rules or instructions govern these activities with particular reference to remuneration.

  Mr. Ridley
  The following non-executive directorships of outside bodies have been arranged for officers of the Department of the Environment and the Property Services Agency:

  Number

  (i) public limited companies and companies limited by guarantee

  14

  (ii) building societies

  2

  No consultancies have been arranged in this way.

  For the most part these appointments are unpaid. Any fees which are paid are passed directly into public funds.

  Rents (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications were made to the rent officer in West Yorkshire to have rents registered over the last eight years.

  Mrs. Roe
  Figures are available only from 1981. The information for 1981–87 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1981

  16,150

  1982

  14,408

  1983

  22,169

  1984

  15,799

  1985

  21,198

  1986

  16,984

  1987

  19,705

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the percentage rises in rents as recommended by the rent officer for West Yorkshire for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Roe
  The mix of properties for which rents are registered varies from year to year for a number of reasons; for example, the extension of decontrol in 1981 and the reduction from three to two years in the minimum period for re-registration which led to re-registrations in 1983 of rents previously registered in both 1980 and 1981.78
  Estimates of percentage rises are best derived from previous and new registered rents for private regulated tenancies where there has been no material change in terms or in the physical condition. For rents in West Yorkshire fixed in each year, the estimated increases are:

  Year of registration

  Annualised per cent. increase

  1979

  12

  1980

  13

  1981

  14

  1982

  14

  1983

  13

  1984

  10

  1985

  8

  1986

  9

  1987

  9

  Government Cars (Lead-free Petrol)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has issued to ensure that all ministerial cars run on lead-free petrol; and if he will list all ministerial and departmental cars, indicating which of those actually use lead-free petrol.

  Mr. Chope
  It is Government policy to replace all ministerial cars with vehicles capable of running on unleaded petrol as they fall due for replacement. There are currently 21 ministerial cars running exclusively on unleaded fuel, three of which are allocated to the Department of the Environment.

  The Crown Suppliers (a trading fund of the Department of the Environment) operates approximately 4,400 vehicles which are hired to Government Departments and public sector organisations. Of these some 2,250 can either run now or can be adapted to run on lead free petrol where this is available.

  Rates (Non-payment)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of summonses issued and the number of prosecutions that have taken place for the non-payment of the general rate in each or the rating authorities for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Chope
  Information on the number of summonses issued by local authorities and the number leading to further enforcement action, is contained in the annual rate collection statistics published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Farm Buildings (Conversion Programme)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has of disturbance of bird nesting sites as a result of the conversion of farm buildings under programmes run by the Rural Development Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand that neither the Rural Development Commission nor the Nature Conservancy Council is aware of any evidence of bird nesting sites being disturbed as a result of conversions grant-aided by the commission. However the Department have asked the Commission to bear this possibility in mind for the future.

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

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: In all cases pensioners wholly reliant on state pensions will be eligible for 80 per cent. reductions in their community charges. The amounts payable in each local authority area in England are, therefore, 20 per cent. of the illustrative community charge figures published on 27 June 1987. No community water charge will be payable in England.

  Flooding (Ealing)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to make money available to those affected in Northolt, Greenford, Hanwell and the Ealing area by recent severe flooding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 May 1988]: It is for local authorities to deal with emergencies affecting their area, and local authorities have wider discretionary powers under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 to incur expenditure to alleviate the effects of such eventualities. As far as private householders are concerned, flood damage is normally covered by house insurance.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the scheme in the London Docklands Development Corporation area to provide 74 homes for homeless families in Newham under a leasing agreement with the East London housing association will be affected by the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: Newham borough council has applied to my right hon. Friend for an additional capital allocation to cover prescribed expenditure which it proposes to incur in connection with this scheme.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what he expects to be the average delay between submission and decision of schemes under the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations;

  (2) how much additional prescribed expenditure allocation will be available for schemes which will now need to be approved under the new Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations;

  (3) on what criteria he will be allowing additional capital allocations for schemes which will now have to be approved as a result of the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations.
  80
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: The Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 redefine the circumstances in which acquisitions by local authorities of leasehold interests in land result in the incurring of prescribed expenditure. The regulations do not require my right hon. Friend's consent to such acquisitions to be obtained. My right hon. Friend indicated on 25 April at columns 103–4, certain criteria against which applications for additional capital allocations for particular schemes would be considered. No limit has at present been placed on the amount of such allocations as the criteria imply that schemes for which allocations are granted should be broadly neutral in public expenditure terms. The time taken to deal with applications will depend on their number and on the adequacy of the supporting information provided.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Woodlands estate phase I scheme in West Ham, due to provide 56 homes for the homeless of Newham, will be exempt from the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: I understand that this scheme does not include the leasehold acquisition of land or buildings. It will not therefore be affected by the regulations referred to in the question. My right hon. Friend is considering an application from Newham borough council for an additional capital expenditure allocation to cover prescribed expenditure which the council proposes to incur in connection with this scheme.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a job description for the position of chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee, including hours and conditions of work.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell has been appointed as the non-executive chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee. The terms of reference of the committee are:
  To advise the Secretaries of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the implications for the water authorities of the reorganisation needed to provide a separate organisational structure for their water supply and sewerage functions, and the functions that will be performed by the new National Rivers Authority; and to advise them on the acceptability of the scheme proposed by each Water Authority, and to ensure that it will enable the NRA adequately to fulfil the tasks proposed to be allocated to it.

  The remuneration for the chairman's appointment is £40,000 per annum.

  I expect that the post will require between two and three days work a week on average.

  Lomax Site
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the result of the public inquiry into the Opencast Executive's application to mine the Lomax site in Greater Manchester; and if he will make a statement.
  81
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: My right hon. Friend expects to receive the report on the inquiry into British Coal's proposals for the Lomax site in the very near future. Following consideration of the report he will reach his decision as soon as possible, and the hon. Member will be notified of the decision.

  House of Commons (Floor Coverings)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for the carpet in the doorway of the room of the Opposition Chief Whip to he made safe; and if he will take steps to ensure that all floor coverings are in a safe condition.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 17 May 1988]: The work was carried out on Friday 13 May, the earliest opportunity after it was reported, in which the room could be made available to the carpet layers.

  The incident demonstrates that the system for reporting requirements for repairs and for carrying them out works adequately and I have no plans to change the present arrangements.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the average annual cost of water rates and the environmental services component respectively, for the current year and 1987, for each regional water authority in England.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested by the hon. Member relating to 1987–88 is contained in the table. The information for 1988–89 is not yet available.

  Household water charges: 1987–88

  Total

  Environmental services

  £·p

  £·p

  North West

  91·12

  1·02

  Northumbrian

  88·63

  ·01

  Severn Trent

  89·53

  1·39

  Yorkshire

  97·72

  ·82

  Anglian

  124·03

  1·98

  Thames

  87·74

  1·09

  Southern

  109·01

  1·41

  Wessex

  114·45

  1·63

  South West

  116·08

  2·84

  Source: Water Authority returns to DOE.

  Net revenue and capital expenditure1

  £ million

  Revenue

  Capital

  1986–87 prices

  1986–87 prices

  Year

  Cash

  Using GDP deflator

  Using HCHS pay and prices deflator

  Cash

  Using GDP Using deflator

  Using HCHS capital deflator

  North Western RHA

  1978–79

  380·364

  742·318

  845·549

  37·559

  73·300

  71·250

  1979–80

  460·211

  768·502

  848·629

  50·613

  84·518

  79·564

  1980–81

  599·071

  843·708

  863·261

  60·405

  85·072

  75·446

  1981–82

  674·346

  864·168

  898·229

  83·228

  106·656

  100·706

  1982–83

  724·780

  867·062

  905·975

  81·826

  97·889

  97·445

  1983–84

  763·382

  872·248

  908·425

  68·080

  77·789

  79·449

  1984–85

  808·198

  884·371

  909·223

  82·708

  90·503

  92·716

  Palace of Westminster (Toilets)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the reasons for the delay in putting up a notice giving an emergency telephone number to contact in the event of emergency cleaning being required in the gentleman's toilets off the Committee Room Corridor, and all other toilets in the House.

  Mr. Chope
  Following the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee's resolution on 23 March that the signs should be placed in the lavatories the work has been accepted as a late addition to the Parliamentary Works Offices summer recess works programme. There has been no undue delay.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) of 28 March,Official Report, columns 306–7, if he will list by constituency the number of petrol stations currently selling lead-free petrol; and what steps he is taking to encourage a more uniform distribution of such outlets throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A copy of the latest available list of petrol stations selling unleaded petrol (a total of 713 on 15 February 1988) and a map showing their distribution have been placed in the Library of the House. I understand that the total number of such stations now exceeds 1,000. The distribution of these petrol stations within the United Kingdom is reviewed at meetings of the unleaded petrol group. which I chair.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  North West Region
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the amount of Government funding for each year since 1979 to(a) Burnley Pendle and Rossendale health authority and (b) the North West regional health authority (i) in acted amounts, (ii) in real terms at 1988–89 prices and (iii) in real terms at 1988–89 prices based on the National Health Service inflation rate.

  Mr. Newton
  The table provides the information that is presently available.
  83

  Revenue

  Capital

  1986–87 prices

  1986–87 prices

  Year

  Cash

  Using GDP deflator

  Using HCHS pay and prices deflator

  Cash

  Using GDP Using deflator

  Using HCHS capital deflator

  1985–86

  854·688

  882·551

  913·661

  80·389

  83·010

  85·052

  1986–87

  916·526

  916·526

  916·526

  56·319

  56·319

  56·319

  1987–883

  1,005·000

  957·142

  926·610

  74·000

  70·476

  68·228

  1988–894

  1,038·800

  946·731

  6—

  73·200

  66·712

  6—

  Burnley,Pendle and Rossendale HA2

  1982–83

  41·982

  50·223

  1·391

  1·664

  1983–84

  43·100

  49·247

  1·220

  1·394

  1984–85

  45·428

  49·710

  5—

  1·686

  1·845

  5—

  1985–86

  48·571

  50·154

  1·190

  1·229

  1986–87

  51·327

  51·327

  0·247

  0·247

  1987–883

  64·945

  61·852

  5—

  1·486

  1·415

  5—

  1988–894

  66·354

  60·475

  7—

  7—

  7—

  Source: (for years 1978–79 to 1986–87) Health authorities' summarised accounts.

  Notes:

  1 Outturn expenditure figures for 1987–88 and 1988–89 are not yet available. True comparisons can only be drawn therefore between the years up to 1986–87.

  2 Prior to 1st April 1982, when the health authority's predecessor health district formed part of Lancashire AHA, district expenditure figures were not collected centrally.

  3 Cash limit incorporating all in—year adjustments.

  4 Initial cash limit.

  5 It is inappropriate to revalue district health authority expenditure by reference to centrally assessed movements in NHS pay and prices as the composition of that expenditure can differ substantially from the national average.

  6 Not yet available.

  7 Not yet allocated.

  Broadmoor Hospital Nurses
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide details of the estimated value of the present Broadmoor hospital site.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not available. Consideration will be given to all the special hospital estates, in accordance with the action being taken more widely in the National Health Service.

  Community Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give details by regional area health authority and by district health authority of the cost of community services for(a) the elderly, (b) the mentally ill, (c) the mentally handicapped and (d) the disabled; and what percentage of this cost was for institutional provision.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information on health authorities' expenditure on community health services is not collected in the form requested.

  1986–87

  NHS staff in post

  DHA

  1Expenditure on headquarters administration as a percentage of total revenue expenditure

  2Medical and dental as a percentage4 of total NHS staff

  3Non-medical staff as a percentage4 of total NHS staff

  Trafford

  4·31

  3·7

  96·3

  Sheffield5

  1·92

  5·4

  94·6

  North Lincolnshire

  2·96

  2·5

  97·5

  Wandsworth5

  2·38

  7·2

  92·8

  West Lambeth

  3·78

  3·1

  96·9

  Nurses
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on recruitment levels at schools of nursing.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 10 May at columns 140–41.

  Health Authorities (Costs)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of Health Service costs in Trafford, Sheffield, North Lincolnshire, Wandsworth and West Lancashire health authorities is devoted to the administration of the local service; and what is the proportion of medical to non-medical staff in those health authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  Such information as is held centrally is in the table. The hon. Member may wish to contact the health authority chairmen concerned for the other details he seeks.
  85
  Sources: 1986–87 Annual Accounts of the health authorities and DHSS. Annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 This excludes the cost of clerical and secretarial support staff employed in departments at hospital and unit levels. These costs are regarded as operational.

  2 Includes permanent paid, honorary staff. Excludes senior registrars and consultants in non-teaching district health authorities and senior registrars in teaching districts as these staff have their contracts with regional health authorities.

  3 Excludes nursing and midwifery agency staff.

  4 Percentage calculated on un-rounded whole-time equivalents.

  5Indicates teaching district.

  Mental and Physical Handicap Nurses
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many community mental and physical handicap nurses are employed per resident in each health authority in the north-west and in Greater London.

  Mr. Newton
  Such information as is held centrally is in the table. The hon. Member may wish to get in touch with the RHA chairmen concerned for the remaining details.

  Community psychiatric nursing at 30 September 1986

  North western regional health authority by district

  District health authority

  1Whole-time equivalent staff in post per 100,000 population

  Lancaster

  9·9

  Blackpool/Wyre/Fylde

  5·3

  Preston

  12·0

  Blackburn/Hyndburn/Ribble Valley

  6·6

  Burnley/Pendle/Rossendale

  —

  West Lancashire

  7·5

  Chorley and South Ribble

  7·8

  Bolton

  4·6

  Bury

  7·5

  North Manchester

  9·0

  Central Manchester

  7·9

  South Manchester

  8·6

  Oldham

  2·7

  Rochdale

  —

  Salford

  7·9

  Stockport

  4·8

  Tameside and Glossop

  4·5

  Trafford

  6·9

  Wigan

  4·6

  North western regional health authority

  5·7

  Sources: DHSS Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  1 Calculated on unrounded whole-time equivalent staff in post and resident population numbers.

  Community psychiatric nursing staff in post at 30 September 1986

  District health authorities within Greater London

  District health authority

  Whole-time equivalent per 100,000 population1

  Barnet

  5·3

  Harrow

  7·4

  Hillingdon

  3·4

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  4·2

  Ealing

  9·0

  Brent

  3·9

  Paddington and North Kensington

  5·0

  Riverside

  9·0

  Barking/Havering/Brentwood

  2·8

  Hampstead

  18·4

  Bloomsbury

  7·5

  Islington

  4·8

  City and Hackney

  3·6

  Newham

  4·4

  Tower Hamlets

  1·3

  Enfield

  1·1

  Haringey

  1·0

  Redbridge

  1·3

  Waltham Forest

  1·4

  Bexley

  5·9

  86

  District health authority

  Whole-time equivalent per 100,000 population1

  Greenwich

  5·0

  Bromley

  0·3

  West Lambeth

  12·2

  Camberwell

  4·0

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  6·1

  Croydon

  4·1

  Kingston and Esher

  8·4

  Richmond/Twickenham/Roehampton

  3·9

  Wandsworth

  16·8

  Merton and Sutton

  4·2

  Greater London2

  5·1

  1 Calculated on unrounded whole-time equivalent staff in post and resident population estimates.

  2 Includes district health authorities listed above—designated as "Greater London" area.

  Sources: DHSS annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the current shortfall of hospital pharmacists in hospitals in the United Kingdom; what impact he assesses this as having on patient care; and what measures he proposes in order to alleviate the shortfall;

  (2) whether he intends to take steps to bring National Health Service hospital pharmacy service salary levels into line with those applicable in the industrial and retail branches of pharmacy in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for health authorities to decide the levels of staffing within the various staff groups, and details of any shortfalls are therefore not available centrally.

  Within the Department the manpower planning advisory group and for Wales the Welsh manpower steering group are undertaking the following projects, looking into a variety of aspects of the role of hospital pharmacists:

  1. An attitudinal study among female pharmacists, which has the backing of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (PSGB).

  2. A workshop is to be held in the autumn with pharmacy managers based on the results of this attitudinal study and on the work undertaken by the WMSG. The results of the WMSG are to be made available to the Department.

  3. Building on the findings of these two initiatives an in-depth study of hospital pharmacy skill mix is to be undertaken which is likely to commence early 1989.

  Pay is a matter for negotiation in the pharmaceutical Whitley council. I understand that the council has agreed a timetable for implementing a more flexible grading structure for hospital pharmacists in the current pay round.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on what basis the level of funding for each family practitioner committee is decided.
  87
  Mr. Newton
  Our aim for the past three years has been to reduce the effects of such anomalies as arose from the negotiations in 1984–85 between district health authorities and family practitioner committees (FPCs) to determine the appropriate funds to be transferred to the newly-independent committees. The formula used to achieve this aim has been accepted by FPC interests as the best which could be devised for the purpose and, by agreement, is now regarded as having served this purpose after use in the current financial year.

  Overseas Pensioners
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is his policy towards the payment of United Kingdom retirement pensions to retired employees of central and local government service overseas;

  (2) how many persons formerly employed by the United Kingdom public service overseas are not entitled to a United Kingdom pension; and in which part of the Government service they were employed;

  (3) what would be the cost of extending payment of retirement pensions to all retired employees of Her Majesty's Government in both central and local public service overseas.

  Mr. Scott
  United Kingdom retirement pensions are payable anywhere in the world to anyone who satisfies the contribution and retirement conditions, including retired employees of Her Majesty's Government in central and local government service overseas. No statistics are available to show the number of such employees who are not entitled to a national insurance retirement pension. I am therefore unable to estimate the cost of extending payment of retirement pensions to them, though it would seem inappropriate to extend entitlement to people who do not satisfy the basic conditions.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take in order to resolve the problem of the freezing of British pensions paid to persons living in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

  Mr. Scott
  It would have cost about £14·5 million this year to pay the pension uprating to British pensioners living in Australia, Canada and New Zealand and the cost would rise substantially year by year thereafter until all pensions were being paid at full United Kingdom rates. To pay full United Kingdom rates immediately would cost approximately an additional £165 million a year at current rates. In view of these substantial costs, I cannot say when competing priorities will allow the Government to allocate sufficient resources for this purpose, but the question will be kept under review.

  Opren
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what information he has as to whether any of the doctors who prescribed Opren to individual patients after its product licence was withdrawn were participating in research programmes sponsored by Eli Lilly;

  (2) how many people were given Opren, after its product licence was withdrawn, on a named person basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: Under the Medicines Act 1968, doctors are free to be supplied with
  88
  and to prescribe any unlicensed drug on a named patient basis if they judge it to be in the patient's best interest. There is no requirement under the Act for any notification of such prescribing so we have no record of how many people may have been given Opren, or how many doctors may have prescribed it on this basis after the licence was surrendered in August 1982. I am aware of a press report of 25 April claiming that under a private agreement with "the research arm of Eli Lilly" a doctor used this freedom to treat patients with Opren on "compassionate grounds" after the licence for the drug had been surrendered. Only Eli Lilly can confirm whether to its knowledge this or any other doctor who may have prescribed Opren after 1982 was at the time participating in a research programme sponsored by it.

  AIDS
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the cost of a test for AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not available centrally other than for the blood transfusion service and the public health laboratory ervice. The cost of testing a blood donation for HIV antibody is estimated as 90p. The estimated average cost of testing by the PHLS is between £3 and £5; this figure is higher because the laboratories' work includes the lower-volume and more expensive confirmatory testing of initial positive tests. Costs of counselling associated with testing would have to be added for tests for people who are concerned they might have been infected.

  Mr. William Shelton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of deaths resulting from AIDS which was transmitted heterosexually, for each year from 1983 to 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  The reported number of deaths in the United Kingdom in each year from 1983 to 1987 from AIDS thought to have been acquired heterosexually is shown in the table. There may have been others, unreported.

  Year

  Number of reported deaths

  1983

  4

  1984

  2

  1985

  1

  1986

  7

  1987

  6

  Doctors' Contracts
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 10 May,Official Report, column 91, he will make it his policy to collect centrally information on the number of doctor's contracts which are (a) whole time and (b) less than whole time.

  Mr. Newton
  Although we do not collect information centrally on the number of doctors who have applied to have their contracts varied from whole time to less than whole time, we do collect information on the number who hold each type of contract. The latest available information is set out in the table.
  89

  Hospital and Community Health Service medical staff1 analysis by nature of contract at 30 September 1986 (England only)

  All staff2

  Total

  51,700

  Whole-time

  29,900

  Part-time3

  21,800

  1 Figures include permanent paid and honorary staff and excludes Community Health Service locum staff only.

  2 Includes maximum part-time and honorary staff.

  3 Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received regarding the Griffiths report on community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received 30 representations from interested individuals and organisations and will take account of them in framing our own proposals.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take in the light of the report of the Public Accounts Committee, published on 18 May, relating to community care.

  Mr. Newton
  We are considering the PAC report on community care developments and will issue our response in due course.

  Pensioner Premiums
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether pensioners aged between 60 and 67 years who become sick or disabled after their 60th birthday and who do not qualify for attendance allowance will qualify for the higher pensioner premiums.

  Mr. Scott
  The higher pensioner premium is automatically payable to an income support claimant who, or whose partner, is aged 80 or over. Other pensioners aged 60 to 79 are eligible for it if they, or their partner, have an invalid carriage, are blind or receive a long-term incapacity or disability benefit: including not only attendance allowance but also mobility allowance, mobility supplement, severe disablement allowance and invalidity pension.

  NHS Land
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North on 16 November,Official Report, column 441 and 27 November, columns 319–21 and 19 April, column 382, what was the basis in each case on which the figures for the acreage and value of National Health Service land were calculated; and to what factors he attributes the reduction in each.

  Mrs. Currie
  The figure of £12·7 billion was based on a 1985 valuation by district valuers and was an approximation of the existing use value of the NHS property estate (land and buildings) at that time. The 1987 valuation by district valuers has produced a provisional estimate of £6·8 billion for the open market value of the estate.

  Nurses (Education and Training)
  Mr. Stokes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on the project 2000 proposals for the reform of nurse education and training.

  Mr. Moore
  I have today announced our broad acceptance of the United Kingdom Central Council's proposals for major reform of nurse education and training. This entails acceptance of the proposals for a common foundation training between the various nursing specialisms, to be followed by specialist training; a significant reduction in nursing students' rostered contribution to service, without, however, substantially altering the essentially practical orientation of their training; and a move to full student status and replacement of salaries with non-means-tested bursaries. A number of outstanding points remain to be resolved, including the role and training of support staff to nurses and the timetable for the cessation of enrolled nurse training. I hope that further work with the council will enable us to agree a firm timetable as soon as possible.

  A copy of the Government's response to the UKCC has been placed in the Library.

  Tastrak Plastic
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what contracts, and to what value, hake been placed with the university of Bristol for the funding of Tastrak plastic and radiation effects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  No contracts have been placed concerned specifically with Tastrak which is the trade name of a plastic indicator. This is being used in the study, described in my reply to the hon. Member on 16 May at column 339,to determine the levels of activity present in teeth. The total cost of the study is £24,000.

  Windscale (Fire)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what research has been carried out into the effects on the health of the public of the Windscale fire in 1957 and the radiation leaks connected with the fire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The report of the independent advisory group 1*, established in 1983 to investigate the possible increase incidence of cancer in west Cumbria, was based on evidence of estimated radiation doses to the public from all sources over the period 1951 to 1982. This evidence included the effects of the Windscale fire in 1957. A subsequent report 2*, which reassessed this evidence was produced by the independent committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment in 1986 and concluded that the substance and essential conclusions of the independent advisory group remained unchanged. Copies of both reports are in the Library.
  1* "Investigation into the Possible Increased Incidence of Cancer in West Cumbria" (HMSO 1984).
  2* "The implications of the new data on releases from Sellafield in the 1950s for the conclusions of the Report on the Investigation of the Possible Increased Incidence of Cancer in West Cumbria" (HMSO 1986).

  Child Allowances
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out in a table the child allowances paid to families with one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and 10 children in each of the European Community member states.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the Department's publication, "Tables of Social Benefit System in the European Communities (Position at 1 January 1987)", a copy of which is in the Library. Section VIII contains information on child allowances in the European Community member states.

  Government Forms (Welsh Language)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why the letter, "An Important Message for Widows and Pensioners—Now There's An Easier Way to Get Your Pension", (BR 2196) was not sent out in a bilingual form in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Pensioners are identified by our Newcastle computer on the basis of pension number. It is not possible to select recipients in Wales, or in any other place.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many places at present exist in England and Wales in hospital-hostels for chronically mentally ill people; and what plans he has to increase the number of such places.

  Mrs. Currie
  Statistics on hospital-hostel places are not collected centrally. It is a matter for health authorities to assess their requirements for such provision.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures are being undertaken by his Department to ensure that those chronically mentally ill people who need permanent asylum and care receive adequate care in the community on discharge from hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  It is no part of the Government's policy that chronically mentally ill people who need permanent asylum should be discharged into the community. Where closure of a mental hospital is proposed, alternative district in-patient provision must be available before closure takes place.

  GPs (Psychiatry Training)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress is being made by his Department in ensuring a review of general practitioner training in psychiatry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for the appropriate professional bodies, and not the Department, to review the content of training for general practice. Experience in psychiatry is recommended by the General Medical Council which has responsibility for overseeing the content of undergraduate medical education, and features in all undergraduate medical courses. Psychiatry is also an option in the mandatory two years of hospital experience which forms part of vocational training for general practice.92
  Established general practitioners decide how best to keep their knowledge up to date and have access to a wide range of continuing educational courses and activities.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress is being made on his Department's intentions to train additional community psychiatric nurses; and when he expects the English training board to publish its report on how it hopes to meet the need for such additional nurses.

  Mr. Newton
  Officials of the Department have had discussions with regional nursing officers and officers of the English National Board (ENB) in regard to the education and training of community psychiatric nurses. The need for flexibility in the provision of clinical courses was stressed, and the hon. Member may wish to note that the English National Board has established a panel to review the curriculum of the current training course 811. The Department is represented by an observer on the panel. The panel will report to the board later this year. In addition, the ENB has approved an increase in the number of centres approved to conduct course 811—from 10 in 1985 to 24 in January 1988. There have also been other developments such as the opportunity to undertake course 811 by distance learning programmes and on a part-time basis which are being evaluated.

  Salmonella Food Poisoning
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases there have been of salmonella food poisoning, and where they have been over the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  About 137,000 cases of salmonella infection including food-borne infection were reported from laboratories in England and Wales between 1977 and 1987. Evidence suggests the greatest proportion of these were outbreaks affecting families in the home. A smaller number of outbreaks were associated with restaurants/receptions, hospitals and other institutions. The Government acknowledge the problem and studies have identified a number of measures to help deal with it. Of particular importance is the imminent distribution of a trial information leaflet advising the public about good hygienic practice in the domestic kitchen.

  Foetal Tissue
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to reply to the questions dealing with the use of foetal tissue in transplantation operations which were tabled for answer on 21 and 22 April by the hon. Members for Pembroke, Hexham (Mr. Amos) and Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin).

  Mr. Newton
  Shortly.

  Hospitals (Private Sector Leasing)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those health authorities which have leased hospitals to the private sector; and if he will list health authorities known by his Department to be considering such a move.
  93
  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that information of this kind is not held centrally.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance has been issued to health authorities about the leasing of hospitals to the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Health authorities are aware of their responsibility to dispose advantageously of their surplus property. But they may grant short leases at the appropriate market rates on property awaiting disposal.

  Private Ambulances
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to involve health authorities in the standards achieved by private ambulances so as to bring them into line with other private health services.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 27 April 1988 at column 179.

  Midwives (Refresher Courses)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will ensure that heath authorities meet the total costs for statutory refresher courses for midwives who are holding bank contracts.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for health authorities to decide in the light of local circumstances whether or not to meet the costs of statutory refresher courses for midwives who are holding bank contracts.

  Civil Servants (Outside Activities)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many civil servants in his Department are also directors or consultants in(a) public liability companies, (b) companies limited by guarantee,(c) building societies, (d) other friendly societies and (e) commercial undertakings other than the above; and what rules or instructions govern these activities with particular reference to remuneration.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am unable to give precise details of officers in DHSS who are directors or consultants in private industry as comprehensive figures are not available.

  The private activities of civil servants are governed by general principles of conduct, laid down centrally. No officers may undertake private activities which impair their usefulness as public servants or are inconsistent with their official role or which conflict with the interests of their Department.

  In DHSS, because of the nature of the work, there are additional restrictions. Officers must not undertake private employment with finance companies or with an organisation where there is a likelihood that they would meet and deal with the same people in both their official and private roles. Officers employed on social security work must not deal with a private employer's wage records or with the insurance or benefit side of friendly societies and they are prohibited from holding sub-post master-ships. Individuals are also required to seek official permission before undertaking work about which they have any doubts.
  94
  Provided that the rules are observed, remuneration is a matter for the officer concerned.

  Legionnaires' Disease (Broadcasting House)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what discussions have taken place between his Department and British Broadcasting Corporation management regarding the outbreak of Legionnaires' disease at Broadcasting house;

  (2) if he will hold a public inquiry into the causes of the outbreak of Legionnaires disease at BBC Broadcasting house; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will call for a report from the chief medical officer about the outbreak of Legionnaires' disease at BBC Broadcasting house;

  (4) what information he has about the origins and extent of recent outbreaks of Legionnaires' disease at BBC Broadcasting house.

  Mrs. Currie
  At the beginning of the outbreak an infection control committee was set up comprising the medical officer for environmental health for the City of Westminster, the communicable disease surveillance centre, the public health laboratory service and representatives from the BBC. The Department has been kept very closely in touch with the handling of the outbreak and contacted all doctors and health authorities early this month to help ensure that any possible cases were identified.

  Legionella bacteria of the type responsible for the outbreak were found in the BBC cooling tower which was shut down and thoroughly disinfected. Other cooling towers in the area have also been checked.

  On Friday 20 May there were 44 confirmed cases of the disease, of whom two have died, and a further 44 suspected cases.

  The Department continues to monitor the outbreak closely. I understand a number of investigations by the responsible authority are currently under way.

  There are no plans to hold a public inquiry into the outbreak. The committee of inquiry into the outbreak of legionnaires' disease in Stafford in April 1985 made two reports. The second of these, published in December 1987, made general recommendations about measures to reduce the danger of further outbreaks of the disease a nd the departments concerned, together with other interested bodies, are following up these recommendations.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how long appeals against refusal of attendance allowance are normally taking; and what is the maximum time for which an appeal has been outstanding.

  Mr. Portillo
  Social security appeal tribunals hear lay questions on attendance allowance; the attendance allowance board reviews decisions on medical questions on this benefit. The national administrative statistics for social security appeal tribunals show that in Great Britain, for the quarter ending 30 September 1987, the la test available figures, the average time taken between the lodgement and hearing of appeals was 35·1 weeks for attendance allowance. While the maximum time for the hearing of such an appeal is not readily available, 27 of the
  95
  40 appeals heard in this quarter took 21 weeks or more. I regret that equivalent estimates are not available for reviews by the attendance allowance board.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects to publish the latest available figures for the numbers in low-income families.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) on Thursday 19 May 1988 at columns 563–64.

  Deaf Children
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking in the light of the report from the National Deaf Children's Society on the failure of certain health authorities to discharge their statutory duty to deaf children under the Education Act 1981, to gather information from all health authorities about their degree of compliance with the Act.

  Mr. Scott
  The report is currently being studied, and we shall consider what action to take in the light of our conclusions.

  Additional Payments (Newham)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current backlog of claims for additional payments at each of the offices of his Department in the London Borough of Newham; what is the estimated time needed to clear them given the present level of staffing resources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are three local offices in the London borough of Newham. The numbers of claims for single payments of supplementary benefit which were uncleared at 20 May 1988 are given in the table.

  Claims Outstanding

  Plaistow

  998

  Woodgrange Park

  425

  Canning Town

  249

  All claims were examined on receipt and priority has been given to urgent cases. Each of the offices concerned has its full complement of staff. At the current rate of clearance it is anticipated that the majority of outstanding claims will have been cleared by the end of July.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will be receiving replies to his questions regarding the working of the special unit of his Department and related matters involving transitional payments over housing benefit and to which a holding answer was given on 12 May.

  Mr. Scott
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

  Benefits
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people under the age of 23 years were 96
  in receipt of (a) supplementary benefit and (b) housing benefit at the latest available date; and what were the corresponding figures for 1983 and 1986.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 4 May 1988]: On 31 May 1987, the latest date for which information is available, 738,000 people under the age of 23 years were in receipt of supplementary benefit. The corresponding figures for 1983 and 1986 were 807,000 and 843,000, respectively.

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements are to be made for liaison between the proposed special unit of his Department which will be involved in the transitional arrangements for housing benefit, the local authorities and local offices of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]: These details continue to be discussed between the Department and representatives of the local authorities associations.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether claimants will be able to make representations(a) direct to the proposed special unit of his Department or (b) to local offices of his Department if they are dissatisfied with the amount of housing benefit during the transitional arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]: Although there will be no formal appeal mechanism built into the transitional payment scheme the Department will ensure that when queries about entitlement arise cases are looked at again by staff within the unit.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many staff will be involved in the proposed special unit of his Department which will be involved in the transitional arrangements for housing benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]: The number of staff required will be decided in the light of claims received.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services who will be heading the proposed special unit of his Department which will be involved in the transitional arrangements for housing benefit; and what will be his grading for salary purposes and his location.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]: The grade 6 manager of the transitional payments unit in Glasgow will be Mr. David Bradbury.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to make an oral statement in the House when he has reached a decision on the setting up of the proposed special unit of his Department that will be dealing with the transitional arrangements for housing benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]: No. Announcements will continue to be made in the normal way.

  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average length of training for medical laboratory scientific officers involved with cervical cancer screening.
  97
  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 May 1988]: Because cytology is not recognised as a separate specialty for state registration of medical laboratory scientific officers but is included with histopathology, we have no information on the average length of training. Negotiations are currently under way with the professions supplementary to medicine
  98
  to define a new training course specifically for cytology. The recommendation for this course is a minimum training period of 12 months in a cytology laboratory during which time at least 3,000 smears should have been examined under supervision.

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

Sea Bird Deaths: Thames Estuary
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to help to identify the pollution which is causing the deaths of sea birds in the Thames estuary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy may be referring to deaths of seagulls over recent years. The symptoms reported are indicative of avian botulism being the cause of death. Scavengers such as gulls are particularly susceptible to the toxin. There is no evidence to link the deaths with either disposal of waste at sea or the use of pesticides.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which indicates that some progress is being made. However, is she aware that thousands of birds have been killed and injured in the most distressing circumstances, suffering from blindness, paralysis and dehydration, while hitherto the cause has not yet been identified?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinary service advise that avian botulism periodically attacks gulls. These reported symptoms are consistent with this condition. Hot summers may promote the availability of the toxin at their feeding sites.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say something about the general state of pollution in the River Thames since the Question mentions that river and pollution? Can she also say something about the present and the future, because the past has not been all that good?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have explained the reason these gulls are dying. Sewage sludge is dumped in the outer Thames estuary under strict MAFF controls. There has been intensive monitoring by the Ministry of the hydrography of the area and of the distribution of bacteria from the dump site. The results show that the dumping has no effect on the levels of bacteria along the estuary shores.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, to be fair to those who at present manage the River Thames and those who managed it
636
in the past, a great deal of work has been done to clean up the river? Its condition now is remarkably good—so good that a salmon run up the river is now beginning to become possible. That is a fair indication of the improvement made.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful for the remarks of my noble friend.
Lord McNair: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether a gull suffering from avian botulism is capable of laying an egg which might later be consumed in your Lordships' House?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the type of botulism that these birds have does not affect humans. Avian botulism is caused by the type C toxin of clostridium botulinum. Humans are affected by type A, so noble Lords should feel free to eat any eggs.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, in support of my noble friend Lord Campbell, perhaps I may ask whether the noble Baroness is aware that a few years ago the state of the Thames was so had that if a vessel was painted and it remained in the lower Thames for 48 hours, the paint turned black.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords. I am not sure that anything like that happens to the gulls. The position may have been different in the 1950s, because MAFF licensing controls began in 1974.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the dumping of sewage sludge some miles out to sea and suggested that that was not the cause. Does she agree that the facts indicate that it is unlikely to be from sources going down the River Thames, which has been cleaned in recent years? Can she also tell us more about industrial and domestic waste coming from the coastline of the estuary?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Thames Water monitors all varieties of material, including pesticides. From that point of view, only minute traces are permitted in sludge, but the symptoms of the birds are consistent with botulism and have nothing to do with what is in the water.

Common Land and Deregistration Policy
2.42 p.m.
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to introduce legislation relating to common land and in particular to prevent deregistration.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Could he give us some indication as to when the Government have it in mind to legislate and whether, pending such legislation, they will take steps to ensure that development does not take place on common land which has been, or is about to be, deregistered?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we still intend to introduce a Bill at a suitable opportunity when parliamentary time permits. I take on board the second point which the noble Lord made.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, while I hesitate to say anything, particularly this afternoon, which might antagonise those noble Lords on the Government Benches whose natural habitat is more the grouse moor than this Chamber, is it not the case t hat there is more pressure for deregistration of common land from those owners of grouse moors than there is from development?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are some instances of deregistration occurring throughout the country. Each case is of course looked at on its merits.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that common land is almost our last uncommitted area of land in this country? It should be preserved in the common interest, as it will be when the Government get round to legislating on the Mendoza Report. Will the Minister in the meantime please call in any applications for building on recently deregistered common land?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right to infer from this Question that planning permission will be required, and of course that matter must go for decision to the local authority concerned.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the Government table a Bill in either of the two Houses, will the Minister say what consultation the Government are likely to carry out? Are they proposing to consult the local authorities in England and Wales before they produce such an important measure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have already consulted very widely, as the Leader of the Opposition will know. That consultation resulted from the Common Land Forum Report, which was published by the Countryside Commission in September 1986. However, that was not agreed unanimously and we are furthering those consultations on the points that are still in dispute.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, does this matter in any way come under residuary bodies—to look after the public interest in these matters pending legislation?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. It comes under the Department of the Environment. The Countryside Commission is taking a special interest in this matter at the moment.

Hong Kong and Vietnamese Refugees
2.44 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the present conditions of the 9,000 or more Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong and what measures are being taken to achieve their permanent resettlement.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, a recent influx has brought the total number of Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong to 13,200. The existing closed centres are very crowded and emergency facilities are being established to accommodate recent arrivals. We are pursuing our own programme of resettlement and continuing our diplomatic campaign to persuade other Governments to follow suit.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the present conditions are verging on the subhuman? Will the Minister tell us in a little more detail how the Government are going about getting international co-operation to achieve resettlement?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are acutely conscious of the gravity of the crisis facing Hong Kong. We are in close contact with the Hong Kong Government on a way forward. Indeed, my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary will have this matter high on his agenda when he visits Hong Kong later this week. But the root of the problem lies elsewhere, as I think the noble Lord will recognise. It lies in Vietnam. A long-term solution lies in the creation of acceptable conditions in Vietnam to enable the return to Vietnam of those who see leaving as the most sensible thing to do.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House what action the Government of Hong Kong with Her Majesty's Government are proposing to take between now and 1997 when the transition takes place?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord asks about events after 1997. It is our firm intention that the Vietnamese refugee problem in Hong Kong should be resolved well before that date. But the joint declaration on the future of Hong Kong provides for continuation after 30th June 1997 of Hong Kong's present social and legal systems. Any refugees then in Hong Kong should thus retain their current status.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, has the noble Lord taken into consideration that anybody who leaves his country in these extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances is likely to be far above the average in mentality and value in comparison with the rest of the people in that country? Has the noble Lord considered what a Sultan of Turkey said in the Middle Ages, when the Jews were thrown out of Spain: that he considered no man wise who expelled from his country those who were among the most valuable of his subjects in order to enrich his greatest enemy?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the answer to the noble Viscount is that these people are not being expelled; they are choosing to leave under their own volition. But naturally the fault for that lies very largely in Vietnam, where the economic conditions are not suitable to retain them.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that false rumour in Vietnam is playing a part in encouraging this traffic? Will he say to what extent the overseas services of the BBC are being used to put the record straight?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not sure to what rumour the noble Lord is referring. All I can say is that we shall certainly take steps to ensure that, so far as possible, we meet the very real concerns of all those involved. As I have said, my right honourable and learned friend is going to Hong Kong and he will discuss this matter when he is there.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, the rumour to which I was referring was that restrictions in Hong Kong were being lifted.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that no decisions have been taken on future policy.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, given that many Hong Kong residents and citizens are leaving, have left or are planning to leave, can the Government persuade the receiving countries to which those citizens are going to take an equal number of refugees?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we shall continue to urge all those countries to maintain their high level of uptake.

Shops Act 1950
2.50 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne Lord Ashbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in cases involving the enforcement of the Shops Act 1950, any practice direction has been given to the courts as to when it is appropriate to make a reference to the European Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of Articles 27 and 30 of the EC treaty.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his brief and helpful reply. Can he tell the House why Her Majesty's Government are making no effort to encourage local authorities to enforce the Shops Act, as they have a statutory right to do?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is up to the local authorities to decide when to prosecute and it is up to the courts to decide what laws operate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be wholly inappropriate
640
for the Government in any circumstances to issue practice directions to the judiciary as to what they should or should not refer to the European Court of Justice under Article 177?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. That is why I gave a somewhat short Answer.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House about consultations that have taken place between the Government and interested parties on how the problem of Sunday trading can be resolved? Will he reflect on his inability to give advice to local authorities which find that the law is being broken by so-called law-abiding citizens and companies?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as regards the last part of the noble Lord's question, it is up to local authorities to decide who and whether to prosecute. It is up to the courts to decide what laws operate. As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, the Government intend to take such action as is necessary when a common agreement has been reached on the matter. The noble Lord will doubtless recall what happened to the last Sunday trading Act. We do not wish to see that repeated. It is for those who wish to see Sunday trading laws operate better to come to a common agreement.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, has any firm been caught and dealt with under the European treaty?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that two firms have come to our attention. The first is a firm called B&Q which sold picture hooks in Shrewsbury on a Sunday. The firm was taken to court and fined £250. It appealed to Shrewsbury Crown Court and proceedings were adjourned and referred to the European Court of Justice. Some describe that as a hanging matter!
The second case involved a firm which sold European brassieres on a Sunday. The firm was taken to court and fined £250. It appealed to Bodmin Crown Court and proceedings were adjourned and referred to the European Court of Justice. Some describe that as a legal hold-up!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, without being able to emulate the noble Earl's wit, do the Government consider that the intrusion of the EC into the Shops Acts and the reply made by the noble Earl to the effect that it is up to local authorities to enforce such laws mean that it would be much wiser to leave such matters to local authorities instead of having a national Act?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, knows perfectly well, that is a much wider question. Under the European Communities Act 1972, obligations under the Treaty of Rome form part of our domestic law and are observed by the courts where relevant. To go down the path suggested by the noble Lord would be undesirable.

Business
2.55 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and the Baroness Ewart-Biggs set down for Wednesday 8th Jane shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate —(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill
Considered on Report.

Local Government Finance Bill
2.58 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The charges]:
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("subject to any regulations that may be made under subsection (2) below").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may explain Amendment No. 1, although it is very simple and straightforward. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I speak for somewhat longer than I am in the habit of doing. I want to explain fully what those of us whose names are on the Marshalled List in connection with the amendment have in our minds.
The amendment specifies how the community charge will be related to ability to pay. It articulates a nationwide concern that the poll tax is not fairer than the present archaic system and the overwhelming view that the tax—it is a tax and not a charge—should take account of ability to pay. The amendment gives the Government a year to produce
642
a scheme which relates the tax to ability to pay. Ability to pay refers both to the personal and the collective poll tax. The amendment makes no reference to the problem of the second home because that matter did not seem to fit into it.
The amendment applies the ability to pay through a linkage to the whole range of the poll tax instead of rebating in full or in part only one in four ratepayers. Ratepayers who are outside the rebate level amount to some 25 million persons and they include the richest in the land and the near-poor and needy who will pay the same fixed or flat rate. I do not entirely understand the difference between a fixed rate and a flat rate because the Government use first one word and then the other.
Finally, the amendment asks that the new government proposal should be subject to affirmative resolutions, thus making Parliament the arbiter. I think that the amendment is straightforward and contains no real complications. It is a polite request to another place to have a second look at the principle involved in the light of quite startling fresh evidence which I shall summarise as I go along.
I regard the attempt to divert attention from the amendment by suggesting that it may somehow infringe Commons financial privilege as quite unnecessary. The best available advice has convinced me that the amendment is in order in every way and that it is in no way likely to offend against Commons financial privilege. We are a revising Chamber seeking to exercise restraint on the otherwise unfettered power of the elected House. I do not think that the amendment would prove to be intolerable. If it does, under Standing Orders the Speaker is required either to make up his own mind that it is intolerable or to invite another place to express their opinion. That would be the end of the matter.
If the Government claim to have a (highly doubtful) mandate—my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has described it as unconstitutional—we should be barred from amending the bill because the Commons financial privilege had not been waived. In that case we would have very little left to do and I should have thought that we may as well go on holiday.
I want to say one thing which I find it difficult to say. It is that some of the attitudes expressed by those in high places in another place and close to it have caused some of us considerable irritation. I say that as a Commons man, having spent a number of years in the other place. I thought that the "hands off" suggestion made on the first day was unnecessary. With respect, the suggestion by the Secretary of State that we had no right to change the Bill was in my view uncalled for, particularly bearing in mind that the Bill had been pretty sharply guillotined, although no more so than other major measures.
When my noble friend Lord Beloff suggested that we were getting too big for our boots I found myself a little cross. I thought that it was a hit much when my noble friend Lord Wyatt said that we were risking disembowelling ourselves by hara-kiri. My noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne said that we should not tamper with any legislation which was included in the manifesto. Since almost all legislation is in the

643
manifesto—although ILEA was not; it just crept in—if we could not tamper with it (and I think that that is a perfectly respectable word to use although it has various connotations) we would have nothing to do; we would be talking about one-Chamber government. So I have been rather irritated by such remarks and I expect that other noble Lords have been as well.
There are two points which I should like to make absolutely clear from the outset. My three cosponsors and I are in no doubt at all that the present system is totally antiquated and dead on its feet. I would ask my noble friend when he comes to reply not to waste his breath by telling us that the present system has had it. An awful lot of time was wasted on Second Reading telling us that. I think that we all know it.
Secondly, I want to make it absolutely clear that all four of us and our supporters feel that everyone who can reasonably afford to pay rates should do so. It has been suggested by quite a number of people that that is not our view. It is our view. Everyone who can afford to pay rates should pay rates.
There is a consequence of this proposal to which I confess I have not given sufficient thought. I understand that were it to be passed—and I expect it to be passed—a government defeat would throw a spanner in the works as regards Scotland. Everything would be set at nought although a lot of work has been done which may well be of value in the future. All I can do is quote Robbie Burns:
"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft a-gley".
I hope that that will be of some comfort to the Government.
In the Second Reading debate I said that it was party policy to abolish the rates and replace them with a fairer system. That was the policy in October 1974, when it so happens that the right honourable lady the Prime Minister was Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. From that date until 1986, when the last edition of the pale green Green Paper was published, it was party policy that the rates should be directly related to the ability to pay. That was the position until 18 months before the general election. I was accustomed to that policy and so were many of my friends.
It came as a considerable surprisewhen I found that there had suddenly been an about-turn and that we had decided, having panned the idea of a poll tax over and over again, having agreed with the Select Committee in the House of Commons and with the Layfield Committee, and having said that it would never work, this was our chosen method. One talks about loyalty, which is a difficult concept to talk about. I was loyal to the previous policy because I thought that it was a very sensible one. I could hardly turn a somersault to order and agree with exactly the opposite. It is a very difficult position indeed. I feel that I have been put on the spot, and that is why I find myself in this somewhat unhappy position.
I should like to say a word about the mandate. In our last manifesto we promised:
"We will legislate in the first Session of the new Parliament to abolish the unfair domestic rating system and replace rates with a fairer community charge".
644
I do not think that the present proposals are fairer in any way at all. I think that they are a lot less fair.
Those proposals have very little support. They are extremely unpopular in the country. I have had 300 letters and it is driving my secretary crazy. Nine to one they are against the poll tax. I know that the have-nots are liable to write more often than the haves—I found that in the years I spent in another place—but only one in ten are in favour and without exception they are people who would find that their rates were slashed.
I have been doing some research. What I have found is quite astonishing. The Association of Municipal Authorities is strongly opposed to the poll tax. It says:
"A millionaire will pay half as much as a pensioner couple".
The ACC (Association of County Councils), which represents 45 or so counties in England and Wales—all bar Derbyshire, I think—describes it as having in-built systematic inequity. The National Union of Ratepayers says:
"It is completely unfair through taking no account of the ability to pay".
The National Association of Local Councils, which represents many of the 10.000 parish councils in this country, thinks it is a rotten tax because it takes no account of ability to pay. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which consists largely of finance officers in local government, is opposed root and branch to the poll tax. The Institute of Fiscal Studies—a much respected body—is strongly opposed to it because it takes no account of ability to pay. The Inland Revenue Staff Federation, which has some 56,000 members, does not like the poll tax at all because it takes no account of the ability to pay. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has the same view. The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses is strongly opposed to the business rate but has not expressed views on the poll tax.
I forgot to say anything about Layfield. It is an excellent report. It is one's bible if one is studying this subject and knows nothing about it. I knew nothing about it until I was doing some hard work recently. Layfield considered all the options before the report was written and a poll tax was not considered to be worth mentioning. There is not a single word about a poll tax from the first to the last word of the Layfield Report. It was just not a starter for the reason that it took no account of the ability to pay.
I understand that only one representative body—the Association of District Councils—is not unhappy with the Bill, although I believe that consultation with its members has been somewhat lacking. The association wants to see a further tapering from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. That is not something which I strongly favour as it drives a coach and horses through much of what is left of the idea of accountability. I ask my noble friend when he comes to reply to tell the Committee who from among all those bodies (which seem to me to be totally representative) was consulted, what views were expressed and how much account was taken of them.

645
We are told that consultation was widespread and went on for a long time.
I did not think that the Green Paper published in January 1986 (I do not recall the index number but it was the big fat one) was a Green Paper at all because it stated flatly that the Government had decided to introduce a poll tax. That is not the language of a Green Paper. The other 132 pages consisted of a great deal of rambling stuff; the key words were that the Government had decided to introduce a poll tax.
We have been told by the Government that as a result of investigations that were made it was found that people were overwhelmingly in favour of such a tax. Who were those people? I should love to know that; perhaps my noble friend will tell me. I think that I must have mentioned almost every representative body of any significance or standing in the whole country and they are all opposed to it.
I apologise for speaking at some length but I should like to put a few quick queries. We read that the poll tax has been tried out in other countries. It has been reported in The Times that it has been tried out in Tarewa and Kiribati. I do not know if anyone can find them on the map; I had a helluva job trying to do so—they are in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. Apparently it did not work very well. I know that it has been considered in a few Swiss cantons, some small places in Japan and some cities in America (where it is now being phased out) but it has not been used on any scale whatever— merely in respect of something like £3 or £4 a week. I have looked abroad to see how the poll tax works, but I cannot find any example that would encourage us to try to introduce such a tax here. I can see absolutely none. Perhaps my noble friend will tell me which democracies he examined in which a poll tax was the major source of revenue for local government. I do not believe that there are any such places.
There is another obvious question that I should like to ask. These days everyone is talking about Wat Tyler. The Green Paper declares that there was a poll tax in this country centuries ago. I am no historian but I know that in 1381 John Ball and Wat Tyler both came to a sticky end—and so did the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was called the Treasurer and the Chief Commissioner, who today would be called the Secretary of State for the Environment. Such grievances led to the Peasants Revolt. I do not believe that there has been a fiat rate poll tax as the sole means of raising money for local authorities since that time.
My next question is this: how many extra local government employees will there be? I am told that in round figures there are now 13,000 and that there will be 30,000 employees. It sounds almost like a job creation scheme.
Almost finally comes the question: how about the cost of introducing the poll tax? The AMA is a very efficient body, whatever its politics may be, and recently in The Times it has been reported as estimating that from 1st April 1990 the cost of administering the poll tax nationally will come to about £100 million more than the Government have estimated. I specifically ask my noble friend to give us
646
the Government's latest estimate and tell us whether the AMA is right or wrong. The association also states that the cost of the buildings, computers and all the rest of the set-up will be £226 million a year for the next three years.
The ability to pay is the key factor. Those people who come just above the rebate level will have the greatest difficulty in paying the charge. They will find the poll tax a heavy and even intolerable burden. During the course of the debates on this Bill many amendments will be tabled with reference to community service volunteers, blind people, the Salvation Army, charities, and many other such groups. I know that the Committee has these groups very much in mind. There will be many people who will find themselves in considerable financial difficulty. About that there is no doubt at all.
I know that absolute fairness is impossible to achieve in any rating system. Moreover, all taxes are unpopular. However, I also know that it is nonsense to say that there is some great constitutional issue at stake in regard to this amendment, which has been described as a wrecking amendment. That is of course a different point. I am told on very good authority that there cannot be a wrecking amendment in this Chamber. I do not believe that there is such a thing although that may be a matter of opinion. There is just an honest difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament about this matter. It will sort itself out given the goodwill that exists at both ends of the corridor. However, I have little confidence that anything satisfactory will be devised by a Secretary of State who is today reported in the Daily Telegraph as saying, referring to this Bill, that it involves the impossibility of devising something that we have found to be impossible.
We are in a mess. This Bill has been dubbed a flagship and it is sailing too close to the wind. If she does not come off the wind a little or go about smartly, she will miss stays and then we shall be in a real mess and a much worse one than we are now. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ellenborough: I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend. As a lifelong Conservative and a firm supporter of this Government and our Prime Minister it gives me no pleasure to find myself taking what is possibly a different view from that of some of my noble friends on this occasion. Even so I support this amendment which has been so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Chelwood.
The purpose of this amendment is quite simple. It seeks to ask, persuade and implore the Government to draw back from the brink of the utmost folly in imposing a tax which is so inherently unfair and which commands so little respect and support in the country. The manifesto commitment was to replace the rates with a fairer community charge. It is the word "fairer" that cannot be emphasised too much. Instead of that, the unfair and outdated rating system is to be replaced by a flat-rate poll tax for three-quarters of the population, which is just as unfair. Indeed some would say that it is even more unfair than the present rating system.

647
Some 9 million people out of an adult population of 36 million will receive rebates. The recent concessions made by the Secretary of State—and there may well need to be more—merely underline the absolute absurdity of imposing compulsory tax liabilities on people who arc too poor to pay them. Such people are most unlikely to be greatly concerned with accountability if, in the end, their tax bills are to be paid anyhow. It makes no sense to pull people out of tax at the national level (and rightly so) yet at the same time push people who are already enmeshed in the welfare net into local taxation. That is not done for matters of, say, defence. Why do it for education, fire services or police, which are now just as much national considerations as is defence? The colossal rebate system adds to the astronomical cost and the administrative nightmare of the whole affair.
Some people compare the community charge with television or car licences but that is ridiculous. It is not compulsory to have a television—indeed some people do not even like to watch television, although it seems almost unbelievable that they do not. The same is true of cars. Not everybody can or wants to drive a car. Some people share a car. That is not compulsory; but a community charge, which may be called a tax, is compulsory.
The levels of income at which help by rebates ceases are very low. A single person on a weekly income of £51 pays the same as someone with an income of £501 weekly at the national average poll tax levels. Some 27 million, or three-quarters of the population, are to pay a flat rate tax ranging from those just above the welfare net to the very well off.
The manifesto states that there will be a fixed rate charge for local services. I doubt whether the average elector as he hastened to the polls in England clutching a copy of the party manifesto had minutely examined the fine print. However, I should have thought that the wording implied a fixed rate national charge. Most people would be pretty surprised to find that we have 400 different rates ranging from about £200 to £800. There has been a lot of talk about 400 chancellors of the exchequer. One has 400 directors of finance at the moment under the rating system; we shall have 400 chancellors of the exchequer—whatever one likes to call them—under this community charge system.
The Government try to justify the fairness of their proposals by almost parrot-like repetition of the argument that the top 10 per cent. by income of households pay six times as much poll tax as the bottom 10 per cent. This is a statistical sleight of hand. It is produced by a combination of rebates and, most importantly, by using households and not individuals. Most well-off households have more than one person with an income thereby producing more separate poll tax bills. This argument conflicts with the Government's insistence that every individual person will receive a poll tax bill.
In the Second Reading debate I said that it will be more easily understood that income taxpayers pay exactly the same amount of income tax under the community charge system as at present under the rating system, assuming income remains static and that there are no changes in income tax. Although
648
contributions through the tax system will be the same, the overall percentage contributed by the better off—that is, in income tax and community charge together—will be less because their contributions paid locally will have decreased. Generally the community charge paid by the better-off will be less than is paid now in rates.
Perhaps I may briefly repeat an example I gave of a fairly average outer London borough where the community charge, if enforced, would be about £262 per annum. In some parts of the borough there are married couples at present paying about £1,760 in rates. They will gain about £1,200—and jolly good luck to them. However, in other parts of the borough there are many more married couples at present paying rates of only £300. They will have to find well over £500—a loss of £200. Those people will feel aggrieved, and rightly so. They will not be very impressed by the government statistics.
This is a desperately unpopular proposed tax, shown by all the opinion polls as the implications have gradually percolated through. As my noble friend Lord Chelwood said, the reaction from most of the professional bodies, the metropolitan and county councils, and a good many of the district councils, is thoroughly adverse. Then there has been the reaction in Scotland where the community charge was an issue at the last general election and at the more recent local elections. In Scotland, there was a blueprint; there was something for people to see. The legislation had been enacted. And look what happened! It was an absolute disaster for the Government.
Most of us know that the Bill would never have passed had there been a free vote in another place. As most of us also know, many Ministers are lukewarm about it. That is why the Mates amendment in another place attracted some support. There, it is realised that honourable Members supporting the Government will have to get out and sell the tax on the doorsteps. As it stands now they know quite well that it is an unsaleable product. Members of the Committee here are lucky that we do not have to get out on the doorsteps. We do not have to seek re-election next time around. Perhaps I may say to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Caithness, that we all wish him well; but perhaps he will spare a thought for his former collegue the Minister in another place who piloted the Scottish legislation through and will consider what happened to him. He lost his seat.
This poll tax will not go away. One noble Lord said that it will all be forgotten in a year or two—just like the GLC, with no-one able to remember what GLC stood for. But the poll tax will come back in a couple of years. It will hit this Government at the worst possible time in the run-up to the next election. No other advanced country has a flat rate poll tax. Only a political decision is lacking for a workable scheme to be put into effect based on ability to pay. It is incredible that the Government cannot produce a more durable scheme likely to command far greater acceptance. It is in their interests, and that of the country, that they should do so.
Viscount Whitelaw: For the first time in 30 years I speak today in Parliament for myself, not officially

649
for any government or any opposition. I do not intend to detain Members of the Committee with a detailed argument about the amendments before us. My position, simply stated, is that I went through all the discussions in government about the Bill before its introduction. As a result I am convinced that the decision to abolish the existing rating system must be right. I believe that the proposals in this Bill, with the modifications for rebates already introduced in another place, are basically right. I hope that Members of the Committee will give the Bill the scrutiny for which this House, as a revising Chamber, is so well equipped, and if further detailed improvements can be produced so much the better.
Equally, I have no doubt that the amendments before us seek to change the whole basis of the Bill. I must accept from my noble friend Lord Chelwood—whom I greatly admire and do not seek to criticise—that when he says that they are not wrecking amendments, that is his view. But every man must be judged by the company he keeps, and I see some people in the company who will support the noble Lord who have a very different point of view. There they sit, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and his friends. They are perfectly clear—and they are perfectly entitled to the view—that they do not like the Bill; they do not want the Bill; and they will seek to stop the Bill by any means they can. If that is not a wrecking position, I do not know what is.
They say very properly—and I admire them for it because I realise the strength of their feeling—that they did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading in accordance with our conventions. I believe that they are abundantly right. I would expect the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to do exactly that; and he and his colleagues did so. But of course they wish to embarrass the Government. Let my noble friends have no illusion about that. So indeed do the parties—as I understand I call them—below the gangway: the SLD and the others. They are all in the same boat. They do not wish to see this Bill enacted.
And so they have allied themselves, very understandably, with my noble friends. I believe that they are more than just wrecking the Bill and that the amendments introduce proposals which are not well thought out; indeed they do not seek to be thought out. Under the amendments the Government are to introduce regulations—secondary legislation—to be put into a primary legislation Bill, to which they are not suited.
For many years I have listened in this Chamber and elsewhere to cries from those who say that they do not like delegated legislation. I have heard those cries from so many noble Lords opposite. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is not here because he is a great figure in the field. I have heard him expound at length on the dangers of delegated legislation. But now what does the party opposite seek? It seeks to introduce delegated legislation, or to support the introduction of delegated legislation, which is totally incongruent to the Bill as it stands as primary legislation. Nobody can doubt that fact. I cannot really believe that it is a wise suggestion.
However, there is one other consideration, and only one, that I wish to leave with the Committee. It
650
is the reason that I rise to speak today. It arises from my experience as Leader of your Lordships' House. The Leader of your Lordships' House has a great privilege. He also has a great experience of education and perhaps sometimes it is a very humbling experience. As a result I have become a passionate believer in this place as a revising Chamber. I am equally certain that it will destroy its whole effectivenesss in that rôle if it seeks to confront the elected Chamber and the Government in that elected Chamber.
I read and I saw on the television, because I was not here, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, make a very good point on the Education Reform Bill. He felt the Government ought to think again. If I may humbly say so, he was perfectly right. I know what was in the hack of the noble Lord's mind. I cannot imagine any Prime Minister at any time who would have been less keen to see this Chamber upset the detailed and solid proposals contained in this legislation, and the noble Lord knows it very well indeed. That is why he was so careful to ask the Government to think again. I believe that that is enormously important in our system of two-Chamber Government; the system will work if the revising Chamber works all the time in sensible co-operation with the elected Chamber and at the same time that the Government of the day believe that it is right and recognise, whether they have a small or a large majority, the value of that arrangement. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, is not present. I have read that the noble Lord raises the point all the time that the Government have lost much of their majority in the House of Commons. That is really a very dangerous argument for not standing by the old principle that "one is enough". The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, had to rely on the principle that one is enough for quite a long time!
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, forgets that when he had the great courage, when I was Leader of another place, to support the Heath Government in the Lobbies on the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill, the Government had lost the whole of their majority, not just some of it. So I do not believe that that is a very good argument for saying that this Chamber should suddenly adopt a different position from the position it took before.
In the last Parliament I used to go to my colleagues if the Government had been defeated in this Chamber. Incidentally, I read very nice things in the press from time to time, including that I did not lose votes. The fact is that when I was the Leader of your Lordships' House perhaps—only perhaps because there was a very large majority in another place—I actually lost more votes than any of my predecessors since the war. I do not complain of that for one moment, but what matters in a two-Chamber Government is how one uses that position. I used that position on behalf of this Chamber, and I believe it will be accepted here that that is exactly what I did. I went to my colleagues and told them that they would have to compromise with what had happened in this Chamber. I told them that they would perhaps have to accept what the House of Lords had said. I said that if they were to do that on two amendments,

651
they could perfectly properly stand on another, and frequently Bills have gone through on that basis.
There is a sad irony that in the case of the Scottish Bill on the community charge that is exactly and precisely what happened. I had various changes made in that Bill, precisely because this Chamber stood on them and we got them through. There were many other major Bills on which that happened.
I claim that that is the two-Chamber Government working properly, as it should work in all the circumstances. That is how this House will do the best job it can as a revising Chamber, in just the same way as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said that it should.
I am rather proud of some of the compromises that were made. Some of them, as always in one's political life, must be wrong and one has to live with one's mistakes as well as with the things that go right. As I look back over 30 years I find that perhaps the mistakes are in the ascendancy However, that is as it may be! In this case I have no doubt that it was a success. That is the position we are in today.
If this Chamber decides that it will stand against the Government, and indeed the elected Chamber—whatever one may like to say and however one dresses it up—by passing an amendment such as this, it will be confronting the Government in the elected Chamber, the majority in the elected Chamber, whatever may be said about the other place. That is what the Committee will be doing. If that is what the Committee decides to do, that, as I have learnt over the years, is something that it will do. I shall stand up for it because I have become a devotee—let there be no doubt about that to anyone—of the value of this place as a revising Chamber. But I shall bitterly regret any such action because if we do that this afternoon, we shall do so much to destroy the real success of the revising Chamber which over the years noble Lords have done so much to promote.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I feel I must—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If my noble friend will permit me, as the proposer of Amendments Nos. 3 and 35 which have, by agreement, been grouped with these two amendments, I accept some responsibility. In speaking to these amendments, my position is made very much easier by the speech that we have just heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. He seems to believe that the difference between my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, is that, although the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, is proposing an amendment which he concedes in effect is not a wrecking amendment, we wish to wreck the whole Bill and have it returned to the electorate. I wish that the noble Viscount could persuade my noble friends of that, because that is by no means the situation I find in discussions with my noble friends. The very common view of my noble friends and of the Labour Party at large in the country is very much that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough; that this community charge proposal is not only unpopular now but is bound to do enormous damage to the Conservative Party in years to come.
652
Being aware of that and aware of the experience in Scotland to which the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, referred and which is already taking place—this is not speculation about the future—some of my noble friends would wish to say, "Let them get on with it"—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Hear, hear!
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, I do not need much confirmation, do I, for that? I have to say that I take a different view. I take the view that the interests of the people of this country who will be voting for and paying for local government in the short, medium and long term are important. My noble friends ought to be supporting my amendment. As it comes first and is not too different in its terms, I shall talk about the substance of the matter before us.
My amendment seeks to protect those most in need from the ravages of the community charge or the poll tax. In doing so, I should first like to say that I do not believe to be valid the charge of seeking to replace primary legislation by secondary legislation which was levied by the noble Viscount on his noble friend. I readily admit that that would also apply to my own amendment. I do not believe that there is any real alternative for this Committee, as a revising Chamber, other than to return the matter to the Government and its majority in the House of Commons to produce a realistic alternative. I do not see that it can be the task of Members of the Committee, on whichever Benches we sit, to produce a completely new revision of the community charge proposals which would meet all the objections which have been raised to them.
I do not say that there is a single solution which will meet all those objectives; far from it. I believe that even the rates are better than what is now proposed; but I am the first person to say that they are desperately inadequate as a fair basis for raising revenue for local government. If the amendment is carried, the Government, with all the resources at their disposal, not only have the opportunity but the obligation to do more than produce legislation. They have the possibility of producing further amendments to put before another place which would dissent from the amendment now being moved and which would put in its place something more acceptable to a wider range of people in our society.
Let us first dispose of the argument that the community charge is related to the ability to pay. I do not believe that the Government make that claim, but it has been made on their behalf. One needs only to quote the Secretary of State to make clear the fact that ability to pay has not been one of the criteria in establishing the community charge. In Standing Committee E on 23rd February, at col. 936, the Secretary of State said:
"With a flat rate charge, it must be true that the burden will fall more heavily on those with low incomes than on those with high incomes. That is beyond contradiction in relation to those who pay the full community charge.".
I shall deal with that qualification in a moment because it is important.

653
We must now look at the ability to pay criterion as it applies to the community charge, income tax and various other forms of taxation which might be used to support central or local government expenditure. It will generally be agreed that income taxes are progressive in the sense that a higher proportion of the income of those with higher incomes is taken for tax purposes. I am sorry to be so basic about the matter but there has been a great deal of confusion in the media about it. It will be agreed that indirect taxes—taxes on consumption—to some extent bear more heavily on a higher proportion of those with lower incomes. However, they all have an element of voluntariness in them in the sense that it is not essential to drive a car, to have a television set or to spend more. Value added tax is an expenditure tax and it bears more heavily on those who spend more and have more disposable income. To that extent it is progressive.
The community charge is not like that; it is completely compulsory. If the register can be made to be complete—we shall deal with that matter at a later stage— then if one lives and breathes in this country one will be liable to pay the community charge. As the Secretary of State has made totally clear, there is no doubt that it will bear more heavily, not just absolutely but relatively to all other forms of taxation, on those with lower incomes. To that extent the introduction of the community charge cannot be said to do anything other than to make the poor poorer and the rich richer. It is on that fundamental basis that we are opposed to the charge.
I should like to make it clear that we are not opposed to reforms in the finance of local government. We are not opposed to many of the detailed provisions in the Bill. We do not believe that our amendment or that of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, are wrecking amendments. We believe that the flat rate poll tax charge is profoundly socially wrong. We shall support any effort that can be made to remove it from the face of the Bill and to give the Government an opportunity to think again and to protect their political future.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: I believe that it is the turn of the Cross Benches. Members of the Committee are well aware that the Cross Benches are not a party; we are a heterogeneous collection of people with highly idiosyncratic points of view. When Members are attending party meetings on Thursdays we also have a Cross Bench meeting, not as a party but as an opportunity to discuss public affairs. From time to time we listen to invited speakers of an academic and institutional variety and who give us a non-party view of matters which may be in controversy.
Long before the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, was in the public domain, we invited a representative of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy to talk to us about the Bill. We did so in the belief that we would be listening to an impartial academic exercise on the pros and cons of local government taxation. We met last Thursday and listened to it. To my intense surprise we were given an intensely partisan write-up
654
for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. We were even handed copies of his brief which I have here. It consists of "answers to questions for Lord Chelwood; short statement for Lord Chelwood; briefing note for Lord Chelwood", etc. That document was handed to a group of independent Peers. We would never have permitted that it we had known in advance of the event.
I do not wish that to be the cause of misunderstanding. I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, or anyone on the Cross Benches who arranged the talk. Having been briefed on the noble Lord's amendment, I invite my noble friends to de-brief themselves by trying to forget what they heard and have had all week-end to think about. They have heard the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, in matter and manner. I now invite them to listen to the Government's reply in matter and manner and to make up their independent minds.
My mind was strongly influenced by a remarkable speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on Second Reading of the Bill. It was on 9th May of this year and appears in Hansard at col. 856. I have read it, re-read and studied it and I am strongly influenced by it. Unless any Member can fault the arguments put forward in that speech, I shall oppose the noble Lord's amendment and vote for the Government.
I shall not enter into any question of constitutionality. Fools rush in where angels and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, may from time to time fear to tread. However, I make a discrimination in my mind between having a right and its wise exercise. It is not necessarily wise to exercise the right that one has. If we are ever to challenge the voice of the elected Chamber I should not choose this particular exercise to stand it on.
I should like to make two personal statements. First, as a lone bachelor living in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, I pay £1,000 a year in rates, to the nearest teener. Of that £800 goes on the ILEA precept to finance education in other boroughs. I expect that my rates will be considerably reduced in due course as a result of the poll tax. However, I return to the point made by the Prime Minister when she addressed the Church of Scotland last week. Because I shall be, say, £400 in pocket as a result, it does not follow that I shall necessarily spend it on myself. The option is open to me to subscribe to such charities as relieve poverty; possibly poverty caused by the Bill, I do not know. The option is open and it is likely that I shall be greatly in favour of exercising it.
Finally, my experience of radical reforms is that most of the threats which are foreseen do not materialise but all sorts of unexpected side effects do. Therefore, those have to be put right in an amending Bill in two or three years' time. I cannot judge that amending Bill until the side effects have materialised but, unless anybody can fault the arguments which I have used, I shall vote against this amendment and for the Government.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: We lack some suitable form of communication between your Lordships'

655
House and the other place. It is obvious that a new relationship has been building up for some time between the two Houses and we have not devised an appropriate method of communicating one with the other.
Our problem is that when we have a Bill before us from another place the only way we can deal with it, whether we revise it in mild or substantial form, is by amendment. The convention is that we do not oppose the Second Reading of any Government Bill coming from another place. Even at that stage we should probably have the means of communicating preliminary doubts, though that may be a little premature. How do we communicate the deeply seated anxiety here and throughout the country as to the incidence of and the ability to pay this new charge? This is the first time within living memory that a single uniform tax is to imposed on all citizens irrespective of means or other circumstances. We are raising the question of ability to pay.
If a common tax levied on everybody is to be within the means of everybody then there must be a common denominator and we have no information about any common denominator. This Bill is a paving Bill for other people to make a charge upon the citizen. The difference between flat rates of tax and proportionate or progressive schemes of taxation is that the single rate of tax, the uniform rate of tax, the standard rate of tax is enforceable and recoverable.
In other directions, a single uniform tax is on commodities or services like motor vehicle tax, which the citizen may or may not pay according to whether or not he has a car. However, if there is a tax levied on everybody irrespective of services and means then it has to be within the ability of the generality of the citizens to afford. We are not satisfied about that.
I believe that this is the root of the trouble. This is not the imposition of an additional burden of taxation on the community as a whole. This is a spread of taxation from the occupation of domestic dwellings to the citizens in general, whether or not they are occupying domestic premises. In that transfer, surely there has to be some assurance that the amount spread more widely will be within the ability of people to pay; otherwise, there will be claims for exemptions and rebates to the extent that the concept of the uniform charge will be so eroded as to become almost unrecognisable.
I am warned by my friends in the tax gathering community that nowhere else has a tax of this kind proved successful in a form of enforceable taxation and there is the deepest anxiety as to whether people will respond to it. If there is widespread resistance, if enforcement becomes almost commonplace, then it will downgrade the system of taxation and make it a matter for the repute of Parliament which has imposed it.
Therefore, can we ask the other place to think again, or to supply additional information which will enable us to come to a firmer conclusion about the fairness and acceptability of this tax? I do not believe that we should allow the constitutional niceties of convention or history stand in the path of finding a way of expressing these anxieties in another place.
656
This amendment does it in a form which puts the least constraint on the other place in the direction of the consideration which they may give. Therefore, that is the least offensive to the susceptibilities of another place. They cannot criticise us for expressing our anxiety in the mildest and most open way for them to give us the basic information about this tax which will remove our anxieties. We are entitled just as much as everybody else to have that information on behalf of the people. We are citizens and we are in a privileged position to express anxieties on behalf of those with whom we may be associated.
Can we find a way of doing that? May I say to the noble Viscount who has just spoken, that when he was the most esteemed Leader of your Lordships' House he let all our conventions rest where they were, and we have not sought to find new ones. At one time he warned us that we must not go too far too fast, and our own susceptibilities were aroused when we received that rebuke and warning from the noble Viscount. I beg this Committee to find some way of communication if this will not do, but if we cannot find one, this will have to do. I believe that the other place must put up with it and respond in a reasonable spirit, and then there will not be any real difference between the two Houses. We cannot go on tinkering about with the revision of this Bill while feeling that basically we are not satisfied that it is sound; we want reassurances before we can proceed with an easy mind.
4 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I rise with diffidence and I hope to be short. I do not want to talk about the niceties of the constitution, but I want to talk partly about the essence of the constitution and the relationship of the two Chambers and partly about the amendment itself.
On and off I have been a Member of this House since 1950 when my father died, and I believe that I can say as my genuine opinion that at no time has your Lordships' House stood higher in the estimation of the public than it does at present. There are many reasons for this, one of which was the Life Peerages Act. However, I shall not go into all the reasons. I am quite convinced that one reason has been that this House has never set itself up as a general court of appeal from the Commons but has been content to accept the result of the constitutional battle which ended in 1911, and that constitutional battle needs careful consideration.
I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in his place because I warned him that I might be saying something about his speech on Second Reading. He spent a good deal of time quoting from a book of mine by which I was much flattered, but he will never find that I ever suggested or ever would suggest that this House should go back on the result of 1911 and what that meant. I wish to remind the Members of the Committee as to what it meant. Long before the rejection of the budget in 1909, dating back to the 17th century, the House of Commons has laid it down as a claim to its privilege that one should not amend a charge to tax in this House. I was careful to consider whether this, which is called by the Government a charge and by its critics a tax, was within the terms of the general rule.

657
When I wrote a letter to a newspaper the other day I verified my references and looked at two reputable text books, one of which was Eskine May, which is generally reckoned to be the standard work on the subject. I found that there never was, even before 1909, at 1900, a right in this House to amend a charge to tax, whether it was a land drainage rate or whether it was an income tax. It was that which led to the disreputable practice of another place, which has now been disused, to tack non-taxing provisions to a Finance Bill.
If I may say so to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, what I am saying now has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether this Bill is a money Bill. This Bill is not a money Bill and most Finance Bills are not money Bills. They are not, and could not be, certified by the Speaker. The only test of what is a money Bill and what is not is whether the Bill is certified by the Speaker, who is no doubt advised by his parliamentary clerks.
By 1900 it was abundantly plain that this House could not amend a charge to tax. It can be seen plainly from the current edition of Erskine May, at pages 853 onwards, that this charge which is under discussion in the Local Government Finance Bill is such a charge as comes within the prohibition. If the parties opposite are seeking, as they claim to be seeking, to go back on their own traditions as regards the relationship between the two Houses in a matter of this importance, they will be betraying their whole tradition; they will be betraying parliamentary democracy as we have known it hitherto.
I say this in all sincerity. From time to time there have been governments other than Conservative Governments. There may very well be one in the future, especially as, as Disraeli observed some time ago, "no government can be long secure unless it possesses a formidable opposition". Whatever we have at the moment, we have no formidable opposition. The Government by that standard must obviously be highly insecure at the present time. What is done in the green wood will happen again in the dry.
I speak as one who, with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had a good deal to do with Conservative opposition when some noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite were responsible for government. I can assure noble Lords opposite, looking behind me this time, that there were a number of horses that were rather/difficult to hold by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and myself. If the precedent is now set that this House on a major Bill is going to treat itself as a general court of appeal from the House of Commons, it is a precedent which they may regret having made if, by any possible chance, which I hope will not happen, they were to win this Division.
I look at the actual amendment. As the minutes passed and as Lord Chelwood's speech was succeeded by the speech of my noble friend Lord Ellenborough, I heard a great deal of abuse of the charge which the Government are introducing by this Bill, but I did not hear a single word or a single argument in favour of this particular amendment; nor could such an argument have been presented.
658
This amendment talks about ability to pay. It seeks to put those words into an Act of Parliament. Ability to pay is as long as a piece of string. Acts of Parliament are supposed to be construed by the courts. It is totally impossible for the courts to construe that phrase and to know whether the regulations introduced by the Secretary of State, in the unlikely event of the amendment proving law, are within the terms of the amendment or not.
What is even more disreputable (and I use the words without personal offence) is the idea that the Secretary of State by regulations can introduce a tax of any kind. Is is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to argue that "they can do their best," or that "it does not mean anything more than that we are asking the House of Commons to think of it again". The fact is that if regulations were passed, they could not be amended even by the House of Commons. It is not simply a question of secondary legislation which we are asked should be passed by this legislation; it is secondary legislation imposing the terms of a tax which cannot be amended. The Liberal Party would be absolutely disregarding its whole history—not that it often does not do so—if they voted for an amendment of this kind. The Labour Party would be betraying its own past.
The factor of ability to pay under the scheme of this Bill is to be drawn from the Exchequer contribution to local taxation and the business rate, which will be uniform and imposed through central government. That is where the ability to pay comes in. To that, one must add rebates. Rebates are the way to deal with need, not a vague and impossible phrase like "ability to pay". This amendment fails on constitutional grounds. It fails on its merits. The charge is justified. I, like the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, who is sitting so close to me and whom I would otherwise call my noble friend, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was entirely persuaded by the arguments on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. For these reasons I would ask the Committee to reject this amendment with the utmost decision.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I have listened with great respect, as I always do, to the noble and learned Lord and to the case which he has just made. However, I am puzzled by one thing, namely, why the noble and learned Lord did not raise this constitutional argument when the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 1987 was going through the House. That position was on all fours with this and a similar amendment was put down. Why did not he and others then raise this argument?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My recollection is that that amendment was rejected, but the simple fact is that I did not attend any of the debates on the Scottish legislation.
Baroness Faithfull: I have put my name to this amendment and I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to speak.
The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, said in his very enjoyable speech that never had the reputation

659
of the House of Lords stood so high. I maintain that our reputation stands high because we take the line we do, an independent line from the House of Commons. It is not that we wish to wreck a Bill, or that we wish to have conflict with the other place, but simply that we wish them to think again. I cannot enter into constitutional arguments with the noble and learned Lord, but I should like to say that we are not constitutionally trying to transgress the laws of this place; we are only putting forward our views for the other place to consider.
In his Second Reading speech the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, enumerated the achievements of this country during the past nine years. We owe our rising standard of living, our downward curve of unemployment and our high international standing to Her Majesty's Government, in particular to the Prime Minister. We agree that we need a Bill to deal with the present outmoded and unjust rating system. Furthermore, I agree with the basic principles underlying this Bill; namely, that those who receive a public local service should, as far as possible and practicable, contribute to those services. Equally, I agree that local authorities should stand accountable to the electors, who in turn should be aware of how their community charge is allocated and will know when the charge rises or falls. I ask the Committee to consider whether these right principles are being wisely enacted in this Bill and whether the methods are effective and administratively economic.
As I said, I do not feel that I am taking part in a wrecking amendment. I am only asking the House of Commons to think again. The amendment asks that personal community charges and liability to contributions to collective community charges shall be related to ability to pay. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that these words may or may not be legally correct. There again, if that is so, the House of Commons can surely think about that and put it right. The Secretary of State has already in some measure conceded the principle of ability to pay. How has he conceded this? First, there are six exemptions and more to come—nuns and monks. Secondly, 36 million people will be eligible to pay the community charge and of these the Secretary of State has said that 9 million will receive rebates.
It is known that the rebate system is means-tested and the maximum rebate is 80 per cent., leaving some people to pay 20 per cent. I imagine that the principle here is that each and every person paying the community charge, however small, will watch the expenditure of the local council and that this will be a public form of controlling local authority expenditure. I am bound to say that in reality I do not believe that many people will link the community charge to the efficiency or otherwise of the local authority. In travelling to your Lordships' House today, the taxi-cab driver said to me, "You've got the poll tax in the House of Lords today." I tried to explain it to him and then said, "You see, you will know what your local authority is paying, or not paying, and whether it is efficient or non-efficient." "Hm", he sniffed, "You can tell that to the marines".
I fear that those on low incomes will experience frustration and anger which may well be directed
660
against the Government. Those people on family income support will certainly direct their anger and distress towards the Government and not at the local authority, simply because they regard the supplementary benefit offices as part of government, which indeed they are.
There are certain areas of difficulty. Perhaps I may cite a few. Have Her Majesty's Government thought through the effect of the penalty of non-payment on the low paid or those on family income support? I fear that the prison population may grow. Some families who are caring for an elderly relative with difficulty may feel obliged—or indeed the relative may feel obliged—to move into residential care. Wives of men on a low income may feel that they must leave the children to go out to work in order to pay the community charge. The worst off will be those below the income tax threshold but who do not qualify for rebate. I fear that there will be a sense of injustice. While recognising that those on a high income pay high income tax, which in turn contributes to local authority expenditure, nevertheless the flat rate will seem inequitable and will feed into the concept that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
Income tax is based upon the incomes of people; the present rates are based on property; the community charge is based on people. This could be an administrative nightmare, particularly in large cities where there are more homeless people than we care to know about and where there is movement of population. I fear that administration is going to be difficult.
The cost of collecting the community charge and assessing the rebates will be expensive. The cost of carrying out the new scheme is expected to be at least two-and-a-half times that of collecting taxes. I have an article by Robert Calderwood, the chief executive of Strathclyde Council. He states in this article that Strathclyde will need 1,000 extra staff to carry through the effect of this Bill. Central government are giving £6.5 million towards accommodation and a computer and £67 million towards extra costs.
I repeat that there is much in the principle behind this Bill, but the practicalities have not been well worked out and we ask the other place to think again.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Barnett: I refer to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, a few moments ago on the constitutional or, as he called it, non-constitutional niceties of the Bill. The Committee will be aware that we are all extremely fond of the noble and learned Lord but I believe that we are also aware that not often—and even his best friends will tell him—is he the first person to admit that he could just be wrong.
Before I come to the constitutional point that he made, I say at once that throughout my political life I have been opposed to the rating system as a wholly unfair tax and I have not changed my mind one bit. It is still a wholly unfair tax. Until we had this Bill no alternative had ever been acceptable to any government. The present Government have produced the community charge, or poll tax, which is

661
now the Government's alternative to the rating system.
One is bound to admit that the new tax alternative to the rates has been modified to help the very lowest paid. I certainly would not dispute that. Equally, I hope that it will not be disputed that, as the noble Baroness has said, the cost of collection will be enormously higher than the collection of the rates. Further, there will be a huge problem of evasion. I can recall in another place introducing anti-tax evasion legislation and the opposition I faced at that time from everyone, from the present Prime Minister downwards, was so intense that I am astonished that the Government are willing to go along with the idea of dealing with the level of evasion that we are likely to get with the poll tax.
However, I hope that those who are in favour of the community charge as being less bad (if I may put it that way) than the rating system will recognise there is at least— putting it no higher—some unfairness in the poll tax system. For example, a man or woman earning £5,000 a year will pay the same poll tax as someone earning £100,000 a year or £1 million a year. To that extent at least, I hope it will be conceded that there is an element—I put it no higher—of unfairness. Again, one should put the problem into perspective. Most taxation will continue to be from general taxation and that will include the financing of local government expenditure. However, it seems that the question today is the wrong one. The question in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, is whether we can find a less unfair way of having a poll tax.
In another place an amendment tabled by Michael Mates was just defeated. I am bound to say that I would in any case have found it very difficult to support the amendment because it would have simply piled complexity on complexity and in many ways would have made the poll tax even more unfair.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Barnett: However, when noble Lords opposite cheer I hope they will wait a moment. As I say, the wrong question has been put to us today. It seems to me that the real question today is: should we replace a bad tax with a worse one?—and it is a worse one.
Among the alternatives that have been suggested is a local income tax. I have never myself supported the idea of a local income tax. If you collect it centrally and distribute it, which would be the simplest way of doing it, you go a long way towards destroying local democracy. If, on the other hand, you collect it locally you create even more complexity and probably even more distribution problems than you would with the poll tax.
However, again one is bound to ask your Lordships: is the poll tax a better tax then the rating system? The alternative of having no rating system and collecting everything, or a great deal more, through central government by having, say, education and other areas of local authority expenditure financed from direct taxation or general taxation would be equally unacceptable to me
662
personally. For me, local democracy must be truly accountable to the local electorate, and therefore to give yet more power to central government would surely be wrong.
So if we want local democracy—a truly accountable local democracy—we have to choose between two bad taxes. As I say, I have always opposed the rating system because it is basically unfair. On the other hand, one must compare it with the system that is proposed. There is at least some relation—I put it no higher to ability to pay by reason of the fact that if you live in a very large house you will pay more rates than if you live in a very small house. But the reason it is still unfair is that it still does not apply equally in every case, and I would be the first to admit it. That is why I do not like the rating system.
However, the poll tax goes much further than that. It imposes exactly the same rate on everybody, regardless of the level of income. At the same time it imposes a cost of collection which is nearly three times as much. Also, the evasion aspect will create enormous problems in respect of personal freedom, about which I used to hear so much from the friends of some of your Lordships in the other place when we posed anti-tax evasion questions.
On the other hand, I do not like the alternative of trying to amend the poll tax. I do not think you can simply make it fair; I do not think that is possible. I shall vote for this amendment, however, and I hope to make it quite clear why. This brings me back to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I shall vote for this amendment because it gives another place the chance to think again. I certainly would not want to bandy constitutional niceties with the noble and learned Lord. The plain fact is that if your Lordships, on a major issue of this description, can never ask the other place to think again, I urge your Lordships to ask yourselves what role is left for the House of Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, did what other supporters of this amendment have singularly failed to do. He admitted that his main attack was upon the community charge itself; for the amendment he obviously has a great deal of contempt. My noble friends Lord Chelwood and Lord Ellenborough devoted almost the whole of their speeches simply to an attack on the community charge. That is not what the Committee will have to decide upon when it comes to vote on the amendment. Members have before them a specific amendment on which they will be asked before long to come to a decision. Therefore it is surely very important to be clear whether the amendment makes sense or not.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, about the Mates amendment in another place: it was nonsense. I thought myself when I read it that it was the biggest nonsense possible. I thought so until I read my noble friend's amendment, which is a much bigger nonsense. I say this advisedly. The Mates amendment, though wrong, was at least based on something definite—that is to say, the income tax position of the person contributing to the charge. That is a definite thing. Expensive though it would be,

663
it could be ascertained. My noble friends' amendment is not like that at all. It is based on a concept of ability to pay. If passed into law, the courts would be asked to interpret what "ability to pay" means.
The Committee has only to contemplate the difficulties which would arise. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that the community charge would be expensive to collect. But the cost of collection, if we added this provision, would be infinitely greater because it would be necessary to investigate not just the tax position of individuals but their individual financial position. You can very easily have two people with the same income: one will have heavy commitments which means he is unable to meet additional payments; the other may have earnings virtually free of charges. Someone could have to support invalid dependants; he might have a large family; he probably has to deal with his own ill health. One can have all those kinds of things which affect the ability to pay.
Is it seriously suggested that the local authority should have to investigate the precise personal circumstances of everybody over 18 in its area in order to be able to ascertain capacity to pay? That is the effect of the amendments which, for better or worse, my noble friend Lord Chelwood has put forward. It is not a case, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and other noble Lords have suggested, of asking another place to think again. Another place, presented with a nonsense, is not going to feel that this gives it any reason to think again. It will simply see a nonsense which will be very quickly dismissed. That, I beg the Committee to understand, is the effect of the amendment.
Of course it is well intentioned. Anyone who knows my noble friend Lady Faithfull knows that she is moved by the most generous of instincts and that she does a superb job of work on social welfare: everybody knows that. Similarly, I am sure my noble friends Lord Chelwood and Lord Ellenborough are moved by the highest motives and the desire to help those in difficulties. But that does not get away from the fact that their proposal is a nonsense. I cannot help recalling the splendid words which the late Ernest Bevin used about George Lansbury, his then colleague. He said:
"My right honourable friend is always allowing his bleeding heart to run away with his bloody head".
I would phrase it more courteously for my noble friends, of course. I lack the powerful directness of the late Ernest Bevin. But that is really what your Lordships are being asked to do. Because my noble friends are worried—and one understands the worries—about how a totally new system of taxation will affect certain categories of people they have put forward an amendment which does not make sense. I am certainly not going to enter into the constitutional aspects. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, with his unrivalled authority, has done so. I would however ask the Committee to consider what impression another place would have of this Chamber if your Lordships returned to it a plain and arrant bit of nonsense.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Marsh: It is with some trepidation that I start by disagreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on the question of the constitutional position. This is not because I understand the constitutional position but because normally I agree that this Chamber should not see itself as a court of appeal for decisions of the Commons. I believe that the doctrine of the Commons, right or wrong, is no more acceptable than the concept of my Government, right or wrong. If Members of the Committee feel that the Commons has produced something so important and fundamentally flawed that they cannot accept it, I think that they have no alternative but to seek to reject it. If that were to mean that it brought into question the future of this House, so be it. In my view it is wrong and, as I hope to say, unnecessary, to argue against the proposition on the basis of a technicality. I believe—I say this without any disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood—that the amendment is fundamentally flawed, based on a series of false premises and totally without merit.
The key problem that we face on this issue is that if one takes a grossly unfair system—no one has argued in favour of the existing system—under which 50 per cent. of the users of local government services pay nothing towards those services and one seeks to reform it, there is an arithmetical inevitability about the fact that some people will he worse off. That is the problem. When the Chamber—and rightly—is faced with the possibility of hardships, if I may say so, it is at its best because it is a place where people feel strongly about hardship and the need to care for others.
The present system is supported by no one, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett said. It is grossly unfair and totally illogical. But it is worse: if it is to remain, in the not too distant future it will be revalued and a re-rating will follow. I do not believe that those who oppose the Government's community charge proposals have taken on board the scale of the hardship that will strike many people if that re-rating goes ahead on the present system. Because of the massive increases in the prices of housing, many people who have been in houses for 10, 20 years, regardless of their means, will find themselves facing massive charges. The current lunatic system is based on the hypothetical rentability of a particular property. Apart from the manner—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord spoke of an arithmetical fallacy. Is he not committing an arithmetical fallacy when he talks about re-rating? If the total rateable value in a given authority rises and the amount of money to be raised stays the same, then the rate poundage will surely fall.
Lord Marsh: With respect, I do not wish to be led too far astray. There are properties within the City of Westminster that over the last eight to 10 years have quadrupled in value. That would lead one to assume that, whatever the new rate set, as a result those people will be paying a higher rate relative to others.

665
If one is speaking of people being rated on the basis of the hypothetical rental value of their properties, plenty of houses in London—a large number in places like Pimlico—which—which 10 years ago were almost unsaleable would today easily collect a rent of £500, £600, £700 a week. Thus the system is bad and for those people it will get worse. No one wishes to see the system continue.
If one considers the next possibility raised in another place, the proposition of banded contributions, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has said, that is ruled out as well. The idea that every time someone is given an increase in pay one has to work out whether this takes the individual into the next band in terms of the community charge is not a sensible one. The third possibility is a local income tax. I know of no one—very few people anyway—in favour of that.
There is one proposition that in my view is the only fair approach. It is that one funds local government directly out of the revenue. However, the implications—and I would accept them—are that the services of local government are controlled by central government. In my view it would involve (and I am in favour of it) a national fire service, a national police service and probably a national education service. 1 am fully aware that, were I to table an amendment on those lines, I would be lucky to have a dozen supporters in the Lobby. Therefore, that too falls.
The key issue throughout concerns the principle of charges on the basis of ability to pay. It is said that charges should not he levied on people for essential provisions like local government services except after taking into account the ability to pay. Indeed I read one reference to the fact that we have not had a tax that did not take into account people's ability to pay for many hundreds of years. Value added tax takes no account of people's ability to pay and excise duty takes no account of people's ability to pay. As to purchasing essential services—whether this be food, clothing or transport—there is no principle of the ability to pay. The way to deal with people's inability to pay is to ensure that the benefits that they receive from the Exchequer are sufficient to enable them to enjoy a proper life.
In my view the amendment is not a practical proposition. The noble Lords who proposed it were not able to put in place an alternative suggestion—that I understand. The Opposition with all their resources also were not able to put in an alternative proposition. When noble Lords go through the Lobby in support of the amendment, the architects of the amendment will go through in the hope that something can be done to ease the burden, although they are not sure what it is—and that, I understand, is a perfectly honourable position. If we are honest, we know that the reason the Opposition will go through the Lobby in support of the amendment is that they realise that only by riding on the back of the amendment can they cause the embarrassment to the Government that they wish to cause.
Lord Auckland: As a signatory to the amendment I shall detain the Committee for a short time only as the Committee has now spent 102 minutes on the amendment. It is of course a vital amendment to the Bill. Having had 30 years' experience of the House, I have always regarded it as a revising Chamber. This measure is very new and has not been thoroughly discussed because in nine months both Houses of Parliament have six major Bills to discuss, of which this is one. I believe that it is incumbent on the Committee at least to consider the amendment carefully. It has been said that it offers no alternative to what the Government are producing. In the manifesto the vaguest possible words were used—a fairer community charge— but nothing has been properly laid out as to what that is.
I want to ask the Minister what consultation has taken place with local authorities. Members on all sides of the Committee will have had correspondence and telephone calls from local organisations of various political parties. Perhaps I may quote from the Surrey local authority where I lived for some years and which I live next door to now. In the year after the Bill is enacted staff costs alone will come to £280,000. The total expenditure is regarded—as—£629,000. —Local—authorities — particularly Conservative authorities—are not troublemakers; they do not oppose legislation for the sheer hell of it. I support my noble friend Lord Chelwood and, in the interests of time, I have promised to be brief, so I shall just ask my noble friend the Minister to answer these very simple questions. First, were the local authorities properly consulted? Secondly, will the extra charges which local authorities will have to bear—and this may well have an effect on rebates granted—really have the consideration which they deserve under this mammoth Bill?
Lord Howie of Troon: I want to speak very briefly, I shall not take up much of the time of the Committee. Members who know me know that I shall not do so. I want to reflect back to a year or so ago when similar matters were considered in relation to Scotland. At that time arguments arose against the imposition of the poll tax in relation to Scotland, but not then to England and Wales—but such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, did not then argue that these matters were unconstitutional or anything of that sort. It seemed that while they were appropriate to Scotland they have now become innappropriate to England. We went through this argument very thoroughly then. Those of us who are Scottish Members or have connections with Scotland were irked that English people did not come to our aid at that time. We were very hurt and a little subdued. We said, "Look, you are going to get it later on, just you wait". And of course so it has turned out. I do not think that the constitutional arguments are of any significance whatsoever. If they were not significant a year ago, they cannot be that significant now. Things have not changed that much in the time.
I have only one further comment to make, having said that I will be brief. We all know that the rating system is unjust, improper and not quite right. We have know that for many years. We have tried very

667
hard to get it right; we know it is unfair. The undertaking of the Government was to replace this tax with something which was fair. People like me would have supported the Government had they produced something that was fairer than the rating system. Members of the Committee know what I am like. I am not a party hack; I will support something which I think is right, reasonable, proper and fair. But this is not that at all. Members on both sides of the Committee know that it is not right; they know that it is not fair; they know that it is not decent. I have no doubt that they can possibly be whipped into proceeding as though it were, but in their heart of hearts they know that it is not right. We agree that the rating system was unfair. All right, we can all agree about that on all sides of the Committee. We know that an unfair system ought to be replaced by something which is proper, fair, decent and reasonable. But whatever we replace it with must be proper, fair, decent and reasonable. This is not it. We all know in our heart of hearts that, just as the rating system was not fair, this is not fair either.
Those of us who are deep in party politics can accept that. But those of us who, like me, are not deep in party politics cannot accept it. We think there is much more to the business than party politics. We shall be trying to get a system which is reasonable, decent and fair. When we replace something which is unfair, it ought to be replaced by something which is fairer. This is not it. The noble Lord on the other side of the Committee who put down this amendment is entirely, totally and fully right and his amendment ought to be accepted by everybody in this Committee.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I speak as a very new and junior Member, but I think that it is time we stated our position from these Benches. I hope that is not unfair, but I shall be very brief. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that he might like to take a bit of bedtime reading home with him and re-study Layfield, because Layfield should have been followed by whichever government was in power. The Layfield Committee studied the whole problem of replacing the rating system. We have of course funked quinquennial reviews. Successive governments have not carried them out and that is why things are in such a mess. The rent Acts have had a disastrous effect on the rents being paid for residential homes, and that is why the present rating system is in such disarray.
Hailsham, that I regret it, but we shall not be accepting his strictures because we shall be supporting the amendment. This is not because we wish to be mischievous or the cause of any constitutional crisis. It is of note that the Sunday Times, prompted, I suspect, from some quarter, is now floating the idea that this Chamber should be abolished. I do not wish to be abolished, I have only just arrived here.
The fact is that we know that the system as currently devised will not work. It is far too complicated, terribly expensive, bureaucratic and there will be widespread abuse. Who on earth will be
668
the poor person who will have to go under Charing Cross Bridge and get the 20 per cent? I would not want to be that person trying to get the money from the down-and-outs of this country.
It is notable that there have been few, if any, speeches from the Conservative Benches which have actually praised the so-called community charge. We have yet to hear one. I happen to believe that a local income tax could work. It works in Canada, America, Japan, Sweden and many other countries. Why have we not studied it there? It could be much simpler; it certainly could be much cheaper if the figures quoted in Layfield are true. I thought they were too high, but what we have been told by the AMA and others is horrific.
I also think that there should be a property tax of sorts, probably banded between rates of up to £50,000, then between £50,000 and £100,000 and above. That is something which I think could be dealt with locally; it makes a great deal of sense. That is what I suggest, and what I hope to put at greater length to the Minister when we reach the next amendments. However, the fact is that the poll tax will not work and history is on our side on that.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I do not enjoy differing seriously from my party and the Government on any major issue. I think that in 38 years in Parliament I have never voted against a three-line Whip. However one must be true to one's convictions on a major issue. The imposition by the Government of a tax which applies to every adult citizen in our community is, in my view, certainly a major issue. I have to say that my strong conviction is that the community charge, as at present drafted, is wrong and is unacceptably unfair. I must seek amendment to it and I cannot support it in its present form.
All taxes contain some inherent unfairness, but it is surely indisputable that a flat rate poll tax is inherently the most unfair of all forms of tax. Whether this inherent unfairness becomes unacceptable in practice depends on the level at which it is levied. But my conviction is that at the level proposed and in the form and in the details at present proposed, this community charge is unacceptably unfair. I touch very briefly on what should have been done. Many of those who object to, or at least disagree with, those of us contesting the present position say that we never suggest any alternative.
Surely the commitment in the Conservative election manifesto of the autumn of 1974 got it right in principle. We promised then to replace domestic rates with a combination of taxes related to the ability to pay. Why do we have to change from a system of local taxation dependent solely on the taxation of property to a system dependent solely on the taxation of individuals? Why should we not have a combination of the two? Such a combination would still provide the vital direct link of accountability between all residents and voters and their local councils which this Government so rightly wish to establish. I, wholeheartedly and with great conviction, support that determination.
In this role—as one of a combination of taxes; not as a sole tax but rather as a significantly topping-up tax—even a poll tax might have been found to be acceptably fair. Unfortunately, however, the

669
Government have not provided us with any such alternative of a combination of taxes: so all we can do now, and all I seek to do in practice, is to concentrate on doing our best to ameliorate the inevitable and unacceptable unfairness, as I see it, in the detailed proposals before us at the moment.
In another place the Government amended their original proposals in a way which very substantially reduced the unfairness. That was as satisfactory as we could have expected or asked for. But what I am saying in speaking for this amendment is that the Government need to do still more. The Government's present ameliorations have provided for those who are really poor—in the modern sense of what we mean by that term—as satisfactorily as possible. But the burden will still fall unfairly on those who, in this technical sense, are not quite poor.
Under the Government's amended proposals 9 million people will qualify for rebates. That is a very large number, but as has already been said that still leaves some 25 million who will not qualify for any rebates. It is at the lower end of the income scale of those 25 million people that we shall find those who will be most unfairly treated by the present proposals and who need more help.
Let the Committee consider who, according to the Government's own analysis, will be the largest losers and the largest gainers if the community charge is levied in its present form. The biggest losers will be members of households of three or more adults. That is of course what one would expect. And it is prima facie fair as it corrects the most obvious and most frequently noted unfairness (it is not by any means the only unfairness) in the present domestic rating system. But—and it is a very big "but"—the biggest gainers, according to the Government's own analysis, of the proposed new system will also be in this same category of households with three or more adults. That surely shows beyond question the arbitrary and unfair incidence of this charge in its present proposed detail.
Moreover, I must say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that the Government cannot fairly consider the effect of each of their proposals in isolation. They must consider the cumulative effect of their whole package of proposals. The losers under the community charge as at present proposed who are not far above the qualifying line for rebates will include those who also lose housing benefit because their savings are above, but not much above, £8,000. Also included are those who will most feel the pinch of having to pay for the examination of their eyes and their teeth and who benefit least, for obvious, inevitable reasons, from the Chancellor's income tax reductions. On the other hand the biggest gainers from the community charge will, by and large, be those who also benefit most from the Chancellor's reduction in the top rate of tax which, as I made clear in my Second Reading speech, I wholly and strongly approve of.
There is a perceived sense of unfairness which is very great in the community about the total effect of this package. I say to the Government and to the Conservative Party that they ignore it at their peril.
670
On the substance of the amendment, I wish to say a very few words about the collective community charge. That, if unameliorated, will bear harshly and unfairly on many voluntary charitable organisations which provide short-stay accommodation for vulnerable and handicapped members of our community. I am sure that many Members of the Committee will have read the letter in The Times last week from the General of the Salvation Army. One could find many other examples of this unfairness. Perhaps the collective charge will need amelioration in the interests of fairness as far as it applies to adult students in universities, polytechnics and other such institutions.
In speaking for this amendment, I say to the Government that we are not trying to wreck the fundamentals of their scheme, much though we might wish that they had chosen a different one. It is too late for that now. What we say is that they really must go back, think again and produce further significant ameliorations. I seek a promise that the Government will think again and that they will seriously attempt to find further significant ameliorations to meet some of the very substantial criticisms of unfairness to which I and other Members of the Committee who support the amendment have drawn attention.
I hope that that is what the Government will do. I cannot support this tax in its present form. If the only way to obtain amendment and reconsideration is to vote for this amendment, then I must and will do so.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I wish to say a few words in response to my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley who has made such an authoritative and moving speech. As he said, it is too late to change the structure of this Bill. At least one thing we can all agree on is that the rating system is now impossible. The solution that we have before us now as regards what can replace rates is the community charge system. That community charge has been given a great deal of thought but there is just one other aspect to which I want to refer without repeating the many other arguments that have been heard. It is not a flat rate tax as my noble friend says it is. It will vary from one local authority to another. The actual cash demand made on the individual elector will depend directly on the financial policies of his local authority.
We all know the dramatic differences between, say, Camden, which is always mentioned, and Birmingham, another Labour authority that is very well managed. Those two authorities were both mentioned in the Second Reading debate. Camden, on last year's reckoning, would have had a community charge of £780 while Birmingham would have had one of £ 180. Therefore there is an immense difference depending on the local authority as regards what will be the actual cash demand on the individual elector. That is something that my noble friend Lord Chelwood should take into account. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Faithfull who is looking at me a little doubtfully will also bear in mind that this aspect will have a very major bearing on how much will be demanded of each elector in each local authority.

671
The demand will be presented in a form of stating what the community charge is for that local authority. Alongside it will be placed the standard charge for the nation. Every adult in every local authority will see, when he receives his demand, just how his local authority is doing in terms of financial management when compared with other authorities.
I believe that my noble friend Lady Faithfull said earlier that her taxi-driver friend thought nothing of that and had no idea what his local authority was doing. When electors throughout the country receive their demands they will see for the first time just what local government finance is doing. I believe that at the next local government elections they will be there as never before, polling their votes either for or against the local authority, depending on how well it is managed. They will have criteria to judge by for the first time.
That is enormously important, electorally speaking. Many Members of the Committee from all sides of the Chamber have taken part in local government, have an affection for it and wish to see its fine reputation restored. However, those local authorities who have abused the present situation with their extreme policies—as they have; there are small cliques of men and women who are obviously more interested in power than in serving the community—will find that their number is up. They will no longer have small polls of below 40 per cent. which are found generally throughout the country. I think that polls of the future will go up to 50 per cent. and even 60 per cent. We shall have a very different situation with different men and women being elected to local authorities; men and women who serve the community and give it good value. I believe that we shall see—
5 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: The noble Lord knows of my great admiration for him. However, will he put his thumbprint on the proposition that more people will vote hereafter in the way that he has just said? I know that he is carried away by the exuberance of his argument. But will he put his thumbprint on that and give me a fiver when the time comes?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: The noble Lord's intervention is, I suppose, of some rhetorical value. Neither he nor I can see into the future and know exactly how many people will vote. I believe that they will vote in far greater numbers. Most Members of the Committee believe that that will be the case when people have precise criteria by which to judge the performance of their local authority. That will eliminate the extravagant councils who make enormous demands on rates now and who would make enormous demands on the community charge in the future.
Accountability is an essential factor and it will be achieved for the first time in local government. I believe that we shall see a very different scene when local authorities who have been abusing their position and extravagant councils and extravagant demands are eliminated. Then we shall see the community charge coming down to a reasonable
672
level throughout the country. I believe that that is a very important factor and I ask Members of the Committee who wish to see that matters are dealt with as fairly as possible to bear in mind that the community charge may not achieve everything—it does not, and nothing will but if it achieves only that, it will be a great improvement.
The Earl of Onslow: I am—
Lord Bellw in: I believe—
Lord Stallard: Perhaps I may—
Lord Belstead: We cannot all speak at once. Perhaps I may suggest that the speaking order should be, first, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard; secondly, a noble Lord from the Cross-Benches; and, thirdly, a noble Lord from my own Benches.
Lord Stallard: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall not detain the Committee for long. I feel that I must get straight in my own mind one or two points which have been made by a very eminent spokesman from the Government Benches for whom I have the greatest respect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in his contribution—I do not wish to quarrel with him about the constitution—appeared at one stage to be threatening the Committee, or perhaps some Members of the Committee on the Government Benches who might be inclined to support the amendment, with the horrible things that could or might happen if the Committee votes for an amendment such as this to a Bill which has come from another place.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, can comment on a point which he made on 22nd March 1976 as regards the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill—the closed shop Bill—when this House returned that Bill to another place not once but twice. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor (as he then was), said:
"the reason given by the Government, or the other place, is a bogus reason. I do not at all regret sending this matter back to the Commons. I think it has shown up the Labour Party: it has shown up the Government".
The noble and learned Lord was justifying that action. He then said:
"We have discharged our duty to the full'— [Official Report, 22/3/76; col. 441.]
He was therefore saying that there was a duty to return the Bill to another place for the reasons which he had stated, albeit the other place had passed the Bill earlier.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The noble Lord has mistaken the whole point of my speech. I was not talking about taxation.
Lord Stallard: I shall not take it any further. The matter can be judged on its merits. The noble and learned Lord also discussed whether we are dealing with a charge or a tax. Of course it is a tax. That was rightly proven by the two noble Lords speaking earlier in our debate.

673
Like my noble friend Lord Barnett, I was one of those who supported the idea of a local income tax many years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, may remember that during the course of our discussions on the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill I made the point that I supported that alternative. He said that it was not feasible and could not be administered. I said that with computers and political goodwill it could and ought to be.
After the Layfield Report and after the publication of Mr. C. D. Foster's paper, I supported the line of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, which was commonly accepted in those days, that local income tax should be an adjunct to taxes such as rates or other charges. We were happy to discuss those matters. Even today we should be happy to discuss alternatives. But we are not discussing alternatives. We are discussing the Government's proposals. There is no point in asking what the alternative is. We are not here to discuss alternatives. We are faced with the Bill and an amendment.
The purpose of the amendment, as I see it, is to salve consciences. I can well understand the regrets that Members of the Committee opposite must have in appearing to go against the Government. They are in difficulty. The question of a poll tax has been discussed on a number of occasions. To give the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, his due, he may have been at some of those discussions but not at all of them. In 1983, it was decided that the poll tax was not a runner. The Government said: "We cannot have a poll tax and we shall have to carry on with rates as they are with a few amendments here and there". That was what was said, and the idea of a poll tax was thrown out. It has also been thrown out on two or three occasions since.
Members of the Committee on the opposite side of the Chamber who are supporting the amendment are supporting Conservative Party policy as it was clearly stated in 1974. I imagine that Members of the Committee who were in another place in those days canvassed the electorate on the basis of the manifesto commitment, which said that they would abolish domestic rates and introduce a tax based on ability to pay. That was their phraseology. It puzzles me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, did not advise the Conservative Party Central Office in those days of the evils of provisions regarding ability to pay as they have done today. Why did they not suggest that that form of words was no good and ought not to be included in the manifesto and that they ought not to to canvass on the basis of that form of words? As they have told us today, we ought not to be discussing it in those terms.
It is that double standard which has reduced the credibility of this Chamber. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, when she said that this Chamber has gone up in people's estimation. They now see that there is a chance, albeit a slim chance, that we will not treat every subject as a political football whether it is rates, housing, or social security benefits. They see that this Chamber will try to be fair
674
to the people in the country at large and will try to lessen the effects of what has been called the elected dictatorship in the other place. That is the reason the credibility of this Chamber has risen. People are looking to us to put some sanity into some of the legislation which they see is leading us down the road to turbulence, not and trouble. I hope that noble Lords will consider those aspects and support the amendment.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: This amendment really deals with inability to pay or what is perceived to be inability to pay. That has already been dealt with very thoroughly by the Government. Already a couple with two children would need to have an income of three-quarters of average earnings before their rebates ceased. Average male earnings at the moment are over £220 a week. In areas where the community charge is higher than average the rebate would continue upwards beyond three-quarters of average earnings. So there is not very much hardship in the present arrangements.
It would seem to me that the movers of the amendment will not be happy until everybody receives rebates and until they reach the position where nobody pays the full charge unless they are in the 40 per cent. income tax bracket. Perhaps they would like nobody to pay the community charge unless they are a millionaire. That would be a real soak the rich policy.
Baroness Faithfull: May I ask the noble Lord on what he bases those statements?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I was informed by the Department of Employment last Friday that average male earnings are running at £220 per week. Was that the question?
Baroness Faithfull: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but the noble Lord said that people on this side of the Committee approved of that. We do not.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I do not quite follow the question. Perhaps I may proceed to an area which I think I do understand.
The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, as a new-come revolutionary is seeking a real soak the rich policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, a main purpose of the community charge is to try to put some real domocracy into local government. It is to relate local votes and local voters to financial reality. People will see from their community charge bill whether their council spends above or below what is necessary. Even those at the bottom end of the income scale will be affected. They will be paying 20 per cent. of the national average community charge in their social security benefits. If they live in a low spending area they will be able to keep some of that for themselves. If they live in a high spending area they will have to pay a bit extra out of their own pockets. That will bring home the cost of extravagant councils to everyone. That is very largely the purpose of the community charge.
The revaluation of property will not bring home to people the extravagance of local councils; nor would

675
a local income tax. That would simply encourage more extravagance. The present rebates mean that the top 10 per cent. of households by income will be paying 15 times more than the bottom 10 per cent. for the same services. Surely that is enough for social justice for the time being.
The cost of collection of the community charge, which has been referred to, will be about £100 million. That will be more than offset by the enormous amount saved by forcing local councils to be less wasteful. The cost of collection is well worth it for that reason alone and to achieve more local democracy. I do not believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, believes, that the collection will be all that difficult. There will be a power of attachment of earnings and of social benefits to force the payment of overdue rates. I do not think that collection will be very difficult.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, asks for more and more rebates. That would encourage councils to be wasteful. That is the opposite of what we want. Somebody has to pay the higher rebates. It would place a greater burden on the ordinary taxpayers. Whether he likes it or not, the noble Lord's amendment would wreck the community charge passed by another place. He has no idea what scheme of rebates he wants.
On the Second Reading of the Bill he said that the Government must have a secret Bill which could arrange it all for him. It must be very secret, because 1 asked the Department of the Environment whether it could tell me about that secret Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said that it had had for 12 years. The department said it had never heard of it; it had never seen it. Perhaps it has been buried with Kim Philby. The noble Lord's amendment invites us to go on a mystery trip.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: I was not talking about a secret Bill. I was simply thinking of the fact that for 12 years the Conservative Party has believed in a rate which bore a direct relationship to people's ability to pay. Twelve years seems to be a hell of a long period of gestation.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I thought the noble Lord's raison d'être was that he could not think of a new scheme but he was quite confident that the Government could, because he knew for a fact that they already had a Bill prepared. They must have had, because they had been thinking about it for 12 years. That simply is not true. There is no alternative. He is inviting us to go on a mystery trip. That is not the way to deal with important legislation.
The English community charge is linked to that of Scotland. The Scots will have the full benefit of all the recent rebate improvements. Last May we passed a Bill for the abolition of domestic rates in Scotland through all its stages in this Committee and this House. It has exactly the same community charge system as is intended for England in the Bill which we are now considering. If we now pass the amendment the Scottish Bill will have to be dismantled and reversed.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Now we know where we are! The whole thing is to be destroyed. I am glad that noble Lords opposite have given us some evidence of their real intention, which is not to support what they have described as a mild amendment to tinker about with rebates but to destroy the whole of the community charge Bill.
There would not be time to recast the Scottish Bill before April next year, when it will begin to operate in Scotland. All the arrangements have already been made. There will be total chaos. By reversing the Scottish Bill noble Lords would have stood on their heads in the space of a year. We would be saying that Scots are second-class citizens. Where were the great Tory rebel amendments from noble Lords on the Scottish community charge? There were none. When it comes to the English, the movers of the amendment demand more favourable treatment. That would certainly disunite the United Kingdom.
If we passed the amendment not only would the use of our powers be queried, but our sanity would also be queried. I hope that the Committee will resist any further monkeying about with the community charge already passed in another place and in this Committee in exactly the same form for Scotland a year ago.
The Earl of Onslow: I plead guilty to cowardice on the Scottish Bill, because I had my doubts about the poll tax then. I have my doubts about the poll tax now. Those doubts have two bases. One is unfairness. The other, frequently alluded to, is that it is wrong. I think it is unfair that I should pay less tax than does my farm foreman. The charge is wrong and unfair to society as a whole.
A poll tax was introduced by the more drunken of the Turkish sultans; it was introduced in India by the most intolerant of the Mogul emperors who proceeded to watch the revenues of the peasants decline; and it was introduced by the most weak of English Plantagenet kings although I suppose there might just have been a case because he kept the charge for earls at four bob a year. If I were sitting on the Benches opposite I should vote against—yes, I said against—this amendment because I am terrified for the life of this Government, the best government this century in this country. I have just returned from the United States. There, my right honourable friend the First Lord of the Treasury is held in awe in a way in which no other member of any government is held. She is thought of as someone rather special.
When making a carpet the Persians have a trick of always weaving some imperfection into it—because, they say, only Allah is perfect. Should the poll tax be introduced, I believe that it will lose the next election for the Conservative Party. How can we, the party of the family, encourage people to kick their children out of the house? How can we, the party of the family, encourage people to send their elderly relatives into old people's homes in order to avoid paying the tax? How can we, the party of the family, declare that the people whom we encourage to strive and to better themselves shall pay the same amount of tax as those

677
who earlier strove and bettered themselves or even those who inherited their money? I had hoped never to see people who have large amounts of inherited money suggesting that they should pay less tax than an ordinary working man with children. I sincerely hope that the Committee will support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Chelwood.
Lord Bellwin: After listening to the last speaker, I am not sure whether he is "agin" us or for us. It takes a little working out. It may comfort my noble friend to know that I do not speak as someone with a large amount of inherited wealth. Unlike my noble friend Lord Auckland, I have not spent 30 years in your Lordships' House; it was only nine years ago that I entered this Chamber. However, I have spent much longer as a working practitioner in local government trying to make the rating system work fairly by taking account of people's ability to pay.
Not for one moment do I question—any more than anyone else questions—the sincerity of my noble friends who support this amendment. I simply want to say that the vagueness of the amendment is breathtaking. It is not good enough to call for the Bill to be sent hack while someone looks into the possibility of producing something which reflects a treater ability to pay. I do not think that the 12 years mentioned by my noble friend Lord Chelwood is long enough. I have been involved in this matter at the highest level for over 20 years studying the alternatives. I know the publication that he held up. I too have the same booklet in front of me. On page 7, referring to the domestic rates, it notes:
"Domestic rates bear too little relationship to ability to pay".
Those are the very words used, and they were being uttered quite a long time ago.
I should have been more impressed had I heard expressions of great concern over ability to pay in the past when some Left-wing authorities were imposing on people rate increases at horrendous levels—even up to 100 per cent. — and were relying on the fact that so many ratepayers would receive rebates. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Carr would care to consider those people who were then just above the threshold and did not have the ability to pay.
There are always people who come just above any threshold. For the very poorest of families—those with incomes of up to £50 a week whom I think one would include in that category—it is not an opinion but a fact that in the future under the community charge their net income contribution will be 3.4 per cent. Today, under the present system it is 4.1 per cent. They will not be worse off or disadvantaged under the new system but will be better off. If we do not mean them when we speak of "poor people", whom do we mean?
Let us consider the gainers under the Bill. I repeat that 53 per cent. of all households will gain. Who are those people? They are the nine out of 10 one-parent family households; the more than four out of five single pensioners living alone; the households with an income of less than £150 a week. Then there will he the end of rates that are at present incorporated in council rents. I shall not go through the whole list of
678
gainers; it is quite a long one. What about all those who in the future will be better off under the community charge and who are not to be disadvantaged? Are they not the very people about whom we are talking when we refer to ability to pay?
What about poor people who live in areas of high rateable values and who subsidise the richer people who live in areas of low rateable value? It is assumed that anyone who lives in a house in a high rateable value area has a high income. But it is just not so.
At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Chelwood said that the Bill's proposals were not consistent with some of the Conservative Party principles with which he was brought up. They are consistent with Conservative principles as I have always known and believed in them. As I hope that I. and certainly others, illustrated during the Second Reading of this Bill, the most needy in the community will be better off and, through the national taxation system, the higher earners will pay not six times but 15 times more than the lower earners towards the cost of local services. To me that is very much what Conservative principles are about. To say or imply otherwise is not to disregard—
Lord Monson: Surely the noble Lord is referring only to direct taxation. When indirect taxation is taken into account, the differential between the high and low earners is very much less than 15 times.
Lord Bellwin: Whichever way we consider it, we are talking about who pays for the cost of local services. Under the present proposals 50 per cent. of that cost will come from the national exchequer; that is, the taxpayers in general.
I want simply to say that no one has a monopoly on compassion or caring for other people. I believe that the total package in this Bill, containing as it does an unprecedented list of rebates, phasing, exemptions, safety nets and so on, is concerned with ability to pay. If it is not, I do not know what is. At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Chelwood said:
"The Bill cocks a snook at public opinion".
He also said:
"the Bill is virtually friendless". [Official Report. 9/5/88: col. 866.]
He is wrong on both counts. Millions of gainers are in favour of it. The single person household and pensioners are in favour of it. Those who are treated so unfairly under the present system are not against the Bill. Ironically, one of the most powerful cases for the community charge has been made by the Labour Co-ordinating Committee, which is a group within the Labour Party. Referring to the community charge in a paper called Local Councils in the Cold, published in January this year, it states:
"Ordinary local people will foot the entire bill on any local spending above the Government norm. When the local council wants to carry out a programme of service expansion local people will no longer be cushioned by increased business rates and rate support grant. They will want to know that increased expenditure is well spent".
Quite so, my Lords.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: Since my noble friend has put a number of points to me perhaps I may ask this. How does he feel about two old age pensioners who have only their pension but both of whom have saved £9,000 and, because they have been thrifty all their lives, can get no rebate?
Lord Bellwin: I feel about that in exactly the same way as I have always felt in the past about those people who come just above the threshold: that they always receive the worst end of the stick. But at least under this system we are able to look at the very instances that my noble friend has mentioned.
I am sure that the Minister will give the Government's position on how flexible these numbers are. But the point that my noble friend Lord Nugent made was the relevant one: namely, that if local authorities will be concerned about those people they will ensure that the charges which they impose are charges which those people can afford to pay. Surely that is the answer to that point.
I do not wish to drag the debate on any longer.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bellwin: I was sure that noble Lords opposite would approve of that statement. However, I wish to say this. When one looks at the positive side of the proposals, considers the fact that accountability at last is restored to local government, and that more or less everyone will be paying at least something towards the cost of local services, and one then considers the end to the long-standing patent unfairness of rates, the amendment seeks to put the clock back. It is nothing more than a recipe for vacillation, and that is where we ran into all our trouble in the 1970s. We cannot go back. I urge my noble friends and even—who knows—some members of the Committee opposite, to reject the amendment.
Lord Pym: There is no dispute about the need to get rid of rates and to replace them with something else. There are many good features about this Bill, including the extent to which the community charge improves accountability. But long before this debate began it was obvious that the ability to pay factor in the community charge is a very controversial and difficult issue.
I feel that the vehemence of the Government's resistance which we have seen recently to the possibility of any change has put the issue somewhat out of perspective. I think that the debate about the constitutional issue relating to it has contributed to this. But I cannot see that further consideration of the ability to pay factor—which is of critical importance to many people—should threaten the Government, as has been alleged, or threaten this Chamber.
I listened with great respect and interest to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, and my noble friend Lord Whitelaw— with whom I have had the privilege of working for so many years. But I find difficult to accept the argument that an amendment to this Bill will confront another place in an especially hostile way. It must be a subjective judgment and my
680
noble friend has made his position clear in his characteristic way. However, for me there is a principle at stake here over the ability to pay that affects millions of people in a very direct sense. It is a principle upon which I should have thought noble Lords would have wished to express a view.
On any broad assessment of our affairs, things are going very well for us in this country at present. That is in large measure thanks to the strong and effective leadership of this Government. But I do not want that success to be overshadowed or checked by the manner in which the community charge is introduced. The Government have already amended their original ideas more than once. I hope that their mind is not finally closed on this aspect. After all, as has been said, the ability to pay aspect was the basis of our original commitment to abolish the rates.
In promoting this Bill the Government have placed great weight on their manifesto commitment. My support for this amendment—or perhaps, more accurately, the principle behind it—is based on the same criterion. The commitment was to introduce a fairer community charge and, as the Bill stands at present, in my view that commitment has not been fulfilled. Some Members of the Committee have criticised my noble friend Lord Chelwood, and others, for not having brought forward detailed alternatives. But I also note that none of the Members of the Committee, so far at any rate, have upheld the community charge on the ground of
The greatest benefit from the charge goes to those with higher incomes and the greatest disadvantage will be felt by many of those with lower incomes. We know that to mitigate this there is in place a system of exemptions and rebates. Welcome though that is, it still does not in my view fulfil the commitment to fairness because there will still be many people, both within the 9 million and beyond, who will have to find additional money for the charge for which they have never budgeted. There are people whose circumstances make it difficult or even impossible for them to find that money without disturbance or distress. I do not see any social justice in that. There are also many people who pay less under the community charge: the gainers under the Bill. These include, among others, the majority of single pension households. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for writing to me on that point. However, many pensioner couples will be worse off.
Glad though I am at the good fortune of the gainers, surely we must be mindful of the impact on this Bill on the losers. Many of those will be people who have saved, who have a small amount of extra resources, and have become independent and self-reliant, as we should like everyone to be. They will be above the line where any rebate is available and will have to find the full charge for every member of their household. They may have liabilities to meet which are manageable under present arrangements but which become extremely difficult under the Bill, and without doubt that will lead to hardship and anxiety in many cases. I cannot think that the Government wish to inflict such hardship and anxiety on any of our citizens. I believe that we have a responsibility here to foresee the effects of the Bill on all our people and to try to protect those whom it will damage.

681
This amendment requires the Government to take into account the ability to pay factor. I find it difficult to see why they should refuse because it cannot be denied that the harshest impact is on those just above the line where rebates are available. If the Government were to come forward with new ideas of their own on this matter, or would prefer some different approach that can be considered at a later stage in the Bill, I should be content to wait and see what they come up with. In the absence of that, I think that the point about the ability to pay has to be made. To ask the Government to look again at this aspect of the Bill seems to me to raise no constitutional issue. Surely it is an entirely appropriate and fitting act of revision which is the essential role of your Lordships' House.
In supporting the principle of the ability to pay, so far from being a rebel I believe that I am speaking and acting in accordance with the tradition and practice of the Conservative Party over a century and more. I believe that I am also speaking and acting in support for the Conservative manifesto.
The Earl of Caithness: This debate has centred on fairness and on the ability to pay. After a long and comprehensive debate it would be wrong for me to make a long speech, for Members of the Committee will want to reach a conclusion to the matter. First let me turn briefly to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Chelwood. He asks the Government to think again, but I have to say that we have considered with the utmost care all the alternatives to the discredited rating system and believe our solution to be the best and fairest. My noble friend has doubts but clearly cannot think of an alternative which he could justify, otherwise he would surely have brought it before the Committee. He did just that when he argued and voted against the Government on the Rates Bill 1984 and the Local Government Bill 1985. I know my noble friend would not have shrunk from his duty today if he could propose a better system than that in the Bill.
There are alternatives and we shall soon be discussing proposals for a local income tax and a capital rating system. However, I can say now to the Committee that some of the criticisms made by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, known as CIPFA, against the community charge, are even more potent against the alternatives and a banded charge. They prove that the alternatives that will be put forward today will be costlier to collect, harder to administer and, more important perhaps, will cost most payers, particularly those on modest incomes, a great deal more.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, we must be precise when we are legislating so that those who have to implement the provisions of the Bill know where they stand. My noble friend's amendment fails to do that. That is hardly surprising because, among other things, the equivalent Scottish Act has already been passed and preparations are well advanced for it to take effect next year. It was amended by your Lordships, but that Act established the principle of a flat rate community charge.
682
Moreover, I cannot believe that my noble friend thinks his amendment would enable us to change the nature of the community charge just like that. A large number of other wide-ranging amendments would be needed to the Bill. These would be essential, for example, to set out from whom the information about income was to be obtained, how it was to be verified and what should happen if false information was given. That would be a nightmare of detail which my noble friend Lord Chelwood has made no attempt to solve.
I also agree that my noble friend Lord Whitelaw had every justification in saying that this amendment, and by implication subsequent amendments, would wreck the Bill. So what do the Government propose? I want to set out in the clearest possible terms for the Committee the Government's strongly held view that the community charge will be fair and that the new system as a whole will be clearly related to ability to pay.
It is entirely fair that every adult should make a direct contribution to the cost of local services, from which all of us benefit. It is one of the great failings of rates that only about half of those adults who use local services, and who can vote in local elections, are required to make any direct contribution—even now that we have introduced 20 per cent. minimum payments for rates.
Under the system we propose, the cost of providing a standard level of services will be the same everywhere in England—£178 last year. With rates, one area can have bigger bills than another, even though its services are being provided to a lower standard. With rates, a poor person can pay more than a richer person in the same local authority area, and more than an even richer person living in another area, for the same standard of local services. None of these unfair outcomes will be possible with the community charge.
With the community charge the cost of extra services, or the price to be paid for inefficiency, will be a £1 rise in the community charge for each £1 per head increase in spending. At present, because of the odd relationship with grant and with non-domestic rates, the cost is well below £1 in some areas; in others it is more than £1. Thus, where there is in future a charge above the standard level each adult in the area will be able to ask what he or she is getting in terms of better services for the extra money that is being spent, and will be able to form a view as to whether those services are worth the increased charge. The new system will provide a "ready reckoner" to give the payer much needed accountability which is lacking now.
I would particularly like to draw attention to the situation for those often associated with lower incomes. It is right that the needs of particular groups must be taken into account, and indeed they will be. Rebates will be particularly generous for the pensioners, for those with children, and for the disabled. As a result of the considerable effort that has been made to tailor our proposals to meet ability to pay, a pensioner couple in an area with a community charge of £5 a week would still receive a rebate if their income—net of any income tax— was

683
£6,120 a year. We estimate that over half of all pensioners will be eligible for a rebate. Over the past months I have listened to noble Lords who are concerned with single pensioners and single parent families. What does the charge do for them? We expect at least 80 per cent. of single pensioner households and single parents to be better off than they are now. In summary, we are sure that we have provided well for those on lowest wages, for on average households with incomes up to £150 a week will be better off with the community charge than they are with rates.
A number of noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon made it clear that the arrangements under which local services are paid for should be progressive; that the rich should pay more towards local spending than the poor. The new system set out in the Bill—and I emphasise the word "system"; it is surely right to look at the system as a whole—will be progressive. That is because half the cost of local government services is met by central government grant. In other words, it is paid for using £13 billion of national taxation—particularly income tax. The rich, rightly, pay far more in income tax than the poor.
As a result by introducing the Bill we shall achieve a situation where the households with the top 10 per cent. of earnings will pay around 15 times as much towards the cost of local services as the bottom 10 per cent. The ratio of contributions between the richest and the poorest will be greater with the community charge than it is with rates.
Within a system that is undoubtedly progressive overall there is absolutely no need for every single element to be progressive. After all, we all pay the same for our television licences, and the same vehicle excise duty for our cars, whatever their size or value. What I certainly accept, however, is that no part of the system should require someone on a lower income to pay more than someone on a higher income for the same level of services. Here I must repeat that that is not possible with the community charge, but it is with rates. The fact that the Labour Party can, apparently, support the retention of rates in some form and yet argue that the system must be related to ability to pay confirms their lack of a coherent policy on this subject.
I turn to what I am sure is common ground among Members of the Committee and that is that no one should be required to pay more than he is able. The community charge also meets that test of fairness. For a quarter of the population the community charge itself will be directly related to ability to pay. That is because in England rebates will be available to 9 million people.
The 4 million people on income support—the successor to supplementary benefit—could contribute nothing out of their own income. They will not only receive the 80 per cent. rebate, but in addition— this is the point that my noble friend Lady Faithfull admitted—for the balance of 20 per cent., they will already have received an increase in income support equivalent to 20 per cent. of the average
684
community charge for the country. Thus, those in areas where the community charge is below average will be slightly in pocket; those where it is above average will pay slightly more, but this will provide the necessary element of accountability for those on the lowest incomes.
Let me make it clear that rebates will not be restricted to those on income support. The rebate will be tapered as the income increases. We shall provide more generous provisions than rebates for ratepayers by reducing the amount of rebate by only 15p for every £1 of income above the income support level instead of the current 20p. This means that a further 5 million people on low earnings or with small occupational pensions will receive rebates of up to 80 per cent. Our proposals have also been designed so that the rebate system will be related to the level of the community charge in the area concerned. Thus, rebates will extend further up the income scale in areas where community charges are high than they do where community charges are low.
Concern has been voiced about the young or the old being forced out by the rest of the family. I must emphasise that rebates will be calculated separately for each individual or couple. That means that young people living with their parents, or elderly people living with relatives, will be entitled to rebates on their own account—irrespective of the earnings of others in the household.
Finally, a further advantage of our new system will be clarity. In future when a charge bill is received it will for the first time be clear exactly what the authorities are spending and what needs to be spent to provide a standard level of service. As my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford so clearly pointed out, accountability for overspending will be clearcut.
I should just say to my noble friends Lord Carr of Hadley and Lord Pym that I look forward to discussing details of our proposals with them. I agree with them that some details are not right. That is why I have already tabled amendments to exempt some groups of people and to make changes in regard to others. Rebates will protect those in need and the system as a whole will reflect ability to pay. The proof of those statements is in the fact that the community charge will mean lower bills for many more people. My noble friends' concern is met because the richest households will pay far more towards the cost of local services than those whose incomes are less.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is in the science of rocketry a useful and succinct word. It is the word "failsafe". It means that if something goes seriously wrong with the firing mechanism or the control system, the system shuts down and can be repaired rather than exploding. I suggest to the Committee that my amendments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and his noble friends achieve that. Something has gone seriously wrong, as is evidenced by the contributions which have been made unanimously from this side of the Committee and by a majority of speakers from the Conservative Benches—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I say by a majority of speakers from the Conservative Benches. I believe strongly that this reflects the view not only in the Committee but in the country as a whole. If that is correct the failsafe action for the Committee to take is to give the Government an opportunity to think again, to reject the amendment if it thinks proper—and that may well be the right action to take—and allow them to put something fairer in its place. The Committee has an opportunity to do so by voting for the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Chelwood: I believe that all Members will agree that we have had an excellent debate which reached the high standard set in your Lordships' House. We have a three-line Whip. When I first joined another place the late Lord Stuart of Findhorn told me that a three-line Whip was an invitation to attend. In other words, one would attend and hopefully, as far as he was concerned, vote for the Government, but it was an invitation to attend. There have been many invitations to attend, and one of the nicest features is that one meets so many old friends whom one has not seen for many years.
I ask Members of the Committee to support the point of view put forward in our amendment. It is that the Government must think again in order to relate the unfair poll tax to people's ability to pay. It must be borne in mind that such a poll tax, as a sole source of revenue for local government, is unknown anywhere else in the world.
This morning I was made an honorary member of the Tufty Club, of which I am very proud. It is a very good club. I thought that it was a night club in Soho but apparently it does splendid work in helping children to cross the road with safety. Its literature includes the words, "Stop, look and listen". I am asking my noble friends who may be thinking of supporting the Government for some reason to "Stop, look and listen". I commend the amendment to the Committee.
5.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 183; Not-Contents, 317.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Aldington, L.

Bottomley, L.

Alport, L.

Brain, L.

Amherst, E.

Brentford, V.

Ardwick, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Attlee, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Auckland, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Avebury, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Aylestone, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Bancroft, L.

Caldecote, V.

Banks, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Barnett, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Basnett, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Bernstein, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Birk, B.

Carter, L.

Blackstone, B.

Chelwood, L. [Teller.]

Bolton, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Chitnis, L.

686

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mar, C.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cromartie, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Mayhew, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Milford, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Mishcon, L.

Molloy, L.

Denington, B.

Monson, L.

Diamond, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Dickinson, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mountevans, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ellenborough, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Northfield, L.

Ennals, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Faithfull, B.

Onslow, E.

Falkender, B.

Oram, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Parry, L.

Fitt, L.

Pender, L.

Flowers, L.

Peston, L.

Foot, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Galpern, L.

Prior, L.

Geddes, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gifford, L.

Pym, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Gloucester, Bp.

Rea, L.

Goodman, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Gregson, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Grimond, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hampden, V.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hampton, L.

Russell, E.

Hanworth, V.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Scanlon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Hayter, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hughes, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hunt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hylton, L.

Soper, L.

Ingleby, V.

Stallard, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stedman, B.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jay, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kagan, L.

Thurso, V.

Kearton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Kirkhill, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Leatherland, L.

Walston, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Warnock, B.

Listowel, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Whaddon, L.

Longford, E.

White, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wigoder, L.

Lytton, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winterbottom, L.

McNair, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Ampthill, L.

Abinger, L.

Annaly, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Annan, L.

Ailsa, M.

Arran, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Astor, V.

687

Astor of Hever, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Balfour, E.

Effingham, E.

Barber, L.

Elibank, L.

Bath, M.

Elles, B.

Bathurst, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bauer, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Erne, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Bellwin, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Beloff, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Belstead, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Bethell, L.

Ferrier, L.

Biddulph, L.

Forbes, L.

Birdwood, L.

Forester, L.

Blakenham, V.

Forte, L.

Blatch, B.

Fortescue, E.

Blyth, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Freyberg, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gainford, L.

Braye, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Gibson, L.

Brocket, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gisborough, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Glendyne, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Goold, L.

Gormanston, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gowrie, E.

Burnham, L.

Gray, L.

Burton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Butterworth, L.

Greenway, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Gridley, L.

Caccia, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Caithness, E.

Haddington, E.

Camden, M.

Haig, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Camoys, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hanson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hardinge, V.

Carnock, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Cathcart, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cayzer, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Chalfont, L.

Harrowby, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harvington, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hastings, L.

Chilston, V.

Havers, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hawke, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Henley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hertford, M.

Colwyn, L.

Hesketh, L.

Congleton, L.

Hives, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hood, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Hooper, B.

Cowley, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Cox, B.

Huntly, M.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Ilchester, E.

Craigton, L.

Inchcape, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Ingrow, L.

Cranworth, L.

Ironside, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Croft, L.

Jessel, L.

Cross, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Joseph, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Daventry, V.

Kemsley, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Keyes, L.

De Freyne, L.

Kimball, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Kimberley, E.

Deedes, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Digby, L.

Kitchener, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Knutsford, V.

Donegall, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Donoughmore, E.

Layton, L.

Dormer, L.

Leathers, V.

Drogheda, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Dudley, E.

Liverpool, E.

Dundee, E.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

688

Long, V.

Rodney, L.

Lothian, M.

Rollo, L.

Loudoun, C.

Romney, E.

Lovat, L.

Rootes, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Luke, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Lyell, L.

Rugby, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Sackville, L.

McFadzean, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

McFadzean of Kelvinside, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Salisbury, M.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Sandford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Selborne, E.

Manton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Margadale, L.

Shannon, E.

Marsh, L.

Sharples, B.

Marshall of Goring, L.

Sherfield, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Shuttleworth, L.

Merrivale L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Slim, V.

Middleton, L.

Somers, L.

Milne, L.

Southborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Stockton, E.

Montomery of Alamein, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Moran, L.

Stokes, L.

Morris, L.

Strange, B.

Mottistone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Strathcylde, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Suffield, L.

Munster, E.

Swansea, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Swinfen, L.

Nathan, L.

Swinton, E.

Nelson, E.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Newall, L.

Terrington, L.

Norfolk, D.

Teviot, L.

Norrie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Northbourne, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Northesk, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Orkney, E.

Torphichen, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Torrington, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Townshend, M.

Peel, E.

Trafford, L.

Pennock, L.

Tranmire, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Plunket, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Portman, V.

Vestey, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Radnor, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Walkinson, V.

Reay, L.

Weinstock, L.

Redesdale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rees, L.

Wigram, L.

Reigate, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Reilly, L.

Windlesham, L.

Remnant, L.

Wise, L.

Rennell, L.

Wolfson, L.

Renton, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Renwick, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Ridley, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Zouch of Haryngworth, L.

Rochdale, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.12 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line l2, at end insert—
("( ) Community charges shall be based on the capital values of all properties in the areas of the respective charging authorities.").
The noble Lord said: I realise that this is something of an anti-climax following the amendment that has just been discussed. I venture to suggest to the Committee that this is the only practical alternative that has been put forward to the proposals contained in the Bill.
The Committee has decided inter alio that one cannot legislate by enunciation of a principle, or that it is not a contradiction in terms, as I believe it to be, to argue that a poll tax in any sense can be a fair or broadly-based tax. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, in moving his amendment, referred to the origins of all the arguments about the replacement of rates. In a sense this goes back to the October 1974 election when the right honourable lady the present Prime Minister was the Shadow Environment Secretary. No doubt at the behest or certainly with the approval of the then Prime Minister, the right honourable Mr. Heath, the election manifesto proposed that the rating system should be abolished and be replaced by a broader-based, fairer tax.
The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, also referred to the fact that at that time the central government contribution to local authorities was around 60 per cent. The implication was that that was insufficient, because the commitment in 1974 was that the whole of teachers' salaries should be met by the Exchequer and that there should be increased grants for police and fire. One of the problems about rates in recent years has been the enormous increases, due, I suspect, to the fall-back in central government support.
The Minister recently gave me the figures in a parliamentary Answer. In 1978–79 the proportion of local government expenditure funded by the Exchequer was 61·5 per cent. On a completely comparable basis he told me that in the last financial year it was 47 per cent. There may have been times in the intervening years when that gap was even greater. While I deplore some of the extravagances in which some local authorities may have indulged, they are minuscule compared with the loss of Exchequer revenue to local authorities, which has been a deliberate policy by the Government.
I have therefore proposed an alternative tax or community charge in a term which is meaningless and emotive. Almost anything could be called a community charge. Indeed, if someone was proposing to replace what is in the Bill by the existing rates system, no doubt that could be sold as a community charge. Certainly I propose to introduce a community charge and abolish the existing rating system.
Amendment No. 4 is a paving amendment because I have produced in 12 short clauses a complete alternative to the present Bill. For reasons which I do not understand, it was not possible for them all to be on the Marshalled List, but I am sure that there are sound reasons for that. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that we are very well-staffed and helped by the Clerks of the House, not least those in the
690
Public Bill Office, and that there are very good reasons why only some of my 12 clauses are on the Marshalled List. If, as I suspect, my proposals do not find favour with the Committee, I shall not move the amendment; I shall immediately withdraw the others on the list because they are entirely consequential.
I propose a tax on the capital values of all properties in the areas concerned for two reasons. First, it would be a very much more economic method of administration because market values are very widely known. The hypothetical rent situation, even if it were brought up to a more modern valuation, is a nonsensical term, as any of us who have tangled with valuation officers or tribunals understand. It very largely depends on what your neighbour's house has been rated at rather than on any attempt to obtain factual evidence of the rent paid in 1972. That is not acceptable as a basis of appeal.
I have a feeling that on my proposal there would not be many appeals at all. A large saving could be made there. I do not see many property owners going to the tribunal and saying that their property has been overvalued. I am extremely concerned about the enormous administrative costs that the proposals now before the Committee involve. I believe that they amount to an administrative nightmare. The honourable and gallant Member in the other place, Mr. Mates, attempted to link them with the rates of tax. The Layfield Report of 1976 is perhaps the most thorough study of local government finance that there has been. Unhappily, it did not come up with any convincing recommendations, although it spoke rather favourably of the proposal that I am now putting before the Committee. I do not know until, belatedly, I send in my income tax return and, even more belatedly, I receive my assessment, whether I am in this or that particular tax bracket. Anything to do with income tax being linked to the poll tax would be akin to an administrative nightmare in a padded cell. Therefore, I cannot recommend this measure to the Committee.
While I had the privilege of occupying Mr. Gladstone's room in the House in Canterbury Quad for a year, I cannot claim that I had any nightly visitations by a ghost giving me any guidance as sound financial proposals. I was very much impressed by that great man's doctrine that it was nonsense to impose any kind of tax, a substantial part of which was to be involved in its collection. We have already heard the figures; namely, that setting up the present system will cost about three times the Government estimate—not £80 million a year but £266 million a year—and a very substantial additional cost each year in collecting the tax.
The possibilities for evasion are enormous, whereas my system would be simple, cost-effective and, I believe, fair. At present landlords can collect rates on behalf of their tenants and pass on the element of rates that the tenants are paying on rented property. I make a provision to give effect to that.
I object very strongly to the enormous amount of money which will be frittered away in administration which could be spent on better local services, housing, the environment and social provision

691
instead of on the bureaucratic imposition that this Bill provides. For simplicity, I am bound to say that I have relied very heavily on delegated legislation, but no more so than the Bill which is before the Committee. The Secretary of State has existing powers which are much wider than necessary because they cover everything that could possibly be thought of and anything that may occur to him in the future. I see no reason why all these measures are necessary.
My amendment so provides that Parliament has full powers and orders that are laid in draft form in the affirmative rather than in the negative procedure. I believe this to be a very practical and proper alternative which would meet the commitments that the Government understandably feel that they have in the light of their 1987 commitment for a fairer community charge. Without unduly treating the word "fair" as a piece of elastic, I do not believe anyone can pretend that the present proposals amount to any such thing. As I have said, I object very strongly to the money being frittered away. It reminds me of a very old story of two learned counsel talking after what had promised to be a lengthy dispute about a large will which surprisingly came to an end. One said to the other: "Well, it is a sad day. It looks as though practically the whole estate will be frittered away on the beneficiaries". I believe that the Bill before us is doing that with public money. I beg to move.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I did not feel that I could support the first amendment, not only on constitutional grounds but because I believed, like others of my noble friends, that it was not merely nonsense but nonsense on stilts. However, this is a much more serious amendment and one which I believe it is right that the Committee should consider as an alternative. My own view is that it is not an alternative which is practicable at the moment. As I said at Second Reading, I have a fear that the community charge—whatever arrangements are made about rebates or exemptions—will not in the long run provide a sufficient base for local government expenditure to be independent. It will raise only a quarter of the money required.
Therefore I believe that the Government would be wise to keep an option open for review in the future. There is a strong case to be said for a revaluation based upon capital values. That, of course, should have taken place years ago and is one of the reasons why we have this Bill. I hope the Government will indicate that both for business and domestic premises any revaluation for any purpose in the future shall be on capital rather than rental values.
In saying that I do not believe that the community charge will be an adequate base. I have in mind that that was the view originally taken by Her Majesty's Government. The Conservative Campaign Guide of 1983 states:
"If a poll tax were used to supplement another tax … the tax rate would obviously be lower, and it is in this way that a poll tax is most likely to be able to contribute to a system of local revenues."
The campaign guide later continued:
"A local sales tax or local income tax, combined with either a poll tax or domestic rates retained at a lower level of yield, could replace
692
the present system, but would entail correspondingly higher administrative costs".
It has been contemplated by the Government that there ought to be, as it were, a combination of the present rateable system and the community charge. I accept that it cannot be done at the present time and that it would be quite a lengthy process. It will also need consultation with the local authorities.
I should like to have a discussion of the possibility of having a combined community charge and restoration of the old system of rateable values carried out on the principles set out by the Prime Minister when, in opposition, she spoke on 27th June 1974 at col. 1759 on the need for a fundamental reform of local government. On that occasion she said:
"First, any fundamental changes must be considered in conjunction with the powers of local authorities, their degree of independence and the nation's philosophy on the distribution of power. Local authorities carry out their tasks better than Whitehall could, although many of us may have criticisms of the way that some of them discharge their duties from time to time.
Second, before adopting major changes local authorities would have to be consulted. That is obvious. To do otherwise would be high-handed and arrogant."
I believe that one of the reasons why the Government have run into difficulties on the reform of the rates is that there has not been sufficient real consultation with the local authority associations. I know that they are very apt to criticise everything and to find the difficulty that we all have in finding an alternative system. However, I hope that the Government will give some consideration to the concept put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, and leave the way open for amendments in the scheme. As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said in the earlier debate, one does not always anticipate the difficulties that may arise when it comes to the time of implementing a scheme.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord said that he thought in this particular matter that the Government had been high-handed and that there had not been sufficient consultation. Surely the noble Lord must be aware that since the time of his distinguished tenure as Secretary of State for the Environment, when I was part of a local government delegation that met him on the Housing Finance Act, successive Secretaries of State of his own party—including his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—have almost completely denied and denuded local government of some of its major responsibilities. Without any consultation whatsoever, local government has been butchered year after year by his successors.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I have certainly not been uncritical of previous legislation on local government introduced by Conservative governments. I opposed the 1981 Act, which I said was unworkable and disastrous: and so it has proved. That is why we need to have this Bill, with all its imperfections. I did not say I thought that the Government had been arrogant and high-handed. I only said that the Prime Minister herself has emphasised how important it is that they should not be. Therefore, although I know well that local authority associations do not feel that all consultations have been as good as they ought to

693
be, I feel that the Government should keep options open in regard to this Bill, and certainly be receptive to the concept that it may be necessary to buttress the community charge by some other form of taxation within the framework of local government, if we are to have truly independent local government in this country.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: It is not very clear at the moment whether we can discuss any of this subject usefully, after the decision taken by the Committee a few moments ago. I think it is a great pity if we cannot spend just a little time, not perhaps on the possibility of an alternative now or a substantial alteration of the present scheme now, but on something to be borne in mind if things go wrong, or if there is an emergence of fiscal considerations which require attention.
I believe that the combination scheme which was referred to apparently in the manifesto, so the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said, had its attractions. It avoided putting the whole weight of local tax revenue upon the community charge. The difficulty about the community charge is that nobody really knows how much it is going to be; and all theories about taxation systems are difficult if people are not told what the charge is likely to be.
I well recall my noble friend Lord Callaghan, in 1965, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, putting out a paper on his proposals for the corporation tax. That paper went into a great deal of detail on the nature of the tax, how it was to be constructed, what the reliefs from it would be, and so on. But the cry went up from the whole of industry, "How much will it be?" And my noble friend could not proceed with the discussion because he was met with this demand of, "Tell us what it is going to be". In the end he was driven, in order to get discussion on the merits of the structure of the tax, to say, "It will not exceed 45 per cent". Then of course everybody began to consider that Bill on the basis that it would be 45 per cent. Actually it was a little less.
I am mentioning this only in order to show how difficult it is to get people to approach a novel project realistically without rising anxieties, when they are not told what it will be. This is the pig in the poke; and people would like to see it a little more clearly.
Another thing we have to bear in mind about the community charge is the element in the concept of that charge which I would call a combination of social responsibility and financial discipline. We have heard a great deal during the debate just now of how everybody will be watching, as well as paying, the community charge and the level of the charge. There will be an accountability by the local authority to the citizens to a degree that is not present under the existing rating system. I think, if the Government are going to be satisfied with the scheme they propose, it must have that element in it.
Instead of saying that all ratepayers shall pay all, the Government say all shall pay. Bearing in mind the concessions and rebates that are being allowed, there will be a charge of 20 per cent. of the community charge which will rest even on the beneficiaries of
694
social security. If their income is not enough to enable them to pay on social security, the social security benefits will be increased to cover the minimum which they will have to pay on the 20 per cent. basis.
The point is that the Government want this to have a moral content; they want this to have something to do with the attitude of people towards their local authorities and of the attitudes of the local authorities towards their taxpayers. So when I raised the question: "Can we not have a general tax deduction scheme since everybody has it for pay as you earn, however large or however small the salary?" the response of the Leader of the House, when it came, was: "We want people to dig into their pockets for the money." They do not want to make this painless; they want it to be most noticeable. I think that this element in the matter is going to be of very great psychological importance. People will probably put up a great deal of resistance to it.
A combined scheme to include capital values of domestic dwellings has considerable attractions, because one thing that is widely known is house prices. The difficulty about the rating system is that it is based on a hypothetical annual value to let, and there is no market in lettable houses. Rent restrictions with famine prices, for example, make it very difficult to get an annual value, but house prices are there for all to see and the Inland Revenue have more information on house prices than anyone else in the country. Indeed, they issue information in connection with an allowance which is given in the Civil Service, which is called the additional housing costs allowance. We know what the average rise in house prices has been over a period. There is computerised information available in the hands of the valuation officers of the Inland Revenue which could give a valuation of house prices within a matter of weeks. It could be adjusted every year, every 18 months or every two years in order to bring in a new basis of assessment.
Some payment by people who are enjoying the benefit of these very large capital appreciations surely is necessary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to tap this source of revenue sooner or later; if local authorities do not get it he will want it. He cannot let it go very much longer because for owner-occupiers with subsidised mortgages to be benefiting as they are from the capital value of their houses, to be able to pass them on to their spouses without paying inheritance tax, and to have the exemption limit of inheritance tax raised in such a way as to give them a bigger proportion of their gains tax free, is something in capital appreciation which is not being tapped. It is really scandalous that workers and pensioners should be charged income tax on their actual earnings or income while these hidden capital gains are not being caught at all.
The prices that terraced houses are fetching in different parts of the country are absolutely out of this world. For example, a terraced house in Tonbridge commands £55,000. Conditions are similar all over, right from beginning to end, regarding the price of all properties. In Watford £84,000 is the average price of all houses. This is where the capital gains are coming in and they could have been a supplement to the community charge.

695
In fact, I think we still have to face the fundamental problem, whether the rate of the community charge will be regarded by those who have to pay it as being one within their means and one with which they are prepared to come to terms. It would have been very useful indeed, I think, to have had a fall-back or a partner in regard to the change in local government taxation. When I visited a tribal gathering of tax gatherers and valuation officers last week this scheme was impressed very strongly upon me together with the ability of the administration to produce all the information to make it possible. It is not just a little idea in the wind; some people have been thinking about it. I should not be surprised to see The Times soon giving prominence to a detailed scheme of this kind. I submit that we cannot do anything practical about it now. I do not think that the Government should get impatient if they are given a little addition to their thoughts or some fresh considerations. They may need them one day soon.
One realises what is envisaged for the defaulter. Members of the Committee should bear in mind that under Schedule 4 the local authority has only to go to court with a list in default and the court confirms the list in default. It does not have to listen to anyone. The local authority can go straightaway to the employers and demand attachment of wages. Are there to be tens and hundreds of thousands of workers with attachments on their wages and little or no opportunity to go through the normal process of the law?
This we shall come to on Schedule 4. One has no idea how the normal protection processes of going to court will be invaded before a person's wages can be grabbed or a distraint put upon him. That is why the noble Lord the Leader of the House was saying that local authorities will have ample means of enforcement—what a means of enforcement!—if there is any degree of resistance to it. I do not know what the end of people's patience may be on this. If there is a strike on the community charge, both the local authorities and the Government will be powerless. We are then faced with a serious social situation. If the Government are legislating against public opinion and against better advice in many quarters, then they run a very serious risk. They must bear that in mind all the time. We shall see what happens when the next by-election comes.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Thorneycroft: I should like to say a word in answer to the debate so far. I do not want us to continue debating the community charge. The Committee has just had a long and valuable debate upon it.
I join in paying a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, for having put a proposal before the Committee. The last amendment was not really a proposal at all; it was that we should go away and think of something. The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, squared his shoulders and said, "Look, I'll put something on the table. Here is a proposal."
My record in this area is appalling. I have about the worst record of anybody. I clung to the rates
696
when the party was saying that it wanted to abolish them. I said that the consequences would be appalling because of the immense difficulties of any alternative. I am old enough to be able to say these things. I realise that I must have been wholly wrong. But there were elements of truth in what I was saying. I was chairman of the Conservative Party, and I was a politician. One would have to be a pretty dumb politician not to realise that to abolish the rates without having a very clear idea what one was going to do next was likely to land one in a certain amount of political trouble. That is the view I took at the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in a brilliant exposé of the problems and of the situation at Second Reading, mentioned that there was a moment when the Conservative Party backtracked and put into its manifesto that rating was likely to remain for a considerable time in the future an important source of revenue in local government. I confess to Members of the Committee that that was my doing. I do not write history but I write, so to speak, the footnotes to history. I am rather good at that. The footnotes are interesting, and sometimes quite important. For a time, I held the field. I thought, as I had been of great service to my party, that we could tinker with the rates a bit. Indeed, I was very near to the position of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in the earlier debate: he was feeling rather the same way. I hung on to it, but it would not last.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—he did much better than I—became Secretary of State for the Environment and had direct responsibility for dealing with these matters. He looked at the question very closely. In a speech of great power, he convinced the House. I think that the whole Committee would say now that only a madman would suggest that we hold on to the rates. I read the Layfield Report. It seemed to me that all the proposals were frightful. The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, is right. It is true that the report included as an option a widespread property tax including agriculture. It was very emphatic upon that. It said that we had ruined the rating system by taking agriculture out of it and then by excusing most people from paying rates. It wanted a property tax that everybody would have to pay. I ask the Committee to go a little slowly. We have just imposed a community charge on people. Before we think of imposing a property tax on them as well, we ought to hesitate a little. There is a limit to what the public are prepared to pay.
Moreover, while there may be something to be said for a property tax including agriculture, I am not quite clear that this is what the Opposition will urge. It is the first time that I have heard it. I do not know how lonely the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, is. No doubt someone on the Opposition Front Bench will say what they intend. If it be the official policy of the Labour Party that there should be a widespread property tax bringing in all farms in the country and if the bishops feel the same—they too have an important role in these matters—and are of a mind to support it, I think that they ought undoubtedly to say so. However, I warn them that if they do, they will be in even worse difficulties than the Government in the last debate. They will find great opposition to it.

697
In the circumstances, I believe the principle to be followed is that everybody ought to pay something and the rich by far the most. If one sticks to that principle, one is doing fairly well. That is exactly what the community charge, combined with income tax, does. Let us stick to that. It has only just been approved. Let us not go scouring round for other horrible taxes, all of which raise even more political difficulties.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have been enjoying the speeches so much that I hesitate to intervene. I am looking forward to the interventions of the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Renton, and of any other noble Lord who feels like joining in. Having been challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, I think I have to make it clear that it is not the policy of the Labour Party to replace the community charge with capital value rating. I am sorry to have to say that to my noble friend Lord Mulley, but we are allowed at least the same degree of dissent about the means to be adopted as that which exists within the Conservative Party. I happen to think that the method proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and myself in our amendments was the right method. I think that we were right to attempt to put the responsibility on the Government of the day, with all the resources at their disposal, to find the correct solution to this problem. I recognise that this is the alchemist's stone anyway, but attempts to do it from the Back-Benches of either side of the Committee are not likely to achieve success.
However, there are a number of myths about the differences between the various methods of collecting revenue for local government. One of those myths was clearly in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when he thought that, because the capital value of domestic properties had gone up in particular parts of the country, capital value rating would somehow automatically mean a huge increase in the amount collected from those properties. As I tried to point out to him, without success, if the total capital value of properties in a given rating authority increases and yet the amount of money which is required for local services does not increase then the rate poundage will go down and we shall find ourselves in a zero sum again. There will be gainers and losers, of course, but it will not be anything like as dramatic as has been suggested.
Having said that, I think that the proposals of my noble friend Lord Mulley deserve serious attention, and I shall say why and to what extent. The reason they deserve serious attention is that, unlike non-domestic rating, in domestic rating the concept of a rental value for domestic property is now exploded. It has been disappearing over the years, as the percentage of owner occupation has increased. It has now reached the stage where it is a totally artificial construct which could not be the basis for a revaluation of domestic property of the sort that we had in the past.
One of the reasons that there have been fewer revaluations has been the recognition that the rental system is not an appropriate way of doing it. To that
698
extent, my noble friend is certainly right. What I want to say to him—and I say it in the presence of a number of very alert noble Lords on the Government Benches—is that in the ultimate solution to paying for local government, capital value rating will play a part. If I go on to say, in response to the amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe and Lord Ross of Newport, that in the ultimate solution to the system of financing our local government, local income tax will also play a part, noble Lords may well deduce that I am being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the position where I am stating some part of the Labour Party's policy for local government finance. There is no formal Labour Party policy for local government finance.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that there is any secret about this. A lot of play was made of it as the Bill went through another place and my honourable friends and right honourable friends stuck by the position that we were still consulting with the relevant authorities and with people generally. I think that that is an honourable position to stick to.
I am saying what I think will finally come out of this period of consultation which is now drawing to a close. I am not saying the exact form in which these things will take place. I am not saying even as much as my right honourable friend Roy Hattersley said in a speech in April when he explained much more clearly than I am able to what the final solution will be. But we shall have to go into the next election with a policy which will be positive and realistic. I think that the basis of that policy will follow the lines of the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, in our previous debate. He said that there are huge difficulties in any single solution to local government finance and that, even though it sounds more complicated, a combination of taxes may well prove to be a necessary alternative to a single solution.
I am as firmly as ever of the view that the single solution of the community charge is not only unfair and unjust but electorally disastrous for the Conservative Party, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, himself thought. Some combination of local income tax and capital-based rating will, I am sure, form a major element of my party's policy in the next election.
I could not ask the rest of my noble friends to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mulley because I think that it is over-simplified. It contains great difficulties, some of which were pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. However, it is a valuable and necessary contribution to the debate, as no doubt will be the debates on local income tax which we shall have later on this evening. It is important that we should ventilate these matters when we are considering the Bill in Committee. I do not think it at all likely that we shall reach the ultimate solution, but I congratulate and thank my noble friend for moving his amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, is feeling a little lonely after that speech—lonely and abandoned. But I think he can take consolation that the debate on his amendment has been made fully worth while as producing that admirable statement from the Dispatch Box by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to the effect that the Labour Party has no policy for local government finance. We have often suspected that. Now we have it, if it does not sound discourteous to put it that way, from the horse's mouth. Indeed, he might have gone a little further and dropped words "local government", because the Labour Party really has no policy for finance at all.
I am sure that Members of the Committee enjoyed, as I did, the reversion to type of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, when he could not resist expressing his indignation that there should be any form of wealth which was not taxed. That comes so well from the former very distinguished general secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation and shows how strong the instincts acquired in earlier life remain later on.
I do not think we need waste very much time on this amendment, particulary in view of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said. Apart from anything else, it is completely in conflict with the decision of the Committee taken a short time ago on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Chelwood. It is clear that the Committee favours the community charge and it registered that by a very, very large majority.
This amendment would substitute a totally different form of tax. Indeed, it is also subject to a rather stronger degree to the constitutional objections expressed to the earlier amendment by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. If this Committee were to legislate into the Bill a totally new tax, I cannot but believe that the Commons would regard that as an invasion of their privileges. I do not recall any occasion on which this has been done—I speak subject to correction—but I have very little doubt what the reaction of the Commons would be.
Finally, there is this great objection, as contrasted with the community charge: this different form of tax does not involve the establishment of accountability. The essence of the community charge is that people shall pay, sometimes in limited amounts, for the policies for which they vote. Under this amendment we should go back to the old, evil situation of rates, where people could vote at local authority elections for high expenditure in the happy consciousness that they would not have to pay for it.
7 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I listened with gratitude to the kind remarks of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft only to have murmuring in my ear my noble friend Lord Kaberry of Adel saying that I shall never make another speech on this Bill. But I shall because of course a number of issues will arise on which I wish to speak. However, I sense that the Committee wishes to reach a conclusion on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mulley.
700
I only wish to make one point about the amendment and address it to those of my noble friends who would still like to flirt with property taxes as a source of revenue for local government. I shall not repeat what I said in my Second Reading speech about the complexity and the obscurity of the resource reallocation mechanism that has to be written into the rate support grant under the present system because the rateable resources of different authorities vary widely.
If we go to capital values as the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, is suggesting, that problem will be greatly exacerbated. The resource reallocation that it would be necessary to apply through the grant mechanism is now wholly dispensed with because it does not apply under the community charge which the Committee has recently approved in the Division. Any element of capital values as a source of revenue would involve reintroducing what to my mind and what in the eyes of many of those who had to administer the system both in central and local government is the most obscure system of the lot. That was the system whereby areas with higher than average rateable values subsidised areas with lower than average rateable values. As the disparity in capital values is very much wider than the disparity in annual values that are used to establish rateable values that problem could only be made worse.
To my noble friend on the Front Bench I say hearken with care to the words of my noble friend Lord Rippon. I think that we need to be very cautious before we contemplate adding new property taxes. After all, one of the strongest arguments which was made by many speakers in the previous debates on the attractions of the community charge is that it is essentially a people tax to finance people services. Property taxes date from the time when only property owners had votes. That is not the case now. We need a radical reform and we seem to be well on the way to getting it. I for one am very pleased.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Minister replies I hope that he will be prepared to reply to the quite extraordinary assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that there will no longer be any resource reallocation problems between local authorities if the community charge comes into effect.
It is certainly true that the Bill as drafted does not specify at all in which way the rate support grant, which is to be introduced when the community charge is in effect, will work. It leaves it all to regulation, and we shall have many things to say about that in Committee as the Bill proceeds. However, the noble Lord cannot seriously be saying that the community charge resolves the resource allocation policy and that the needs of local authorities are related directly without any need for adjustment to the number of people paying the full community charge.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I shall take the noble Lord's address as an intervention and respond. I think that he is confusing needs with resources. Of course the new grant will take full account, hopefully on a rather clearer and more rational basis than the existing rate

701
support grant, of the differing needs of different authorities. That is part of the beauty of the tripartite system.
That system comprises the grant based substantially on needs as measured by a number of indicators: for instance, the number of one-parent families, the number of pensioners, the miles of roads and other factors; the non-domestic rate redistributed on the basis of population—those being as it were the flywheel of finance for each local authority—and then the community charge of about a quarter coming in on top. But it would mean that for every extra £1 of expenditure above the standard amount that £1 per head is met by the community charge.
I stand by what I said. It is quite clear that the more one debates this subject the more one realises that this measure represents such a revolution that even so perspicacious a person as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, still has not quite grasped the sheer beauty of the new system.
I was impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, on Second Reading. He had addressed his extremely agile and perspicacious mind in detail to the Bill shortly before the Second Reading. He would like to see more direct charges for services, but he too came to the Chamber and recognised the ingeniousness of this system and the way that the three parts of this means of financing local government actually hold together and will constitute for the first time a system to provide accountability, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said.
A property-related tax does not impose accountability on any more people at all. There is no increase whatever in accountability with that tax. I believe that we would need to look at a capital values tax with extreme caution. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to reassure us on that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was specifically complimented so I hope that the Committee will forgive me for intervening again. I now understand why I disagreed so violently with the noble Lord's rate support grant settlements when he was Secretary of State. If he did not understand then and does not understand now that needs and resources are a seamless robe and he does not understand that the distinction he is making between them is a totally false distinction, then he does not understand what will happen to rate support grant under the new system and we shall have some very interesting debates later on in Committee.
The Earl of Caithness: Although I too must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, on coming forward with an alternative to the community charge, I must confess to the Committee that I was rather surprised by his amendments which seek to introduce a system of domestic rates based on capital values. I am surprised because I thought until just now that he was introducing the policy of the Labour Party.
702
Some of the Members of the Committee may remember that before the local elections in 1987 the Labour Party declared itself to be in favour of capital value rates. Then during the general election campaign both the Leader of the Opposition and his local government spokesman said that they had absolutely no intention of introducing a system of capital value rates. The Committee may perhaps recall that the Opposition spokesman said at the time that the Labour Party needed capital value rates as much as it needed a hole in the head. With the Committee's permission, I shall probe a little further into the history of the Labour Party's policy—or lack of a policy—on capital value rates. After the general election—
Lord Mulley: I gave no suggestion that I had any authority or desire to present a Labour Party policy. Everything I said, as always in this Chamber, is said on my own personal responsibility.
The Earl of Caithness: That is exactly why I phrased my words "until just now", because it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, disowned the policy of the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. After the general election, despite having disowned capital values, the Opposition appeared to be moving back towards some degree of support for capital value rates, but this time combined with a local income tax. In a speech last month, the right honourable Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, announced his party's support for this dual approach. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State immediately wrote to him, pointing to the vacuity of his proposals and asking for further details, so that we could produce exemplifications showing how such a system would affect bills for local services. That letter was sent on 13th April. As of today, I regret to say that we have received no reply. Can I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when we can expect a reply?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I doubt whether the Secretary of State can expect a reply at all. I made it quite clear when I spoke a few minutes ago that the final policy of the Labour Party to be put forward at the next election had not been finalised; nor has the final policy of the Conservative Party on a large number of issues presently facing this country. The press is full of discussions of options available to the Conservative Party for policies on major matters of state. In that, the Labour Party is no different from the Conservative Party or any other party. We should be quite foolish to give precise details of the legislation we shall introduce after the next election in the period before a general election.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for that clarification that the hard work done by my department to help the honourable gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not receive a reply.
I need hardly add that the Government take a much firmer, clearer and more decisive view of the matter. We have consistently pointed out the unfairness of a system of rates based on capital values. We are unwavering in our opposition to such

703
a system. On the face of it. I admit that capital value rates sound rather attractive. Everyone knows more or less the capital value of their own home. It is important not to be carried away by that superficial and illusory advantage. Changing one detail of the rating system will do nothing to solve its fundamental flaws. Capital value rates would still be paid by a minority of the electorate. There would be no improvement in the accountability of local authorities to voters. A single pensioner would still pay the same rates bill as four wage earners living next door in an identical house.
The more closely one looks at capital values, the more apparent it becomes that the advantages are superficial. Capital value rates would be even less closely related than rental values to people's ability to pay. Capital values vary far more across the country than either rental values or average incomes. Therefore I must say to my noble friend Lord Rippon that we believe that rental values should remain the basis for non-domestic rating.
Furthermore, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding put his finger on the most important point, which is that we should still need resource equalisation. That would leave us in the same iniquitous position as we are in with rental value rates, where poor people in areas with high house prices would subsidise wealthier people in low cost areas. That cannot happen with a flat rate payment such as the community charge.
It would also mean that the grant system could not be simplified. People would be left in the same situation that they currently find themselves in, with no clear idea why their rates bill is at a particular level and why it changes. That would thwart any attempt to introduce genuine accountability into the system.
I ask the Committee to bear in mind that house prices frequently rise much faster than incomes, particularly if a householder is retired. It would be grossly unfair to tax tenants on the capital value of their homes if they can never benefit from that value. I need hardly add that a revaluation on the basis of capital values would cause massive disruption. A million households would face increases of over 80 per cent.; over 2½ million households would face increases of 50 per cent. or more. Such turbulence would be impossible to justify when the end result would be a system which, as I have said, would continue to be both unfair and unaccountable. Whereas the unfairness and complexity would remain, fresh disruption would occur every time there was a revaluation because capital values would increase at different rates in different areas and between different types of property. Each revaluation would therefore change the relative rates burden people face, which would not necessarily be reflected in changes in income.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. Is there confusion here? If the local authority wants a total sum of money, it wants that total sum of money. The amount that people pay is not affected by the valuation. Given that the authority wants to raise a total sum of money, it wants that total sum of money. The amount that people pay is not affected by the
704
relation to B. The total sum will be the same. An increase in the valuation will not increase the amount that is paid. It will alter the relationship between what you pay and what I pay. It will not go up. The amount paid will fall. This is a matter of arithmetic and not a matter of politics.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I beg to differ. Having been a surveyor and having implemented the revaluation of 1973, I can assure the noble Baroness that despite the revaluation people paid more entirely because of it. If she casts her mind to Scotland, where there was a revaluation two years ago, she will find exactly the same thing happened. In theory the noble Baroness is right; in practice it does not work out like that.
For all those compelling reasons, capital values must be rejected by the Committee as a fundamentally unfair basis for taxation. I have no hesitation in urging the Committee to reject the amendments.
Lord Mulley: To make it abundantly clear, I repeat that my proposals and my speech today, and indeed all my observations in this Chamber, are my personal responsibility. I appreciate that we have had a good debate on what I believe to be an important matter.
While I normally have great admiration for the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I was surprised that he, with his vast experience, thought that the vote on a previous amendment was an endorsement of the community charge as drafted. As regards that amendment, the Committee decided not to add a rider which would probably have been difficult if not impossible to fulfil. Until Clause 1 stands part of the Bill, no one can say that the Committee has at this moment in time decided to proceed with the community charge. My proposals would replace the present proposal by a community charge—that is an emotive and meaningless phrase in any case—of a different character. In no sense is it meant to be additional to the proposals in the Bill. I shall give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me. He is quite right to speak of the terms of the previous amendment. However, if he had listened to the debate as closely as I did he would realise that practically all the proponents of the amendment were arguing against the community charge. They were using the amendment simply as a vehicle to try to reverse the community charge. The Committee spotted that and reversed them.
Lord Mulley: I am even more surprised if the noble Lord believes that the decisions of the Committee are someone's interpretation of a debate rather than the text of the amendments which are proposed and passed or turned down. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that the process of clause stand part is what matters rather than what may or may not be said. However, I shall not detain the Committee further, beyond saying that in no sense is my proposal additional to what exists in the Bill. I have no motive of a personal kind. I suspect that if my proposals were to be adopted I should be paying more in local taxes

705
than I would under the proposals contained in the Bill.
If I were a more partisan politician, I should welcome the Government's determination to commit political suicide. That is what I believe they are intent on doing. Having suffered the agony of watching my own party trying to cut its throat with a blunt razor, I do not think, seeing the present Government in the first year of a new Parliament embarking on a similar course, that that can be in the national interest. They ought to reconsider what is being proposed.
At a later stage, I shall propose the abolition of the rate support grant and any related grants. I think they are a bad system. As a Labour Member of another place, I remember spending a great many hours voting against the introduction of the rate support grant. When I became Secretary of State for Education at a later stage and had occasion to study the great Butler Act of 1944, I found that practically all the powers which I had under that Act had been taken out by a series of asterisks that referred to the introduction of the rate support grant.
The simplest method is a local tax of the kind which I have proposed, coupled with a greater provision (as was proposed in the Conservative manifesto of October 1974) from national revenues which we hope would be based rather more than they are now on the ability to pay. One could devise a grant system which would give a sufficient amount of local independence and also a sufficient amount of central government provision. I sense a lack of enthusiasm on the part of noble Lords to grasp the nettle of reality at the present time. I suspect that that means a determination and dedication to go though many days and nights on the 151 pages of the Bill before us. While I admire such a dogged approach I confess that I shall not be sharing very much in those deliberations.
I believe this to be one of the worst drafted Bills to have been sent to us in recent years. I know that that is a very extravagant claim but I put it forward as a serious candidate for that doubtful distinction. While I could find many examples, I should like to refer briefly to Clause 16. I suppose in this day and age it is necessary to say that a marriage must consist of a man and a woman. Also, since social trends dictate, I can well understand that it is necessary to say that if they are cohabitating in a household, for the purposes of the Act they will be regarded as being married.
What puzzles me is that the Bill goes on to say that in order for a marriage to qualify as a marriage under the Act it has to subsist for one whole day. I imagine that it would be possible to evade the community charge if a couple could say that at breakfast every day they had a dispute and were never sure that the other party would return for the evening meal. Then their so-called marriage would not have existed for the whole of the day in question. There are many similar examples in the Bill and I wish noble Lords well in going through them.
I should like to add one final remark. I hope that the Minister, whose masterly approach to his earlier briefs has impressed me, will have himself briefed on
706
the way the rating system works, the relationship between the rateable value and how the amount payable is worked out on a poundage basis. I expect that as a surveyor he knows that the penny rate used to be a very good standard of comparison. Quite clearly it would mean that in those areas where capital values have gone up substantially the rate in the pound would be lower than, for example, in the North of England where through adverse economic circumstances they have risen less sharply and the rate in the pound would be greater. While I do not say whether that should be domestic or commercial, I am proposing that it should be both but with provision for the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, to vary it by order.
I understand that noble Lords want a pause in what will be a very long deliberation. Therefore I ask leave to withdraw not only this amendment but also all the other amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may suggest that now would be a convenient moment to break for an hour for dinner. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before we take the next business, perhaps the noble Lord will indicate that we shall not return to the Local Government Finance Bill before 8.25 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Yes, my Lords.

Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill
7.25 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
It is purely a coincidence that I have the honour to introduce the Bill in the middle of the Government's morality drive, which is rapidly gaining momentum. I hope that as the movement continues for a higher standard of ethical conduct and religious belief we shall hear something about the relations between people and the animal kingdom and their pets, and about cruelty. I think that there are other sins against the light than those which relate wholly to human beings.
It is not without relevance that we read of a testator who left £7 million to three cat charities. Together with the large bequest made to the RSPCA recently, that is an indication that those with large sums of money to leave think about animals as well as their relatives and others to whom something may normally be left.
This Bill was introduced in another place by Mr. John Brown, Member of Parliament for Winchester, who was successful in the ballot and introduced what I should describe as a model Private Member's Bill.

707
It is short, non-controversial, and deals with a fairly narrow issue but one of some importance. I believe that the Bill has government support, because it implements undertakings given by the Home Secretary to the RSPCA on representations made by them about inadequacies or gaps in the law.
Clause 1 strengthens the powers of the courts to disqualify a person from holding any kind of animal after conviction on grounds of cruelty under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. As it stands at present, the law does not enable a court to disqualify a person from keeping an animal (unless it is a dog) until a subsequent conviction. It can never do so on the first conviction. In some cases of dreadful cruelty it seems ridiculous that the offender cannot be disqualified from owning any kind of animal for a period determined by the courts. Clause 1 deals with that situation. Disqualification may now be imposed by the courts on the first conviction.
Clause 2 deals with the penalties under earlier Acts of Parliament relating to fighting between animals. Such fights have been a curse and a blot upon our society for many years. Acts of Parliament of 1839 and 1847 imposed very small penalties for offences in connection with promoting animal fights and making animals fight each other. Clause 2 updates the amount of fines that may be imposed from the present maximum of £50 to a maximum of £1,000. Those penalties are referred to in Clause 2(1).
Clause 2(2) deals with a gap which has been discovered in the provisions relating to the prosecution of persons in connection with setting up fights between animals. Hitherto the law has dealt only partially with those who take part in such fights. It deals with those who organise them, but it does not deal with those who go to look at them. The spectator can plead that he had nothing to do with what was happening; he was there simply as a spectator. Apparently no charge can be made against him.
Clause 2(2) deals with attendance at animal fights. It states:
"A person who, without reasonable excuse, is present when animals are placed together for the purpose of their fighting each other shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale".
Level 4 is £1,000. That might keep some people away, especially if they expected to be raided and spectators could be grabbed and held equally with those who were promoting the fights.
Clause 2(3) deals with Scotland. It introduces into the Scottish law the proviso to which I have just referred. It will be made under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1911, which is the Act that corresponds to the 1912 Act for England and Wales. The offence of being present at an animal fight, carrying a maximum fine of £1,000, shall also apply to Scotland. The Short Title, repeals, commencement and extent are dealt with in Clause 3.
There is only one other matter arising on this Bill to which I need refer at the moment and that is the question of forfeiture. On conviction for certain types of animal abuse, misuse and so on, an order can be made to forfeit the equipment that may be used in an unlawful operation. I think in particular of badger
708
baiting or any such activity in which equipment that contributes to the cruelty of the occasion may be forfeited. There was a great deal of debate on this issue during the discussions on the Wildlife and Countryside Act several years ago, when it was debated whether one could confiscate lorries, motor cars and such vehicles as well as other equipment.
Forfeiture is dealt with under the Criminal Justice Bill which has been to your Lordships' House once, if not twice, and is now awaiting Report stage in another place before making its final journey to this Chamber. Clause 68 of that Bill deals with forfeiture. In that connection some animal welfare people have been considering the question of property—that is the term used—which may be seized from an offender and which was in his possession or under his control at the time that he was apprehended for the offence. Those are the words used in the Bill. Does the term "property" include animals? If someone is discovered digging for badgers and that person has a Jack Russell dog which he is using in order to get badgers out of the set, is the dog the offender's "property"? In other words, is an animal the offender's property and in those circumstances can the dog be seized and forfeited?
When this Bill was under discussion in another place the Minister dealt with this matter up to a point. He thought first of all that forfeiture would be dealt with in the Criminal Justice Bill in general; that it would deal with forfeiture not only in relation to this particular offence but other offences for which forfeiture may be a part of the penalty imposed on an offender. Would that include animals? Apparently there is some doubt. I informed the Minister about this matter in case he had some comment to make on Second Reading, but the House may care to bear in mind when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill whether anything further need be done. I think that the question of forfeiture remains in doubt. I am not sure even when the matter is debated that it will be made very clear whether an animal can be seized and, if so, what should happen to it. However, in some circumstances when people are caught doing a particularly dirty job it may be that the only thing to do is to seize their animals as well as their equipment.
I think that that is all I need to say on Second Reading. This is a small spearhead of attack upon the large volume of animal cruelty and misuse. On all animal legislation one must be content with a step-by-step approach. Sometimes it may be a very small step, and this is one of them. At any rate, with dog fighting in particular on the increase it is very important to plug the gaps. In fact, the general rise in offences of cruelty must lead us to want to strengthen the penalties in the hands of the courts. So the first clause of the Bill which deals with disqualification on first conviction is an important provision. Some dreadful acts take place and the court is told that the accused had no previous record of delinquency or cruelty and that he could not understand how it had happened and so on and so forth. In whatever way things happen, if they are particularly serious it should be possible to disqualify persons from having an animal, bird, or other living creature for some time to come. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
7.36 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not putting my name on the list of speakers, but as that list is not a very lengthy one I hope that I shall be forgiven.
I agree with everything that the noble Lord has said. I do not think that there can be much doubt about an animal being its owner's property. He has paid for it and is responsible for its upkeep. Therefore, it seems to me that it is his property and as such its proper upkeep is his responsibilty.
Some people snigger somewhat at the idea of protecting animals or on issues of anti-cruelty, as it were, but cruelty is nothing to laugh about. After all, one of the first moral principles is that one should not unnecessarily do harm to those who are unable to protect themselves. This is a very good instance of that principle. Dog fights which have taken place in Epsom have been very nasty affairs. I only hope that the police will be given some weapon with which they can attack the perpetrators of such "sport", if it can be called that, and so enable those concerned to receive their due punishment.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I too apologise because I did not put down my name on the list of speakers. I can only plead the expected shortness of the debate. There is only one issue about which I wish to speak and that concerns the forfeiture of dogs. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby is aware of it, but when the Deer Acts were reformed by legislation which I introduced earlier in this decade, there was a similar problem to consider: if there is forfeiture of dogs, what is to happen to them? That is how the noble Lord put the question.
It is worth making the point that in the course of the passage of that legislation we reached agreement with, I think it was, the Canine Defence League that if any dogs were forfeited they would take them and find them a good home. In other words, it would avoid, as the only alternative, the necesssity of their being put down.
The issue of forfeiture should not be judged on what happens to the dogs. We have taken care of that generally. We tried at that time to get the Home Office to send a circular to magistrates drawing attention to the fact that, because we had reached this agreement, they should not be deterred from ordering the forfeiture of dogs by fear of what might happen to them. I do not know whether that became widely enough known. It ought to be, because the forfeiture of the animal is a good punishment, and, in the case of poaching of deer, the forfeiture of lurcher dogs is a very good deterrent indeed. I would therefore hope that this issue will not be ducked. I hope that some way will be found of including possible forfeiture of the dogs, and that the agreement we reached in the case of the Deer Bill will be happily stretched to include any dogs forfeited under this Bill.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Houghton has presented and explained this Bill very well and very clearly. I do not think that there is
710
anything to add in that regard. Obviously, any legislation that improves the lot of animals in this country is welcome; and this Bill certainly does that.
I regret the need for this Bill. It is a very sad comment on our times that although we are thought to be a nation of great animal lovers, in fact animal cruelty is growing. My noble friend Lord Houghton has given some examples. I am appalled that according to an RSPCA leaflet the latest figures for 1986 show that in the two preceding years animal cruelty had increased by more than 75 per cent. The greatest increase in animal cruelty was in the South-East where cautions and convictions had increased by 1778 per cent. I find these figures very alarming indeed.
We know that dog fights are organised in very great secrecy. That is one of the problems in dealing with them. It is therefore very important that the message from this Bill is that there is to be a greater deterrent. There are stiffer penalties for those organising and attending these dreadful fights. Perhaps this will be a way of bringing them to an end.
My noble friends have spoken about the new forfeiture powers. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that they made on this important issue.
I am sure that this Bill will greatly improve the ability of the RSPCA and other organisations, and ordinary citizens, to bring prosecutions, by creating an offence of attendance at animal fights under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. This is a most important part of the Bill. As my noble friend said, the Bill will extend to Scotland the offence of attending animal fights. The maximum penalty will be a fine of £1,000.
I fear that these measures are needed. The figures of increases in both dog fights and in animal cruelty generally warrant them. It has been said many times that one of the tests of a civilised society is the way in which it treats its animals. I fear that all the signs are that our society is not as civilised as we would wish, judged by this test alone. I believe therefore that the changes included in the legislation will be welcomed by all those who are truly concerned for the welfare of animals. I congratulate both the mover in another place and my noble friend for introducing this Bill. I wish it a safe passage to the Statute Book.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on taking up this Bill and bringing it forward for the consideration of your Lordships' House. We are therefore obviously very pleased to have this opportunity to make clear the Government's wholehearted support for this important Bill. Such support is a clear indication of the Government's continuing commitment to improve the welfare of animals in our society and to protect them against mistreatment.
We believe that the courts must be able to punish and deter those who might engage in acts of cruelty by inflicting deliberate suffering on animals. This Bill contains several improvements in their ability to do so. First, it aims to allow courts to disqualify a person from having custody of an animal following

711
conviction for an offence of cruelty under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 or the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912. At present, under the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954, the power of disqualification is available to courts only on a second or subsequent conviction, except in the case of cruelty to a dog when disqualification may be imposed on a first conviction. This position seems muddled and unhelpful to the courts. Although there have been reservations in the past, we now see no reason why the courts should not be able to disqualify a person from having custody of any animal on first or subsequent conviction for an offence of cruelty against animals.
The second change which this Bill proposes concerns penalties for attendance at animal fights. It raises the maximum penalty available for this offence in England and Wales from a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale (currently £50) to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale (currently £1,000). It also reintroduces into Scotland the offence of attendance at an animal fight and provides for the maximum penalty to be the same as in England and Wales, that is a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
It is right and in keeping with the abhorrence with which animal fighting is viewed for those who attend these barbaric activities, as well as those who are involved in their organisation, to receive a substantial punishment. This Bill will provide for that.
Then the Bill aims to facilitate the prosecution of those who unlawfully attend animal fights. At present in England and Wales only the police may do so as the offence is contained in various local police Acts. By the introduction of the offence into the Protection of Animals Act 1911, however, it will be possible for any individual or group to institute proceedings against spectators. This is surely right. It is often the case that other agencies or persons in addition to the police are involved in the investigation of these evil practices. In this context the invaluable and continuing work of the RSPCA is particularly to be applauded. It is clearly in the best interests of all concerned therefore (except the perpetrators of animal fights) to enable the RSPCA or any other body or person to bring to justice all of those who organise or unlawfully attend these activities.
The noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Northfield, have both mentioned the subject of forfeiture. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said, Section 68 of the Criminal Justice Bill extends the general powers of the courts to order the forfeiture of property used or intended for use in the commission of offences to all offences, including offences of animal fighting. It has been questioned whether the term "property" in this context will apply to an animal used, or intended for use, in the commission of an offence. The Government's firm advice is that animals are so included.The Government's view therefore is that no special provision needs to be made, or should be made, in this Bill to provide for the forfeiture of property, animals or otherwise, used or intended for use in the commission of animal fight offences.
712
Finally, the Government welcome the changes proposed in the Bill. We consider the Bill as now presented to be a valuable and important measure which deserves the full support of your Lordships' House. I sincerely hope, therefore, that your Lordships will concur with this view.
Lord Somers: My Lords, apropos what the noble Earl has said, what is the position with regard to private guard dogs at someone's house?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall need notice of that question. I shall be in touch with the noble Lord before the next stage of the Bill and, if necessary, the matter can always be brought up at the Committee stage.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. What my noble friend Lord Northfield said is of great interest. In another place the Home Office Minister said that the department would consider including in a future Home Office circular, when the Criminal Justice Bill became law, an indication to those concerned that the word "property" included animals.
I am grateful to the noble Earl whose emphatic style on this subject I find most attractive. One can easily waffle on about animals, but up to now (and I am sure it will continue) what he has said he said as if he believed it and carried conviction at all times. That is very pleasing in the kind of semi cynical atmosphere of political activity that we meet so frequently. May I, with profound respect and warm thanks, say how I appreciate what the noble Earl has said.
Concerning forfeiture of animals, I see the point that if we include in the Bill a reference to the effect that property includes animals, it might be inferred that if the Criminal Justice Bill remains as it is animals will not be included in that legislation. We want to be sure that if property includes animals, it includes animals in other senses besides cruelty to animals. I believe we can give consideration to this matter before the next stage.
I am sure that the sponsor of the Bill—who was at the Bar until he was called away to a Division—was observing our proceedings with satisfaction. I am sure he will be pleased with the reception given to the Bill and that it is well on its way to the Statute Book. Together with the police, who deal with these terrible activities—and they are terrible—we shall consider the societies concerned. One should never overlook the extent and the depth of original sin. It really comes out in many cases when one is dealing with animals. I am grateful to the House and to the Minister for accepting the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 until 8.25 p.m.]

Local Government Finance Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) This section is subject to section (Exempt Dwellings) below.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 9, 36 and 53. These amendments address themselves to a collective community charge as regards short-stay hostels. In the debate on the first amendment the noble Lord, Lord Carr, briefly addressed himself to the problem. I listened with great care to the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, in respect of the first amendment. He said that the Committee was entitled to do certain things. In my view, the Government may see fit to accept the amendment in the end.
Short-stay hostels, run by voluntary organisations such as the Salvation Army or Crisis at Christmas, cater for thousands of people without shelter. The levy of a collective community charge on such hostels, with residents not paying a community charge elsewhere and being expected to pay the daily cost of the charge, is administratively unworkable and politically insensitive. It will certainly hinder the provision of these vital services. With an increasing number of homeless people that would be tragic.
The amendment proposes what I consider to be a most reasonable solution. It is the exemption from the charge of individuals in collective-charge properties run by voluntary organisations, leaving the properties subject to a non-domestic rate. If we proceed with a collective community charge, the structure of such a scheme will disadvantage some of the poorest sections of society. The problem with levying the charge on such hostels is that people staying for a few nights or a week must pay the personal community charge. Only afterwards will they be able to claim a rebate to reduce the charge to 20 per cent. It does not take much imagination to see that there will be quite a time lag between the payment of the charge and tile reimbursement from the DHSS, leaving many people even poorer.
We must also consider the 80 per cent. rebate for such people. That will still leave 20 per cent. of the charge to be found by the hostel resident. Members of the Committee know as well as I that the hostel residents, on the whole, do not have any money. I believe that it will be a disincentive for these people to take up the provision, and in the same way it will increase the hostel's rent and force some of the people back on the street.
Therefore this becomes an enormous problem for people running the hostels and half-way houses because they will face the choice of exacting the community charge from residents or paying the charge themselves. However, if they do—and I believe a large number of them will elect to do that—it means that they are using to pay the collective community charge tax those resources raised voluntarily which would have gone to provide more help for these people.
This problem can be vividly illustrated by the charity Crisis at Christmas, of which I am very proud to be a trustee. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, is not here because her husband started that charity and she has devoted 21 years of her life to supporting it. Above all, it is famous for the six days of shelter it provides for homeless people over the Christmas period—all paid for by voluntary donations and all the work done by volunteers. That charity has estimated that the collective charge for its six days' operation each Christmas, which looks after 600 people over six days, could be as high as £4,000. The cost of providing those six days for 600 people over Christmas is £17,000. They could not conceivably collect that £4,000 from the people who come in for six days over Christmas and it will therefore mean that Crisis at Christmas will have to find another £4,000 for that exercise.
Apart from having to find more money which would not go directly to those people who need the help, it would also impose a burdensome and irksome administrative duty. It would increase the cost of administration, detailed records would have to be kept and the charity would become the form of tax collector that the new charge demands.
The other matter which worries me even more is that the nature of open Christmas would be radically altered. The Crisis at Christmas organiser would be forced to ask everyone who they were, whether they wanted to stay one night, whether they were over 18 or paying the personal community charge elsewhere. Therefore even if the whole cost is met open Christmas would not survive in its current form. It is essentially a place where anybody who is homeless can turn up.
There is another problem that could be created. Every Christmas we are loaned free of charge a building in which to house and feed those 600 people. However, if Crisis at Christmas defaulted the person technically liable for the charge in the end could be the authority or person who had loaned the property that we were using. Therefore it would become increasingly difficult for us to find a building.
I have talked about Crisis at Christmas, but during the rest of the year Crisis at Christmas undertakes fund raising for over 100 other organisations, funding about 30 all-year-round hostels as well as group homes and other services. This year it expects to raise £700,000 or £800,000. All those hostels and many other homes will be subject to the collective community charge and will face the same sort of problems all year round, deducting from the voluntary contributions that should go to the people who need help.
For voluntary hostels this promises to be an administrative nightmare. The only solution that we can see is to abolish altogether the charge for these kinds of homes, leaving the residents exempt while living in the voluntary hostels and with the voluntary organisations paying non-domestic rates for the properties. I believe that these amendments are something which the Government must accept as fair. We live in a society where homelessness is increasing. We do not want to make the conditions

715
worse and I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendments proposed.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: I also dare to hope that the Minister may come to see, if he has not already done so, that the Bill as it stands without this amendment is a triumph of logic over reality because I do not believe that it will work in its present form.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, has already indicated how it would affect a charity such as Crisis at Christmas. Perhaps I may turn to something rather different and declare a personal interest. It so happens that, because of where we live in Gloucester, between six and twelve homeless men and occasionally a homeless woman turn up at our front door every day. We have come to know a few of them well enough to realise that their lifestyle is such that the idea of their having any kind of responsible participation in local government is simply farcical.
In a letter which the Minister's colleague in another place, the Minister of State for Local Government, wrote to the Salvation Army he said:
"Such people"—
that is, the people we are talking about here—
"should nonetheless be involved in the process of accountability".
It is very difficult to recognise the reality behind those words. He continued:
"It would not be appropriate simply to exempt them".
I understand and entirely support the main thrust of this Bill—namely, to increase the base of accountability of local government—but I believe that there is no reality in trying to extend that to the homeless men who are in and out of short-stay hostels. We in Gloucester over the last few years have created a night shelter for such travelling and shiftless people. It takes about four years of local money-raising and the accumulation of a responsible committee to get such a project in operation. It lives from hand to mouth financially, always trying to raise enough money locally.
As explained by the noble Baroness, the imposition of the system outlined in the Bill is bound to make the cash flow and money-raising problems of such local projects much more difficult and painful. Who is going to charge these men up to £1 a day in addition to the amount they already pay for their board and lodging? Who is going to ensure that they obtain a rebate if they are entitled to one? I believe that before this Bill is enacted, at the very least somebody responsible should share the experience of running and administering such a system. I believe that this must have been conceived in offices a long way away from reality.
My experience is that very few of the men we are talking about will ever vote in local elections. Therefore it is totally unrealistic to expect them to register and to pay the community charge. They simply will not be there when you want to collect it. I believe that the voluntary societies are almost unanimous—certainly judging from my own postbag—in asking that the proposal should be dropped and that they should simply be asked to pay the non-domestic rate, as they do at the moment. I find it difficult to believe that the Government wish to
716
press on, considering the comparatively small numbers involved and the painful effect not only on the men themselves but upon those voluntary bodies and individuals who work so hard to care for a particularly vulnerable part of our population.
Baroness Faithfull: In supporting this amendment, I ask my noble friend the Minister for some advice. Who is to collect the money? Members of the Committee have referred to the letter from the Salvation Army on the issue of collection. I refer to the whole sphere of hostels: the Simon Hostel, the Church Army hostels, the Salvation Army hostels, the shelters for battered wives. All of those organisations take in people who are in trouble for a short or longer time. At the time when they are taken in, they are insecure and aggressive. Those of us who have worked with such vulnerable people know how very difficult it is to establish a relationship with them. And until you establish a relationship with them you cannot possibly make any effort to rehabilitate them.
The person who asks for their community charge will represent to those people, as the Salvation Army calls it, "the Government". Most of these people are "agin" the Government, not necessarily rightly so but because of their circumstances. They are against authority. Anyone on the staff of these hostels collecting the money will represent authority. That is immediately going to make it very diffcult to establish relationships with this wide spectrum of people. My worry is not only that expressed by the noble Baroness and by the right reverend Prelate: the question of the money. There is also the matter of who is to collect it. If it is to be the hostels, they will empty because people will feel that the staff represent authority.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: I support my noble friend Lady Robson and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester in the amendmdent. I fear the provision because it will in effect turn each of us into a vicarious Scrooge. We shall be extracting money from people who get nothing from us except what is given to them by charity. They are people who are so disadvantaged that they do not know how to use the system in order to get anything out of taxes and local government. We will either have to extract it from them or extract it from the charities that are set up to look after them when they are in desperate need.
I have had experience of sending desperate people to places like a Salvation Army hostel; I have seen how they have been cared for and put on the right lines. I realise how important the relationship of these hostels with these disadvantaged people is. It is important that we realise that by turning such hostels as the Crisis at Christmas hostel and Salvation Army hostels into agencies for the collection of even local taxes, it is going to create a feeling in the minds of people that they are going into a hostel that is a kind of government agency. The very delicate relationship built up by charities like the Salvation Army and Crisis at Christmas with these very disadvantaged people will be damaged. We shall do damage out of all proportion to the principles which the Government may be striving to establish. I cannot

717
believe any principle of taxation makes it desirable to take from somebody something he does not have or stops people giving what they would willingly give to people who are totally disadvantaged.
Therefore, I beg the Government to look at this amendment with sympathy and to see whether they cannot do something to alleviate injustice by removing these hostels from the obligation of collecting taxes and of turning themselves into collectors of tax from thoroughly disadvantaged people.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady Robson, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
I declare my interest with the voluntary foundations, the Ryder Homes and hostels which I represent as founder, auxiliary nurse and social worker, nursing and caring for over 2,000 people of all age groups suffering 18 different kinds of disability and also the homeless and destitute. In 1987 we were privileged to nurse 907 patients who died in our care. As always, especially in the large cities and elsewhere, we have thousands more on waiting lists or arrivals in various parts of Britain. I am exceedingly concerned and shocked that our work for these brave and silent sufferers in society, and indeed the foundation as a whole, should be so penalised. I therefore seek an assurance from the Minister that all our sick patients, residents and the homeless will be exempt.
The foundation depends on voluntary contributions and it has to raise several million pounds each year through the tireless efforts of fund-raising teams. Naturally they want encouragement not only from the public but also from the Government. Moreover, resident staff, of whom there are about 160, must be present in each home and hostel to give essential cover for 24-hour day and night nursing and care.
There are also dozens of part-time nurses and volunteers. Therefore, I ask the Minister—I implore him—to offer some reassurance that the people and patients, nurses, auxiliaries and volunteers to whom I have referred will be protected.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Perhaps I may encourage the Minister to intervene at this stage since the case which has been made appears to the Committee in general to be so overwhelming. I wonder whether he is convinced and therefore is prepared to make some concession. I seem to recall when we were discussing the Scottish Bill that the same ground was covered and I believe that some concessions were made. If I remember rightly, some concessions were made, for example, in the case of homes for battered wives. The Minister may recall that. As some concessions were made in that regard, perhaps the Minister would care to intervene at this stage and tell us the Government's view.
The case for the homeless and the drifters, if you like, who have to go to these hostels, is appreciated by all Members of the Committee. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, making a cynical
718
comment when the subject was debated here that the tax could be collected on an American Express card. I believe that he was trying to prove that the people who drafted the legislation had little knowledge of the conditions of the people who are affected by this legislation. I encourage the Minister to intervene.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I echo the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that the Minister will intervene quickly. Therefore, I shall intervene only briefly because I believe it is my duty, on behalf of my noble friends, to say how strongly we support these two amendments. We have had an afternoon of high drama but perhaps, as the right reverend Prelate said, the drama was somewhat divorced from reality. We now have a whole series of cases of common or garden tragedy affecting real people of the kind of whom I suspect a large number of the 317 noble Lords who voted against the amendment this afternoon can have no experience whatever.
I am sorry, I did not want to make this into a party political point. However, the case that has been made for a compassionate view of the community charge as it affects people in these hostels is so overwhelming that I very much hope that the Minister, and the Government, will be able to find it in their hearts to make meaningful concessions, otherwise we shall be forced to follow the noble Baroness into the Lobbies.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister intervenes, perhaps I may bring to the attention of the Committee another subject which has not been mentioned this evening. I chair an organisation called Phoenix House which has residential homes for drug addicts. Most of these people are on social security and the homes survive with DHSS grants. Often the staff feel most insecure through not knowing whether the grants will arrive. The work is very demanding. We have homes in many parts of the country and we are trying to expand.
Many of our residents are now HIV-positive. To get the residents free of drugs and rehabilitated is without doubt the safest solution for the community. Drug addicts with AIDS in the community provide the quickest way of spreading the disease. The strain of running these homes with the extra community charge may be the last straw that breaks the camel's back. The rich who live in comfort will be very much more at risk with drug addicts at large and a great number of people having to seal to finance their addiction. In many areas the crime rate is increasing. I have great admiration for the many voluntary organisations such as Phoenix House, the Salvation Army, the Sue Ryder Homes and many others. I hope that the Government will realise what they are doing before it is too late. If the Government do nothing now, they will show that they do not understand homelessness and our over-filled prisons will become even fuller.
Lord Glenarthur: I must begin by saying that of course I very much appreciate the enormous amount of work which is done by all those charities to which Members of the Committee have referred this evening. I fully understand the strength of feeling that lies behind these amendments, as explained by the

719
noble Baroness, which are intended to exempt those who live in charity-run hostels from making any contribution towards the costs of local services.
Having said that, this amendment has some undesirable qualities because it would severely undermine the principle of local accountability.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Glenarthur: If I may be allowed to develop beyond just a phrase, perhaps I can explain why that is so and also what is being done to try to meet the concerns which have been raised. Like it or not, we had this discussion during the Scottish Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred. It is a principle, stated on many occasions during the passage of that Bill, that as many adults as possible should make some contribution towards the costs of the local services from which to some extent they benefit.
Of course, there are already a number of exceptions and they are set out in Schedule 1. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, will see from paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 1 that hospital patients and those in homes—to take up a point made by the noble Baroness Lady Masham—are covered in the way in which she would wish them to be covered. In particular, the noble Baroness quoted the case of Phoenix House and the work done with drug addicts. As far as I can tell, if they are residential, they would be covered by the exceptions set out in paragraph 8. As matters stand, those exemptions apply to groups, such as the severely mentally handicapped and the residents of hospitals and homes, as I have described. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that those are the people for whom the process of accountability cannot be said to operate properly. There does not seem to be any difference between us on that.
However, the same arguments do not apply to people who live in properties designated for the collective community charge. People staying in dwellings designated for the collective charge make use of local services to some extent just as others do. My noble friend Lady Faithfull was a little concerned about hostels where people live who may be disturbed and with whom the owners of the hostel find it difficult to establish the necessary close relationship. I must point out to my noble friend that the Government have already undertaken to exempt those who stay in hostels which provide a substantial degree of care. That provision is also taken care of in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1. The collective charge will not be raised on hostels of that kind but on general purpose hostels where people come and go and where little or no "care", in the normal sense of that word, is provided.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, appeared particularly concerned about Crisis at Christmas, which offers accommodation to down-and-outs for one week in the year. I must say it seems most unlikely that a property which is used for one week in the year would be designated for the collective community charge. That charge, which we have not
720
yet had time to debate fully but which will be dealt with tomorrow, has been designed with permanent hostels in mind—those whose business it is to provide accommodation on a continuing basis.
All that I have said does not mean that those who stay in collective charge properties should necessarily have to pay the full community charge. I agree that many of them, particularly those who stay in charity hostels, have little or no income. The Government have taken account of that by providing that they should receive rebates of up to 80 per cent., and no one whose income is low and stays in a charity hostel will have to pay the full amount of the charge. I think it is worth pointing out that individuals who are eligible for an 80 per cent. rebate in their contributions will also be eligible for income support. Their income support payments, like everybody else's, will have been increased to reflect the average 20 per cent. payment which would be required; so I do not think there is quite as much justification as may be implied in the remarks of the noble Baroness, for saying that those who stay in hostels would be unable to pay the reduced charges which many of them would face.
I fully appreciate that it is one thing to say that rebates will be available and another to ensure that rebates are actually paid to the kind of people who stay in these hostels. That is, again, a point made by the noble Baroness. So we have been examining, and are examining at the moment, a number of options with the DHSS and local authority associations for ensuring that the rebate system operates smoothly and effectively in these circumstances.
One option is to offer 80 per cent. vouchers to the people concerned. Another option would be to provide that people in charity hostels will pay only one-fifth of the normal collective charge contribution. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, expressed concern that charity landlords might be out of pocket and might therefore impinge upon the funds which have been donated in connection with the charity, if they decide they cannot collect a contribution from the poorest of their visitors.
In that connection I should like to make two points. The first is that the poorest people will have to pay only one-fifth of a contribution. I think we have to get that into proportion. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester suggested £1 a day. In fact, in the average area it is just over 12 pence a day. Secondly, in answer to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the charity landlord, who will be responsible for collecting the charge, will be allowed to keep 5 per cent. of the contributions he collects to cover his costs. Those would be such things as the cost of the administration of the scheme, collecting the money, maintaining records, handing over the money and so on. I suppose another feature of it could be said to be bad debts. I think it is also important to bear in mind that there are those who already attend such hostels as the Salvation Army hostels, who already contribute, as I understand it, towards some of the services that are provided. No doubt that money comes to them in the first place through the social security system.

721
The noble Baroness suggested another idea, which is that charity hostels should be subject to non-domestic rates. I wonder whether the noble Baroness really appreciates quite what that would mean. She may have got it slightly wrong, when one realises that these properties are not non-domestic. They are by definition domestic because they are used for residential purposes. I have to say that it is perhaps a little odd, on the one hand, to say that the collective charge will impose a burden on charities and at the same time to suggest that charities should pay non-domestic rates. I believe it would be more of a burden for charities to pay full non-domestic rates than it would be for them to pay a certain number of collective charge contributions on behalf of a visitor, if that visitor has no money.
Therefore, in answer to the point the noble Baroness is making—and she has received support on this—I hope your Lordships will agree that this amendment is unnecessary, particularly in the light of the assurances I have given that we will provide for people on low incomes to meet only one-fifth of their collective charge contribution and that we are looking at the mechanism in the way I described just now.
I suggest that the correct way to help people staying in charity hotels, rather than giving a complete exemption, would be to proceed along the lines I have stated. I think that is fair and it does not in any sense fly against any principle of the Bill. At the same time I appreciate the very real concerns expressed and the dedicated work that goes on. However, I suspect that there is some lack of knowledge among some of your Lordships who have made contributions to our debate today as to what is taken care of in Schedule 1 to the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, will study that matter.
Lord Jay: The Minister's reply on this amendment seems to me extraordinary: indeed, almost incredible. Here we are talking of a number of homes and of people who are almost destitute. Incidentally, let us remember that the great increase in homelessness that has come about in the last few years has arisen largely because of the Government's own housing policy. Therefore they must accept a special responsibility in this case.
The Government are now apparently asking the charities, who are about the only people in the community trying to help with this acute problem, to act as tax collectors on behalf of the local authority and the Government, in order that these small amounts of revenue may be collected. Can the Minister make clearer what the legal position is? Is there a legal obligation on the staff of the charity to extract these sums from the homeless people staying in hostels? If so, how can that be enforced? The Minister's argument for this extraordinary, almost inhumane arrangement is that these people have to be made accountable for their use of local services. To be accountable in any significant sense one must not only make some use of the services but have some
722
means from which to contribute. As many of these people—probably a large proportion—are destitute, how can this be done in practice?
The Minister made great play of the fact that the people concerned would be in receipt of the rebate of 80 per cent., about which we have heard so much in the debates, and that that would go far to solve the problem. I presume that this is in the Bill. Can the Minister say precisely where one finds mention of the rebate of 80 per cent., or of 20 per cent., if one wishes to put it that way? If it is not in the Bill, the case would seem to fall to the ground. If it is, perhaps he can say precisely where.
Lord Renton: I do not deserve to be forgiven for intervening now, not having heard the earlier part of the debate, but I have listened with great care to the Minister's statement and I am trying to understand its full implication in relation to the amendments. I should welcome some clarification. The Minister referred twice to paragraph 8 of Schedule 1, in which we find an expression that occurs frequently elsewhere in the schedule:
"A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on the day—

(a) he has his sole or main residence in a residential care home, nursing home or hostel, and

(b) he is receiving care or treatment (or both) there".

On the face of it, one might assume that that is intended to cover the very cases mentioned of short stay. I shall be grateful if the Minister can say whether that is so.
Baroness Seear: Is it the intention to charge people who are sleeping in cardboard boxes under the arches on the embankment? If it is not, as I hope, this will obviously discourage them very much from moving out of their cardboard boxes to go into hostels—a move that most of us would welcome—where they would become liable for the charge.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The Minister in his reply referred to people who are accommodated substantially in hostels. What does "substantial" mean? Many of the people concerned go to a hostel for one night only and then go back on to the street.
It is a little dangerous, although I do not carp about this, for the Minister to make reference to the Scottish Bill. Those of us who have been involved in housing and hostels know that nowhere in the United Kingdom has a problem equal to that of central London. People come to the centre of London from all the major cities, which have their own problems. The problem in the centre of London calcifies and hardens. I walk from my flat in London week after week and month after month, and I see the same people sleeping in doorways. Occasionally they disappear for a few nights when they probably go to a hostel. Can the Minister say what he means by "substantial"?
Lord Glenarthur: To reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, about legal obligation, we have yet to reach the part of the Bill that commences in Clause 5, which

723
deals in depth with the collective community charge. Clause 6 details the setting up of the community charges register. We have not yet reached the point where there is a legal obligation on the part of anyone to collect it. The purpose of the Bill is to establish that, and we shall come to it in due course.
As for the question that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, posed about how the money could be raised in practice by these poor people in order to pay the community charge, I think that that is more a feature of the social security system than of this Bill. The two run hand in hand. That is why he came to the next point which was where in the Bill we could find the elements which go to show how the 80 per cent. rebate is achieved. Further, how it is possible, as we agreed following the Scottish Bill last year, that the income support payments would be increased to reflect the average 20 per cent. payment. The answer is to be found in Clause 133 of the Bill. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 133 on page 74, he will find that Schedule 13, which amends the Social Security Act 1986, will have the effect for which he is looking. My noble friend Lord Renton—
9.15 p.m.
Lord Jay: Will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? I have read Schedule 13. It may be my fault for not being a sufficiently trained lawyer, but I cannot find any reference either to 20 per cent. or to 80 per cent. in that schedule. Since so much of the Government's argument for the Bill rests on this, I think that we ought to know where it can be found.
Lord Glenarthur: That will be done by order under that schedule and it does not feature in the schedule. However, Clause 133 paves the way for that part of the schedule to take effect. My right honourable friend has stated that orders would be made under the schedule.
Lord Jay: So the noble Lord is telling us that this rebate on which the whole case for the Bill on Second Reading and in the debate this afternoon rested is not in the Bill at all but will perhaps—we do not yet know—appear in some order to be made at some later unspecified date. Is that correct?
Lord Glenarthur: I seem to have been down this path before with the Scottish Bill last year, when the same arguments were put forward. The fact is that the same applied there, and there is absolutely no suggestion that the appropriate orders will not be made. I am sure that the noble Lord is not suggesting for a minute that that is not the case. Of course the orders will be made. That is the correct place to make the orders to bring into effect this 80 per cent. rebate. That is why it is being done in this way and is not put on the face of the Bill itself.
Lord Jay: I am merely saying that clear words in an Act of Parliament are one thing, but the promise from a Minister to introduce an order at some future date, although it may be fulfilled in practice, is quite different.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is the case in England and Wales, as I think it is in Scotland, that this arrangement is already under way in that all those concerned are paying 20 per cent. of their rates which are being made up through social security now, so that this proportion is established. That is one question I wanted to ask.
I am so sorry that I did not hear the beginning of this discussion. It is extremely important both that the Committee understands it and that we make sure that arrangements are as good as they possibly can be. In the great blockbuster debate it was not possible to go into these things, but the nature of the community charge is such that, as I see it, it is an attempt to bring everybody in to contributing to society, to feel that they are part of it and to make sure that the poorest have the money to do it so that they will not be worse off. It is the physical action of paying one's way that is so important, and in which I personally believe. I already see it beginning to be understood in Scotland.
It is easy to laugh and make faces, but if we say that and if we commit ourselves to it, we then have to find a way for all the difficult cases. I do not think that the difficult cases make the main argument invalid but nevertheless they are difficult. I am delighted to hear that the Government are looking at various options for doing this because it is a very sensitive matter. It is important that it should be right for the people concerned who are doing the paying and also right for the people, for example, running hostels and doing a marvellous job. We have to look at it extremely carefully, but in my view that does not invalidate the whole idea. It is extremely important to keep the matter in context and find the right way to do it. I hope that the Government will take a lot of trouble about this.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask: does she not realise that many of these people have completely dropped out of society and the charities are striving very hard to get them back into society, but it is the process of rehabilitation that is so difficult? Those charities need encouragement and motivation to be able to do this job. Having to find the money for this collective charge is going to be the last straw for the bodies who are trying to bring these very unfortunate people back into society.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If those remarks were addressed to me, I would say that this is a question of getting to grips with the whole idea that will gradually develop. In five years' time this will all be understood by everybody. It is easy for Members of the Committee to make faces, but this provision could be the thing that more than anything else helped people who had dropped out of society. If one thinks this matter through and talks positively with people who are running such organisations—I am as involved as anybody else with the organisations—I think that this provision can, and will, be seen to be of value. This is one of the most difficult aspects of the whole exercise and it must be dealt with by the Committee.
Earl Russell: It is not necessary for the Government to accept 90 per cent. of the arguments put in favour of this amendment in order for them to accept it. Even if they do not sympathise with the arguments of social conscience which have been put forward, they might consider that they are setting themselves an immense administrative nightmare. This is not only a point about trying to collect money from people who have no money; it is much more important than that.
When the Minister talked about these hostels as being residential he was under a fundamental misapprehension. The central point about the homeless is that they are of no fixed address. They are here today and gone tomorrow. When someone comes to collect the poll tax from them they will have to consider whether they are dealing with John Smith or with somebody else of the same name.
In these circumstances it is really rather difficult to talk about accountability. The telling of tall stories by people in this situation is a well known phenomenon. It goes back to the 1620s and appears in Folkestone's churchwardens' accounts. A man recorded in those accounts was obtaining poor relief under the title of "one who came from the land of Babylon". How are we going to identify these people, track them down and make them eligible for the poll tax? There has not been an attempt to keep track of mobility such as this since the Tudor vagrancy laws. They did not work. If I could make an appropriate comment on the Minister's response it would be signed "Autolycus".
Viscount Thurso: I must say that we are not here talking about the general principle of the Bill. We are talking about exceptional cases. So to get up and say that we are in some way talking about the principle of paying one's whack is not so; it is not the matter under discussion in these amendments.
It seems to me that the Minister is seeking to appease those who want to be charitable about this particular problem by drawing our attention to Schedule 1 paragraph 8(4) which states:
"A hostel is anything which falls within any definition of hostel for the time being prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State under this sub-paragraph".
This may be the sub-paragraph under which the Minister or his right honourable friend will give to these hostels the exemption which we are seeking. However, I wish that the Minister would tell us whether that is going to be so, because in the case of the Salvation Army, for instance, there are about 50 short-stay hostels where shelter is given to disadvantaged people throughout England and Wales. They provide for the casual needs of about 4,500 short-stay residents throughout the country. That is hardly a number of people that will break the system. It is hardly a sum of money that will matter to the Revenue or to any local authority, but it will matter enormously to the Salvation Army if we turn those who run its hostels into publicans. It is wrong that we should not receive a clear assurance in relation to that type of hostel. I beg the Minister to give a clear assurance that that will be done.
Lord Hylton: I take it that the amendment which we are now discussing is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 9. I therefore apologise for not having been in the Chamber when the amendment was moved. Amendment No. 9 refers to people coming into residence for short periods of time. I have received representations from two voluntary bodies which are concerned with people who come into residence for quite long periods. The first is from Community Service Volunteers. It is concerned about volunteers who work for periods of one to two years and occasionally longer. The second is an organisation called L'Arche which provides permanent dwellings and community settings for mentally handicapped people, most of whom are not severely handicapped.
I understand that the severely mentally handicapped will be altogether exempt. However, the less seriously affected will get rebates but will still be called on to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge. L'Arche estimates—whether rightly of wrongly, I do not know—that the cost will be £30,000 per year for a variety of communities and hostels spread throughout England and one or two in Scotland. That is a very large sum of money for that kind of organisation to find each year, over and above what it must find from charitable and voluntary sources. Therefore, there is a wider problem than simply the question of short term hostels.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may intervene very briefly. If we are insisting on the principle of paying your whack and making your contribution, surely there is an element of fancy about it. People on social security are not paying their whack. They are passing on the whack that social security has paid to them. That seems to undermine the principle from the start.
Lord Glenarthur: With respect to the noble Baroness, I am not sure that that is the case. If we had not uprated benefits by the average amount, I am sure that we would have been criticised for not going as far as we have indicated we shall do. As regards the point which was made about cardboard boxes, I believe that that is the subject of Amendment No. 11. I know that my noble friend Lord Caithness will wish to speak on that amendment.
I very much take the point which was made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. She is right to say that the 20 per cent. is reflected now so far as rates are concerned. My noble friend Lord Caithness made that plain earlier this afternoon.
As for the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, with reference to paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 and patients in homes, sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 states:
"A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on the day … he has his sole or main residence in"
and the sub-paragraph goes on to qualify the provision. That is the relevant point when it comes to a consideration of sub-paragraph (4) as well. The word "hostel" appears in sub-paragraph (1).

727
Having listened to the discussion today and noted the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I think that there is probably much which has been said in the debate which deserves close study. I fully realise that the point is one of real concern and I accept the expertise of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ryder and Lady Masham, as well as others who have a particular interest in charity. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, described her involvement with one of them.
If the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment I should like, without commitment, to take this away and study carefully what has been said and discuss it with my noble friend and my right honourable friend to see where we stand. I hope that with that assurance the noble Baroness will see fit not to press her amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I should like to thank the Minister for agreeing to take this matter away and look at it. While I was sitting here, during many of the interventions and part of his original reply, I was boiling because I felt that the amendments had been misunderstood. They deal with homeless people, the itinerant population, who move from one place to another. The Minister said that local accountability is necessary. What have those people to thank society for? The only people in society they can thank are the volunteers who run hostels such as the ones we described.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for taking this amendment away. I shall do the same. I shall study what he has said very carefully and reserve my right to come back at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 6:
Leave out Clause I and insert the following new clause:
("Local income tax.
1. A scheme for local income tax shall be established in a manner determined by the Secretary of State after consultation with interested parties.").
The noble Lord said: We return to more controversial territory with this amendment. This afternoon we had a splendid debate. It was suggested that the rejection of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, was an endorsement of the community charge. As I listened to the debate I got the impression that the rejection of the amendment was to some extent due to the fact that the noble Lord had not produced an alternative to the community charge. That point was made repeatedly. The purpose of this amendment is to repair that omission and to offer an alternative to the charge, which is regarded as unfair.
In the discussion of the alternatives to the community charge I was interested that the Labour Party quite honestly and with courage said that it had not yet made up its mind on that matter but that no doubt its policy statement, when it emerged, would contain some element of a local income tax. I seem to recall that when we discussed this matter in relation to the Scottish Bill the Labour Party went into the Lobby with us in that connection.
This afternoon there were divisions within the Conservative Party just as there were obvious divisions in the Labour Party. At least I can say from these Benches, speaking for the Social Democrats and my colleagues and friends in the Liberal Party, that we are united in suggesting the alternative to the community charge. I commend the arguments which will be produced tonight to the Labour Party in the hope that they will carry some weight in ultimately resolving its problem.
For a long time I have been convinced of the desirability of a local income tax as an alternative and fairer form of taxation. Fifty years ago as a very young man—I think as the youngest city councillor in the history of the city of Glasgow—I entered Glasgow town council. I was anxious at that stage to do something quite dramatic, as one always is as a young man entering a somewhat austere body such as Glasgow City Council. So my first act was to press a motion that the city of Glasgow should petition the Government for the establishment of a local income tax as an alternative to the rating system. Whatever my friends in the Labour Party may think of my subsequent inconsistencies in politics, at least I have maintained a record of 50 years' consistent support for a local income tax.
In earlier discussions the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, suggested that we should not debate again the poll tax or the community charge since we had done that all afternoon. However, it is difficult to support an alternative system without proving its validity against the community charge which is before us. The suggestion was made that if a fundamental change of this kind were accepted we should be disuniting the United Kingdom because the Scottish Bill has already been passed and is
730
operative. I should like to point out that acceptance of this legislation, especially in view of the large turnout that it took to accept these provisions today, makes some contribution towards disuniting the United Kingdom.
When the Scottish Bill went through this Chamber there was no large gathering of Peers to ensure its passage and there was very little excitement in the press. Who can blame the Scots if they feel that something only hurts when it hurts England and that in the case of Scotland, which has been used as a guinea-pig, this matter is of no consequence at all? When the same question was put before this Committee in the Scottish Bill, the vote was 93 to 139 and not 183 to 317 as was the case this afternoon. Can one blame people in Scotland for feeling that they do not matter? If anything is making a contribution to Scottish nationalism and disunity of the United Kingdom it is that general indifference.
Perhaps I ought to cite experience in Scotland since the passing of the Scottish Bill. When the Bill was under discussion I think there was a general assumption that the amount involved might be around £250 per annum. Discussion centred around a couple in a household who might pay £550 as an alternative to their rates. The finance director of Glasgow City Council calculated recently that the sum is more likely to be £500 and not £250 in that city. I mention that point because it indicates that we are legislating for something when we are not yet sure of the cost. We know quite well in Scotland what will be the cost to the Government of implementing the Bill. We do not yet know what it will cost the people who have to pay, and that point is germane to this discussion.
In this Chamber, on 25th February last, I asked a question about the cost of implementing the legislation. In the first year the Government had to give local authorities £6 million in order to buy some of the hardware necessary for implementation. This year an additional £15 million has been approved by the Government, and there will be an additional £12 million added to the rate support grant for that purpose. When calculating the costs the normal formula used by the United Kingdom Government is a figure multiplied by 10. That is based on the Goschen formula of 10 times the population. It means that in preparation for this move some £60 million will be involved, followed by a further £150 million and then a rate support grant increase of another £120 million. Is that really a sensible expenditure at the present time when there are constraints on local authorities providing very essential services?
We have our priorities wrong in making this kind of unfair change at such public expense. Even when we implement it, it is generally accepted that the costs of implementing and running the system will be at least double the present cost of collection of rates. I would therefore suggest to the Committee that they should estimate what it will cost to implement these procedures and to consider whether there is an alternative and better system.
At that stage we come to the point that there ought to be serious consideration given to the local income tax. People have said to me, "But you cannot work the local income tax. It is foreign to our system". It works in a large number of European countries, and it works in the United States. I was in Switzerland yesterday. It seems to work perfectly well in that very well-ordered society. There seems to be no logical, mechanical or even ideological reason, so far as I can see, against the implementation of a local income tax. I commend to the Committee a statement that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough. He is chairman of the ratepayers' association. He said:
"I believe that the Government would be wise to think again if then the replacement of rates is to be carried out without endless friction and rancour. It must be based on the ability to pay and some form of local income tax is required".
This was the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, speaking in his capacity as chairman of the ratepayers' association. He continues:
"Many countries have such a system".
Repeatedly in the debate today reference was made to the Layfield Report. I commend it to the Committee for perusal, before this legislation passes. It is 500 pages of serious discussion of this matter. On listening to the debate it is apparent that not many noble Lords have read the detail of the Layfield Report. However, the report states that local income tax is a runner and a much fairer system than the proposed poll tax. Unfortunately, Sir Frank Layfield is not a member of this House, but he is a very independent assessor in these matters and is totally objective and totally non party. If the Layfield Report comes to that conclusion then Members of the Committee are entitled to take it into consideration. It ways that local income tax is a runner. At the time when that recommendation was made, the tax authorities were rather hostile to the idea. It was a difficult thing to do. But now that they are totally computerised, it is relatively simple and cheap to operate a local income tax.
People may say, "But that destroys the principle of accountability". Does it? If your taxes are too high, do you not feel that you will do something about it? If one uses the basis of income tax for collection, and local authority distribution of that tax, then certainly one could interpret the system as being an accountable system—and just as accountable and less remote than the community charge now before us.
For all these reasons therefore, those of us on these Benches, and I shall be supported by my Liberal friends, support the principle of a local income tax. I commend it to the Labour Party in its discussions on future policy on this matter. I beg to move the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, brought up the old, rather hackneyed subject of a local income tax, but adorned it with an almost paradoxical new argument. It was rather surprising, when one contemplates the administrative problems which such a tax would
732
involve, that he sought to commend it to the Committee on the ground that the proposals for the community charge will be administratively expensive.
I do not know whether the noble Lord has studied what will be involved administratively in introducing a local income tax and whether, if he has done so, he believes that it could be economically, efficiently or cheaply done. In the first place we have to face the problem. Is it his idea that the local income tax should be collected by the Inland Revenue, or that it should be collected by the local authority, as the community charge will be? If it is his idea that it should be collected by the Inland Revenue, the first difficulty is that the Inland Revenue has no information about the home addresses, the places of residence, of the very large numbers of people from whom it collects tax.
It would be necessary either for the Inland Revenue or the local authorities who have an interest in the matter in some form or another to assemble the addresses and to keep a check on changes of address so that the local income tax is collected in the interests of the place where the taxpayer lives. If, on the other hand, it is proposed that it should be collected by the local authority, the local authority would have to set up a kind of miniature Inland Revenue with a view to examining the exact income of each potential taxpayer in its area.
Is it proposed to apply the same rules as to liability of income tax as the Inland Revenue applies? Is there to be the same point of entry? Are there to be the same levels, as one moves into a higher level of tax? All those kinds of problems have to be decided. Who will decide? Are these problems to be decided by the local authority, which might decide on a quite different basis from the Inland Revenue, with all the complexities that that would involve?
These are real, solid administrative problems. Whatever else may be thought about them they completely negative the noble Lord's illusion that the introduction of such a tax would be administratively economical. It would obviously be a matter of years before local authorities could acquire a sufficient register of the incomes of people in their area.
Then there is the reaction of this upon the economic policies of central government. If this were enforced today, local authorities would be able to negative the reductions in income tax which the Government are putting into effect this year. Some noble Lords opposite may think that that is splendid. It is a great argument in their favour. But is it, when one comes to think of it seriously? Central government are responsible for the management of the economy and the level of taxation, especially direct taxation, is a major factor in the management of the economy. Some people, like noble Lords opposite, rather like high direct taxation. Other noble Lords point out that high direct taxation has had a crippling effect on enterprise and has been responsible for a great many of the problems.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Earl will resume his seat for a moment, I am in the middle of what I am afraid promises to be a very lengthy sentence. I apologise for my grammar. As I was saying, the question would be that of the whole economic policy of the Government, whether one believes in direct taxation being on a high level, as noble Lords on the Labour Benches believe (despite the consequences of it in the past) or whether one believes that it is important to reduce that in order to stimulate enterprise in the economy. The noble Earl may now intervene if he wishes.
Earl Russell: I was wondering whether the degree of central control over the economy that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is invoking is something which in times past he would have described as socialism?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Earl repeat that question?
Earl Russell: Is it something which in times past the noble Lord would have described as socialism?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The central management of our economy has occasionally been disastrously conducted. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is not present but it was so conducted during his time in office. I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that that is not an argument for depriving central government of any possibility of managing the economy. It must be a basic function of central government to manage the economy. If they manage it well, as it is at the moment, public opinion will be in their favour, as it is at the moment. If they make a mess of it, as the Labour Party did during the 1970s, the public will vote them down. It must surely be absolutely wrong to give central government an alibi and enable them to say, "We tried to manage the economy but we are afraid that local government would not let us". That would reduce to chaos the management of this country and its economic affairs. I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate that—
Baroness Seear: Does the noble Lord agree that the total failure to manage commercial credit, which is obvious at the present time, has exactly the same effect?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry, will the noble Baroness repeat that question?
Baroness Seear: Does the noble Lord agree that the total failure to manage commercial credit, which is so obvious at the present time, has much the same effect?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As the noble Baroness will appreciate, that question is not wholly relevant to this amendment; but I know that that never worries the leader of the Liberal Party. It is an unfair comment and problems of commercial credit are real. Surely she will accept that one cannot seek to remedy those
734
problems by depriving central government of any power to deal with them. That is what the amendment proposes.
Therefore I regard a local income tax, first, as being expensive to administer. Secondly, it encroaches upon the economic power of central government when one has a situation in which local authorities could negative the decreases in tax which central government are, in my view, wisely proposing. Thirdly, there is the general constitutional point. Whatever one may think about the desire of certain Members of the Committee to modify the community charge as legislated by another place, at least there is an argument, which I do not wish to repeat, that this is the modifying of a tax. However, regardless of the events of 1909 and 1911, for the Committee to seek to impose a totally new income tax would quite plainly be unacceptable to another place, and rightly so.
There is the final point which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. If one wishes to introduce accountability, one must ensure that most people pay something and therefore have a motive in voting in the local authority elections for high or low expenditure. Unless one is to apply a totally different form of income tax in the local zone in which the point of entry is far lower than in the case of national income tax—and I do not know whether that is suggested—one does not have the accountability which the Government and many Members believe to be the real remedy to the abuses in local government which have been taking place in this country over the past few years.
In this Chamber and outside local income tax has been discussed almost ad nauseam but at least we have fully discussed it. It has not so far been accepted and I hope that the Committee will not accept it tonight.
Lord Ross of Newport: I support the amendment already moved and I speak also to Amendment No. 7 which is in my name. That takes local income tax further down the path towards the sort of tax which we have it in mind to introduce into this Bill.
We have heard the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has raised the usual objections. First he said that it is not for this Chamber to introduce or play around with any form of taxation. It is all very well to throw that at us, but earlier in the debate today we were being criticised by the Opposition Benches for not offering any alternatives, yet when we offer alternatives we are told either that it is out of order or irrelevant.
Secondly, the noble Lord raised the question of making councillors more accountable to their ratepayers and taxpayers. May I again refer to page 300 of the Layfield Report quoted earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor:
"There is a strongly held view amongst us that the only way to sustain a vital local democracy is to enlarge the share of local taxation in total local revenue and thereby make councillors more directly accountable to local electorates for their expenditure and taxation decisions. On balance, we consider that the administrative cost involved in introducing a local income tax for this purpose would be justified. After many decades of uncertainty in the realm of local government finance the time has come for a choice on the issue of responsibility".

735
That committee was satisfied that it gave greater accountability to local councils; and having served in local government for a number of years I am satisfied in my own mind that the community charge will have the opposite effect.
The noble Lord raised the old point about addresses and cost. If he has read the statement which has been sent to most Members today from the AMA, at the time of the Layfield Committee it was reckoned that the Inland Revenue would need 12,000 more staff, and according to the AMA it is now at a figure of about 30,000 merely to implement the community charge. Therefore I put that back to him. Perhaps the noble Lord can answer that point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord has asked me to answer that point. I do not accept the AMA's figures for the Inland Revenue.
Lord Ross of Newport: Most people did not accept the Inland Revenue figures, but I believe that the noble Lord will agree that the figure of 12,000 has been quoted on many other occasions in many other Bills and is a common number to quote. It was not accepted by the National Union of Ratepayers, which also did not understand the idea of the difficulties of a place of residence, because in 1976 it said:
"We are puzzled by the difficulties raised by the Inland Revenue over place of residence for the purposes of a local income tax. The Inland Revenue send to each taxpayer who is taxed under PAYE a new notice of coding, whether or not it differs from that of the previous year. For this purpose they need to have, and to keep up to date, the taxpayer's private address. It is agreed that in some instances this Notice is sent via the employer … but it is understood that this is very seldom necessary".
The union also had grave doubts about the 12,000 extra staff; and now, 12 years on, with the Inland Revenue largely computerised, I also doubt that figure.
We are not only in good company in moving this amendment—we jointly fought the last election on the issue and stated quite clearly that we would replace domestic rating with a local income tax—and not only do we support Layfield but also the late Graham Page, who I am sure the noble Lord will remember was a Minister in local government in the Heath administration between 1970 and 1974. He was a strong believer in introducing new forms of revenue into local government, and in one of the Bills he brought in as a private Member on 3rd May 1974 in another place, he raised a number of points which he thought local government should have the ability to charge for; namely, planning charges and a bed tax which did not go down very well in my part of the world. However, he said:
"I have no doubt that in the pretty near future we shall have to abolish household rates and replace them by a local income tax. But that is too big a subject for a Private Member's Bill … Of course, if the House accepts the Bill those benefits would continue for the relief of the local income tax payer when he takes the place of the local ratepayer".
That was the thinking of a former Minister at that time, supported more recently by the then Prime Minister the right honourable Edward Heath. We think that we are in quite good company. I thought I heard the Minister, who I presume will reply to this
736
debate, quote CIPFA earlier today, saying that it was opposed to a local income tax. I am not sure how he lines that up with a remark by Noel Hepworth, the Director of CIPFA in a letter, I assume, to The Times on 30th January 1986 in which he says that:
"LIT ensures tight accountability … it would also be equitable. We believe the Green Paper has got it wrong. LIT is feasible and fair."
We have described to the Committee the way in which we should wish to see LIT introduced. The rate of LIT would be determined locally. Each district authority would give notice of the rate it set to the Inland Revenue, which would collect the tax. Collection would happen like this: wherever they live initially, people would pay a uniform rate of LIT—for example, 5 per cent. I think the Minister will say that it should be 6 per cent. We in our paper went up to 5·6 per cent. At the end of the year each taxpayer would make an end-of-year return from which his actual liability is assessed. Those living in areas where the LIT rate is below 5 per cent. would receive a refund and those living in areas with higher rates would pay the difference. In practice, 70 to 80 per cent. of people would probably receive refunds. Local autonomy could be further strengthened by reducing the amount currently paid out in grant-related expenditure, and allowing the local authority to raise those funds through LIT. The money saved nationally would be reflected in a corresponding cut in national income tax. Taxpayers would pay no more than before but the cash would go straight to the local authorities.
I suspect that in reply the noble Earl will say that his Secretary of State wrote a letter to the leader of my party, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, earlier this month in which he criticised some of the points which we sent to him. We sent him the document and he replied and made certain criticisms. I can tell the Minister that we have answered those criticisms and that a reply is on the way. I do not intend to delay the Committee for too long. One comment made was that the Government estimated that the average rate of LIT would be 6p in the pound as opposed to 4·5p, which was in our document. We say that the average rate of LIT depends principally on two estimates: the amount of domestic rate revenue to be replaced by LIT and the income tax yield per percentage point. We obtained our assumptions from a Written Answer from Mr. Norman Lamont in the Treasury on 14th March 1988.
Another point made by the Secretary of State was that in calculating a "needs" grant for local authorities a large extra element for inner London has been added which has no basis in an objective assessment of need. That raises the whole question of grants from central to local government and the basis on which need is assessed. We have included inner London weighting. We make no apology for helping local authorities like Tower Hamlets to tackle unprecedented levels of homelessness. I think that the Secretary of State himself has done just that quite recently.
We have made no attempt, we are told, to equalise between authorities for the differences in the income tax base or non-domestic rate bases. We find it difficult to understand what the Secretary of State

737
means by that because his proposal could hardly be more unfair. His scheme will effectively redistribute wealth from poorer areas to richer ones. We comment on that in detail.
Finally, there is the point about local authorities which have to keep a register of income tax payers, with details of their main residences. That is not true and I have already answered that by quoting the National Union of Ratepayers' Associations.
Unlike a poll tax, collecting LIT would not involve registering every adult locally; nor would it involve searching through sensitive records to trace individuals or hiring snoopers to mount surveillance operations. Current methods of countering tax evasion would be sufficient.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, the fact is that local income tax works perfectly satisfactorily in many other states where there is great autonomy, particularly in Switzerland. In Canada it seems to be very simple. I have a copy of the form here. All they have to do is fill up about one line when they make their tax returns. It is as simple as that. It is self-assessment. Why can we not do the same here? I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell the Committee how the ordinary elector knows whether his council is doing well or badly or how it compares with another council? Can the noble Lord answer that question in a sentence, because that is the crux of the matter?
Lord Ross of Newport: He would know what he was spending because the money would be taken from his weekly pay packet if he was a PAYE earner. He would also know by comparison. I am sure that the Government would be only too pleased to publish comparisons between one authority and another on the 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., and which authorities were keeping the lid down at a reasonable level and which were going above. We have those tables now so I cannot foresee any difficulty about that. They will see the rest of the situation with their own eyes. They will see the state of their roads and the state of their education, street sweeping, and so forth.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, has tempted the Committee with this tantalising picture of the perfect tax. However, he has left out a great deal, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I do not know whether it is recognised, but a local income tax would actually have a devastating effect on the inner cities. Perhaps I need to illustrate that with a couple of figures.
If a local income tax were to be introduced now, and if one started with the borough of Camden, that borough would have to charge a local income tax of 25p in the pound. Of course that would be on top of national income tax. Yet if one moved just next door to the London borough of Barnet, which runs its affairs rather more sensibly, the local income tax rate would be under 6p in the pound—5·9p. If one takes the simplest case, a single adult would save over £1,500 a year simply by moving over the boundary from Camden to Barnet. That is infinitely more than
738
would be likely to happen if he merely changed house to the same kind of house under the present system. That change would be wholly absent, or virtually absent, on the community charge. By moving from my own borough of Lambeth, where I have a residence, to Bromley or Croydon one could save over £1,000 a year on local income tax.
Perhaps Members of the Committee should think for one moment what the consequences of such a tax would be. In the inner cities there are now a growing number of professional, young business people who are beginning to bring back life and leadership to the inner cities. That is a trend that the present Government are seeking to encourage by a variety of policies. The local income tax which has been advocated from the SLD Benches would drive people completely in the opposite direction. I wonder whether the SLD have begun to appreciate the really appalling impact that a local income tax would have on our inner cities.
There are all kinds of other reasons that one could give, but I sense that the Committee wishes to come to a conclusion on this matter. If one is going to have a tax which depends upon widely different tax bases in different local authority areas, then inevitably one will have to reintroduce the resource equalisation amount about which I spoke on an earlier amendment and to which I referred at Second Reading.
I give an example. The system of income resource equalisation is best illustrated by the example of a high-spending inner city council such as Camden which may well set rates of LIT so high, as I have suggested, that a large number of residents move out. If there were no systems of resource reallocation the revenue which Camden would lose from driving out those residents, as it certainly would, would have to be made up by the transfer of resources from other less profligate councils. I say at once that I believe that to be a great deal more unfair even than the present rates system. Yet it would be even more impractical to assume no system of income resource equalisation because in that case the flight of the residents from the inner city borough of Camden would mean that the rate of income tax imposed on the remaining residents would need to be even higher in order to raise the revenue which the council would need. Therefore one would inevitably be in a vicious spiral which entirely set at nought the very considerably successful policies now being pursued in order to bring back life and vitality to the inner city.
Many references have been made to the Layfield Report. That report has always seemed to me a perfect example of a government referring to a body of the great and the good who are in many ways divorced from the realities of politics but who can bring their not inconsiderable intellects to bear upon a problem. They can then come up with a range of solutions to which governments feel no commitment and from which they can pick and choose. In the case of Layfield the Government have picked very little and rejected the rest.
This Bill is the product of an entirely different process. There has been a political element from the start which has continued right the way through. So,

739
when proposals finally emerge, they are bedded deep in the realities of politics. There are other examples. Social security reform has been undertaken by the present Government under the same system. One could point to other major changes of direction. In most cases it is not very sensible to ask detached people to pronounce upon matters on which there are ultimately going to be highly political decisions. It is much better that the work should be done by the poeple who are going to carry the political responsibility for implementing proposals.
If I may say so, a local income tax could only be the product of people who, like the distinguished members of the Layfield Committee, are never going to have any responsibility for putting it into effect, or perhaps the members of the SLD who are never going to have any responsibility for anything. They are the only supporters of a local income tax and I hope my noble friend will have no hesitation in asking the Committee to reject the proposal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Committee has taken more than one hour on each amendment. I do not think the Committee would therefore welcome a long speech from me on this subject, despite the kind invitations from the Benches alongside that I expound further on Labour Party policy. I think I said all I wish to say about the matter in response to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mulley.
It seems to me that the next election—the community charge will not work, so we shall have to do something about it at the next election—will be fought by the Labour Party, which is going to win, on the basis that local income tax will be a part, though certainly not the whole, of the solution to the financing of local government by local people. I repeat only for form's sake that I was profoundly impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, who said that the solution would be a combination of taxes. I still believe that to be the case. There will be some form of property tax and some form of local income tax, the difficulties of which have been grossly exaggerated by speakers from the Government Benches. However, the precise form and balance between the two have yet to be worked out in detail and will be worked out in due course.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: We had a long and interesting debate on the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Chelwood and we have now, to some extent, gone over the same ground in talking about a local income tax. I think that before I deal with the very many fundamental objections to a local income tax I should first deal with one or two misconceptions about the particular version of a local income tax advocated by the SLD party—the party of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport.
The proposals on which the SLD rests its case were actually produced by the Association of Liberal Councillors at the beginning of April. We have examined those proposals carefully and discover that the figures simply do not add up. First, the SLD
740
report significantly underestimates the amount of revenue that needs to be raised by a local income tax. The average rate of 5·4 pence in the pound which it puts forward is simply too low to raise the amount now being raised by domestic rates.
Secondly, the SLD proposals involve arbitrary changes to the existing system of needs assessments, with the aim of holding down local income tax rates in inner London. Not only does this amount to a rather dishonest massaging of the figures; it also means that low spending authorities are penalised in order to subsidise high spending inner London authorities. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, supporting the extravagances of some Labour authorities. It was because of those extravagances that some noble Lords, including the leader of his party, left the Labour Party. How ironical to throw them the lifeline that they need!
Thirdly, the SLD proposals fail to achieve full equalisation of taxable resources, with the result that for the same level of services areas with high average incomes could charge lower local income tax rates than areas with low average incomes.
There are many other defects in the SLD figures which I shall not go into in detail now. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out the inadequacies in full in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, earlier this month. I regret that he has had no reply. The Committee heard earlier that the honourable Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook will not be replying to his letter. I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, will be more courteous. I hope that his reply is on the way and is not in the same category as that infamous cheque that is always in the post. We shall study the reply with care.
In the circumstances, we have no option but to rely on the Government's exemplifications of the effect of a local income tax. I am absolutely confident that these are indeed the local income tax rates authorities would have to levy. I am sure the Committee will be interested to have a few examples of what those figures would mean in terms of bills paid by ordinary people. In the highest spending areas, local income tax would produce crippling tax bills. The rate needed to finance 1987–88 spending would be 25·6p in the pound in Camden, 20·9p in Lewisham, and 16·7p in Lambeth. A single person on national average earnings, £10,500, would have to pay £2,066 a year in Camden, £1,687 in Lewisham, and £1,347 in Lambeth. Not even the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who I regret is not present, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated a basic tax rate of ten shillings in the pound.
The consequences would be utterly ruinous. Even those on moderate incomes would flee from high spending areas to nearby areas with lower local income tax rates, accelerating the spiral of inner city decline. For example, a single person on national average earnings could save nearly £1,600 a year by moving from Camden to next door Barnet; or £1,300 by moving from Lewisham to Bromley; or £1,000 by moving from Lambeth to Croydon. The result of those local brain drains would almost certainly be plummeting house prices in the high spending areas.

741
So, in addition to being crippled by local income tax payments, home owners in those areas would suffer large, arbitrary capital losses.
Even in the areas with relatively low local income tax rates, tax bills would be unacceptably high. Student nurses would, in many cases, pay more in local income tax than in community charge, and a single, newly qualified nurse would pay more in local income tax than in community charge in every local authority in the country. On average, a single man on national average earnings would pay £482, compared with an average community charge of £224. I am sure the Committee will agree that this would be a devastating price to pay for a system that would completely fail to restore local accountability since only 20 million people in England would pay a local income tax out of an adult population of 35 million.
I shall conclude by referring briefly to the administrative and civil liberties implications of a local income tax. The practical difficulties would be immense: a complex system of resource equalisation would be needed, as would a new register showing the sole or main residence of all taxpayers. Despite the claims made by advocates of local income tax, the information needed to run a local income tax is not currently available, either in local authorities or at the Inland Revenue. I think it is clear that many people would object in the strongest terms to having to supply details of their incomes to local authorities. Considerable concern has been expressed about the civil liberties implications of the community charge. But I ask your Lordships to consider which represents a greater infringement of one's rights—to have one's name and address passed to a local authority under the community charge, or to have one's financial affairs exposed to the authority? The answer is clear. Local income tax represents a much greater and more worrying intrusion into people's private lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, yet again said that we treated Scottish legislation indifferently. I could not agree with that; we spent many hours, as noble Lords will recall, discussing Scottish legislation last year. When I had the privilege to be a Whip for the Scottish Office, I remember full well the lengthy debates that we had. It can never be said that Scottish legislation is treated indifferently in this House.
The noble Lord said that the size of the community charge would not be known. Of course it will not be known in England and Wales for a while yet, but on last year's figures, that is on spending and need, an adult would have paid £125 in Wales and in England it would have been £178. Of course, it will vary depending on how profligate the local authority is. Last year in Camden it would have been £782 per adult.
But let me take the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, nearer to home, to Edinburgh. If the community charge had been in operation during the financial year 1988/89, the budgets proposed by the three political groups on Lothian regional council and Edinburgh district council would have produced these figures. Labour would have charged £401 per head; the SLD would have charged £357·50 per head; and the Conservative Party would have charged £310
742
per head. In comparison with those in Camden and in other high-spending districts in England, all I can say is, lucky Scots!
I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, misquoted me on what I said about CIPFA's figures. I said that their arguments would prove that the alternatives—and that includes the local income tax—would be costlier to collect and harder to administer. As I have already said, they would cost more to the average payer.
For all of the reasons I have outlined, I have no hesitation in urging your Lordships to reject out of hand proposals to introduce a local income tax. Local income tax can only result in crippling tax bills and local brain drains, coupled with severe administrative difficulties and an infringement of civil liberties. By contrast, the community charge is simpler, fair, accountable and, when the whole picture is considered, closely related to the ability to pay.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: It is extremely difficult to reply in detail when so many figures are thrown about which are speculative as to what this would cost here and there. It costs so much to run local government. That money must be found from somewhere. Local income tax is based on the ability of a citizen to pay for these services, and therefore as a method it is preferable to the system which is proposed in the Bill and which has nothing to do with ability to pay.
If there is one voice which I have missed in this debate today it has been the voice of Lord Ross of Marnock. I have no doubt that the debate would have been lengthened somewhat by his interventions, but nevertheless they would have been effective and relevant. I recall him standing in the corner there and drawing the subject to the attention of the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, whom I see in his place tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, said that the noble Duke lived in a very handsome castle in Scotland. As a single person he would be paying less than his forester or his bailiff or his man, wife and child or youngster and so on. That is quite unfair. If I may say so, it is quite inconsistent with the preaching to the Scottish General Assembly which took place at the weekend and which suggested some kind of mutual responsibility for people in society.
To throw the figures around as the Minister has just done, takes no account of the fact that the Layfield Committee spent a long time—two years—in looking at this issue. They were the great and the good. I have just been checking and I do not see their qualifications mentioned in the report that was submitted, but I notice that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who is certainly a distinguished Member of this Chamber and one who has had great experience in local government in the North, was one of the signatories to that report.
So this is not a report that was removed from reality. It is not a report compiled by a group of academics studying this matter in an academic way. This was a group of people experienced in this field who took an objective view of the system. I cannot believe that these responsible people could have recommended a system which would be rejected so

743
readily and out of hand as has happened tonight. I do not propose to divide the Committee tonight. We shall continue to advocate a local income tax; we shall return to the subject from time to time because I am convinced, based on my experience of the last year—one of the lucky Scots, if the Committee likes—that the community charge will not work. I say quite seriously to Members of the Government that this will be the factor which will ensure the defeat of this Government. However, I am not proposing to press this matter to the vote.
I take the simple statistic that in Glasgow every night there are 30,000 people homeless. How can one cater for such people in this kind of legislation? It will not work. There will be a certain amount of mass disobedience to the legislation which I would not support. But I say to the Committee that it will not work, and that the local income tax has a good deal more to commend it than the proposition that is before the Committee in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The Question is, That the amendment be withdrawn.
Noble Lords: No!
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to report annually on impact on individuals of personal community charge.
—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament in each financial year following that in which the personal community charge becomes payable in a report setting out the number of persons estimated to have experienced an improvement and a decline respectively in their personal financial circumstances as a consequence of the levying of the personal community charge.
(2) The report shall be debated in each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I trust that the Committee will appreciate that the fact that I shall be rather brief in moving Amendment No. 8 does not mean that this is not a very important amendment. The amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 1 which will provide that in each financial year there shall be presented to Parliament and debated in Parliament a report which will indicate those individuals who believe they have had an improvement as a result of the individual community charge and those who believe to the contrary.
Why do we believe we require this information? Any Member of the Committee who has read the reports in another place will appreciate that constituency Member after constituency Member enumerated the problems in their own constituencies and the gainers and the losers. Who can say quite definitely tonight which authority they are going to quote regarding the numbers of gainers and losers? The CBI quotes one figure, the Ministry quotes another figure and other people quote others.
We believe it is important that Parliament should know each year the state of improvement or falling in financial circumstances as a result of the introduction of the community charge. What is the other reason why we require this? It is vital to acquire the actual information. In the previous debate some have said that the community charge will not be the last word; others have said it may not be the last word.
If one looks at events over the past decade, since this Government have been in office, one can see the number of changes that have occurred in rating procedure and in local government finance. Very few of the Committee can put their hands on their hearts and say that the community charge is the final matter concerning local government finance. Therefore we must be ready. We must have information. Who will say what the future relationship between central and local government is to be? We know what the Secretary of State said in his pamphlet. We know that he wants to see a change in the status of local government. We do not know what the changes will be.
I think we can be sure that consideration will be given in not too distant years to changing the financial structure and support for local government once again. That is why we need information and that is why we want an annual report to be presented to Parliament and debated. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: I am greatly attracted in principle to the amendment. I would have gladly added my name to it if I had thought that it was correctly drafted. With regret, I do not think that that is the case. As the amendment stands it would oblige the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament in each financial year a report setting out the number of persons who have gained and lost as a consequence of the personal community charge. However, the amendment makes no mention of the effect of the abolition of domestic rates.
If the amendment were redrafted so that the last dozen or so words read,
"as a consequence of the replacement of domestic rates by the personal community charge"
that would make sense. If it were redrafted in that way, I would support it wholeheartedly. As the amendment stands, I cannot.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I regard the amendment as nonsense. It assumes that there is some magic, some holiness, some sanctity about the present impact of local government rates on individuals and families. In fact, I do not think that a single Member has dared to raise his head above the parapet and say that we ought to keep the rates. Why are we getting rid of the rates? The answer is that they are well known to be a very unfair and improper tax.
What is the report that the amendment proposes? I accept the point that was made concerning the drafting. However, what if a report showing the change was produced? That would seem to me to be absolutely valueless. Many people are worried about the expense of introducing the community charge. Why add to it by asking that a totally valueless report

745
should be produced? There may well be information which the Government will want to have on the efficiency of collection and so on. But the idea of producing a list of gainers and losers when we are moving from a thoroughly unfair and discredited system seems utterly pointless.
Lord Renton: The key word in the amendment is "estimated". The Secretary of State would be required to get his officials to make an estimate of how millions of people will be affected. That seems a pointless exercise. We all know and it is admitted that many people will be better off. We also know perfectly well that everyone, whether or not they are better off, will have to pay a charge which will give them a closer feel for the way in which their local authority is conducting its finances.
In any event, if such an estimate were to be made, it could only be guesswork. Where would that get us? It would probably reveal what is already well understood and perfectly clear. If we wish to see political consequences drawn as a result of the introduction of the system, no doubt the electorate can do that at a general election.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Noble Lords may remember that I have always opposed this kind of amendment, quite apart from the Bill and the reasons connected with the Bill that have already been given. It is easy for the Committee to pass a measure setting out by statute the need for a report, whether or not there is anything to report, and for that to become an Act. Once that measure is on the statute book it means that people have to produce such a report. That entails expense and manpower. It entails all kinds of investigations from which nothing will be produced.
If there is information which Parliament should know about so that the situation can be amended because something is thought be wrong, we do not need reports. There are all kinds of sources for such information. Only the tiniest thing needs to go wrong and it is known. We can deal with it through all the other powers available to Parliament. There is Question Time and there are debates and all the other facilities available. To lay down by statute that we have to use money and time to produce an annual report is, I believe, a bad principle to follow. I think that it is particularly bad in relation to this Bill, as has already been explained.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I intervene only briefly on one technical point. I do not want to intervene in the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Underhill, but the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the word "estimated" as if it were a defect in the drafting. That is far from being the case.
Lord Renton: I did not refer to it in that context. I said that it is the operative word in the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may explain what the word "estimated" means in this case. If the word "estimated" were not there, the investigation would have to be of every single payer of the community charge. The cost, as the noble Lord, Lord
746
Harmar-Nicholls, has said, could be very substantial. I think that it could raise legitimate questions as to whether the cost was justified. The use of the word "estimated" makes it possible for the Government to use perfectly legitimate, well-established techniques of sampling which have been used by governments and local authorities for many years for such purposes.
As a result of the report we want to know whether the accusation which I and many others made at the outset of the Bill is correct: has the Bill made the rich richer and the poor poorer? If noble Lords are resisting having even that information, it leads one to think that they are afraid of the answers to the question.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There is a further eccentricity about the amendment. In the second subsection it states that:
"The report shall be debated in each House of Parliament".
It is quite usual to provide that a report should be laid before, and indeed approved by, each House of Parliament, but to provide in legislation that each House shall debate, whether or not it wants to, a report that is laid before it I think is a novelty. It may be that another place would regard it as perhaps a little aggressive on the part of noble Lords if we were to put into legislation a measure compelling them to debate something which they might not wish to debate.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether my noble friend, with his long parliamentary experience which is about the same as mine, would agree that debates can vary between about five seconds and five hours.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the clarification which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has been able to give in relation to the word "estimated". I am not certain that everyone would agree with his interpretation because there is another interpretation. In order to comply with what the amendment proposes the report would have to be compiled by finding out the size of the bills paid by every adult in the country in 1990 and each subsequent year. Even to provide an estimate one would have to obtain those figures. As even the noble Lord realised, that would be massively bureaucratic and also a more than somewhat intrusive task.
Nor I fear would the result tell us very much unless the reports contained a good deal more information that the amendment seems to imply. Say, for example, that in 1991 the figures showed that a certain number of people were paying more in community charges than they had in 1990, what would that prove? Some would be paying more because they had reached 18. Some would be paying more because local spending had risen in their area. Some would be paying more because they had been unemployed the previous year and had now found well paid jobs. One thing that the Government cannot be accused of in relation to the community charge is failing to provide estimates of how people might be affected. The Green Paper contained several pages of tables setting out the effects on different

747
types of household in different parts of the country earning different amounts. We have regularly expanded on and updated those tables.
Of course some people will pay more with a community charge than they do now. Too many individuals pay nothing at all in rates, including many with good incomes. Equally, however, many households will be better off as a result of the community charge. Those include over 80 per cent. of single pensioner households and single parents, as I said before. I have no doubt that when the community charge is in place people will pay very close attention to the effect of the new system.
The results from the sample family expenditure survey, for example, will show the amounts that are being paid by different types of households. I do not think that an annual report to Parliament of the kind suggested in this amendment would be either useful or appropriate.
Lord Underhill: Obviously there are some deficiencies in the wording of the amendment; after the short debate that we have had, I am prepared to accept that. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for saying that he would readily accept the principle of this amendment, provided that it were worded somewhat differently.
It is very easy to rubbish an amendment of this kind, as was done by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, by suggesting that I am not raising my head above the parapet to talk about rates. I have not done so deliberately. I want to deal with the introduction of the community charge and consider the effect that it will have on individuals when it comes into operation.
The Minister referred to the Green Paper, which we all have read. The Government have used figures of gainers and losers to justify the introduction of the community charge, but other people have challenged those figures and said that they are not correct. The CBI has challenged them. I am not dealing with the position as advanced in the Green Paper. We on these Benches want to know what will be the position when the community charge actually takes effect and in subsequent years. As the Minister rightly said, there will be a change in people's circumstances: some people will become 18; other people will die. We ought to have information, which surely it will be quite easy for the statistical departments to obtain, so that it can be decided whether or not the community charge is something that should remain unchanged in the form that it is in this Bill.
Members opposite who have spoken seem to be taking the view that the community charge will be the complete answer to local government finance. We want to see the effect of the decision that has been taken this afternoon as the year goes by and in the following years. It may well be that people will come to realise that the community charge is not the way out. There are still things to think about and other changes to make in local government finance. That was the purpose of the amendment and I think that it was most reasonable. However, in the light of the
748
debate, I beg leave to withdraw it. We may come back to this point in some other form at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Clause 2 [Persons subject to personal community charge]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Hayter Lord Hayter moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to help the homeless. On the face of it Clause 2(3) of this Bill is one of the silliest sentences that I have ever seen in a Bill. It reads:
"In deciding whether a person has his sole or main residence in an area, the fact that he does not live in a building is irrelevant".
I want to get rid of that subsection. But if that is left out, we have to insert the wording of my Amendment No. 33 to Schedule 1:
"A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on the day his sole or main residence is not a building, caravan or houseboat".
It would be quite reasonable to ask what on earth caravans or houseboats have in common with the Local Government Finance Bill. Members of the Committee will find the answer on page 3, line 26, in Clause 4(3). The Bill describes a building which is used "wholly for the purposes of living accommodation" as a building, caravan or houseboat. But then one discovers something rather curious. It occurred to me that perhaps Mother Teresa may have tipped off the Prime Minister. Not everybody, even in this country, lives in a building, caravan or houseboat. They sleep in parks, under bridges or in a shelter sometimes made of cardboard, as has been mentioned already tonight. So the Government had to insert into Clause 4(3) the phraseology that I have just read. How silly can one get when one tries to clobber with a poll tax these people sleeping rough, who are sometimes called the visible homeless?
I hope that no one will talk about this as a wrecking amendment. We are trying to help the Government with an amendment that seeks to correct an anomaly in the legislation instead of leaving it unworkable in practice. I shall try to explain.
The difficulties of definition make it hard to put a figure on the total number of visible homeless people in this country. I understand that a report from the London housing unit published earlier this year estimated that at any one time at least 2,000 people in London alone had no shelter whatever—or residence, as the Government prefer to call it. It is the plight of these people under the community charge scheme that my amendment seeks to redress. The Government insist that every person in a local authority area must be assessed for and charged a personal community charge. In fact they go to extraordinary lengths in the Bill to make clear that it

749
is habitation of space and not a property in an area that makes one liable for the charge. Clause 2(3) states:
"In deciding whether a person has his sole or main residence in an area, the fact that he does not live in a building is irrelevant".
That is their phrase—"irrelevant". I consider the fact that someone does not live in a building to be highly relevant in placing a local tax on them because one can work out for oneself the services that the national or local government provide for these wretched people.
Let us consider for a moment what the Government propose. Local authority employees will be expected to seek out these residents on their park benches, or the occupants of space under bridges, with a view, first, to assessing them for the community charge liability on a daily basis and then to extracting the charge—the full charge, I suppose—from them. This will presumably be done at night for it is only at that time that homeless people are to be found on the relevant bench or under the relevant bridge in their residence. My guess, and yours, is that they simply will not do it.
This is plainly an absurd proposition, and not only with regard to the local authority. Homeless people are not in a position to pay these bills. They could not afford them even if the local authority could find a way of charging them. The more the Government protest that rebates will be available, the more sensible it is to get rid of the charge altogether.
A more sinister thought is that local authorities already overburdened in terms of claims on housing, especially in London, will, in the course of trying to charge homeless people, simply succeed in forcing them to move from one park to another or from one side of Westminster Bridge to the other, thereby changing the local authority area of residence and escaping liability for the charge from the local authority which is looking for them.
My amendment does the Government a great favour. Not only does it improve the Bill but it also saves them from engaging in this phoney war against the homeless. No one, least of all the Department of the Environment, expects its charges to be levied, and, least of all, paid. More importantly, the amendment will provide the right immunity to a notably impoverished sector of our population.
A cynic of course might put forward the argument that our two amendments would encourage people to join what I call the visible homeless. I can only answer that by saying that such a person has not seen or has not realised the appalling conditions under which some of these people live or he would understand that that suggestion does not make sense.
I said in my Second Reading speech that the Government could not ignore this problem or rely on evasion of the charge. I still believe that to be the case, and by these two amendments we should be relieving the luckless citizen and the equally luckless local official. I hope that the amendments find favour with the Committee and the Government as they are inspired by charity, compassion and, above all, common sense.
Lord Shaughnessy: In associating myself with the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Hayter I hope that there will not be any implications of constitutionality involved, because the proposed amendment is simple and humane.
The question of homelessness is ever present. We have heard from the Government on many occasions about the steps being taken to alleviate this noxious problem. Amendment No. 33 is a substantive amendment. I hope that the Government and the noble Earl will not reject these two amendments on the grounds that homelessness cannot be legally defined. There must be ways to establish the terms that constitute homelessness, which is a stark and horrifying situation.
Homelessness cannot be measured with a piece of string, to mention an earlier metaphor used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. It can only be measured in terms of misery, disillusionment and degradation. If the provisions of the Bill stand, these homeless people with nothing but perhaps a cardboard box to shelter them will not only be disadvantaged as they are—and that is a most horrifying situation, with all its implications—but because they will be unable to pay the community charge and unable to appeal to any tribunal they will, in addition to the degradation and misery that they already experience, become outlaws, outwith the law.
In speaking to the amendment and asking the Committee to consider it seriously, I hope that in an affluent society which should be able to provide minimum shelter for every one of its citizens—we are constantly reminded how affluent this society is—this simple and humane amendment will recommend itself to the Government. I hope that the noble Earl will give us some comfort in that respect.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I rise on behalf of Members on these Benches to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy. It seeks to exempt any person whose sole or main residence is not a building, caravan or houseboat. We believe that to be an obvious and important solution to the difficulties posed by the community charge for a particularly impoverished and deprived section of the community.
The subject was touched upon in a debate to an earlier amendment moved this evening. In conjunction with a number of Members from all parties, over the past 25 years I have had an interest in homelessness. I believe that all Members are concerned about the matter. A Member from the other side—perhaps the Minister—said that nobody has a monopoly on compassion. I approach the subject from that point of view and I certainly have not. However, I believe that in order to understand homelessness one must see it at its worst. Then one may understand what the Bill will do if it is passed without the Government accepting some of the proposed amendments and coming back with offers of their own.
The noble Lard, Lord Jenkin, has been cast in or has adopted the role of the Government's fallback spokesman, saying what he believes to be good about

751
the Bill. He makes the mistake of assuming that, because today a massive turnout was engineered to support the main principles of the Bill, it proves that a standard poll tax charge will be a success as against the present rating system which, admittedly, is unpopular. Only time will prove who is right. If this side is proved right, then in two or three years' time the noble Lord may be prepared to admit that he was wrong.
In this amendment we are dealing with people, and one must see the appalling situation of the homeless to know what we are talking about. Approximately 10 years ago I had the luck to draw a high place in the ballot for Private Member's Bills in another place. I promoted an all-party Bill, sponsored on behalf of CHAR which has an all-party grouping in another place. The Bill tried to provide protection for homeless people affected by the incidence of fire and some of the appalling tragedies that had then and have since taken place. In order to acquaint themselves with homelessness, some Members toured parts of London. The situations in which people find themselves in hostels were, in some respects, beyond belief.
The Bill mistakenly assumes that most of the hostels cater for the same people each night. They do not. People tend to move on because they do not want an identification. Although I am not asking the Minister for the information because I know that it would be impossible to compile, it would be interesting to know how many people in such accommodation stay one night, one week, one month or one year. I believe that the figure would be alarming in that it would show the number of people who stay only one night and the next night move on somewhere else.
I should like to tell a story to illustrate what I am trying to convey to the Committee. During the attempted passage of that Bill, which unfortunately the Government of the day killed, we petitioned Downing Street, and a delegation accompanied quite a number of homeless people there. I was in the company of my noble friend Lord Stallard. As we were leaving Downing Street after presenting the petition, an elderly lady came to us. She was quite presentable and clean, but obviously not dressed in the height of fashion, and was carrying two bags. It was the first time that I, as a comparatively new provincial Member of Parliament from the North, saw the depths of what was taking place in London. She obviously knew my noble friend Lord Stallard better than I, as he was a London MP. She said, "I think this is a marvellous thing that you are doing for those of us who have nowhere to live." We said, "Where do you live?" She said, "Last night I slept in a car park." We said, "Where are you going to sleep tonight?" She said, "I might get in a hostel, but it might be the car park again."
That is going back to 1980, and I assure the Committee that, even on the Government's own statistics, matters have grown worse. Until about five years ago I was able to rent a flat in Artillery Mansions, along Victoria Street. Most members of the Committee will know where that is. In Victoria
752
Street, on coming towards the Palace of Westminster, there is a brand new building opposite New Scotland Yard. At the time of which I am speaking there was an older group of buildings with shop fronts. An elderly lady lived in one of the doorways and she was there every night and every morning when I passed by. Wherever one went in that part of London—I do not say that there was someone in every doorway—people had a particular identification with a particular building where they used to sleep. I suppose that if accommodation was obtained for a night under a roof that was considered to be a luxury.
Those people are not in those areas where there is redevelopment. However, they are not living in anything which this Bill could identify as accommodation. Therefore, how are they supposed to comply with the Bill as it stands? I regret to say that most of them have passed the stage where any form of rehabilitation is possible.
I said earlier that it is dangerous for the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, to compare this Bill with the Scottish Bill because, in demographic terms, we are dealing with two completely different parts of the United Kingdom. I am a Mancunian and a former chairman of housing in Manchester and I know the problems that they had, and have, in inner Manchester. However, they are minuscule compared with how this problem will affect London.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said quite rightly that a local form of income tax would devastate the inner cities. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that inner cities such as Manchester and Liverpool have been devastated without the local income tax. Most of that is due to depopulation by the younger people and retention of a far higher than average of pensioners, deprived people and underprivileged people.
I hate to play politics, but it is the present Government which have withdrawn the resources from those inner cities in massive amounts. When it is said that people will know immediately who is to blame when they are paying high local income tax, in my experience—and I was in local government for a long time—it was always accepted, even by people from the North, that the average Londoner had to bear an unfair share of the social consequences of being a Londoner. It is a well known fact that various authorities in different parts of the country which had a housing problem, have given youngsters the fare to go to London. I have waited at stations in London with Conservative Members of Parliament and seen young boys and girls from the north of England get off the train, yet having nowhere to go. They come from the north to try to start some form of a life in London. They had nowhere to go but for the people from voluntary associations who were waiting to take them into care, to give them a warm bed to sleep in and to look after them.
I agree with the noble Baroness who moved the earlier amendment that the Government are making a profound mistake in trying to apply a standard charge to people in these particular categories. There is no way in which collection can be regulated. In my opinion it will do immense damage to people who are trying to grapple with the situation in the inner cities,

753
especially in London, and who, despite the Government announcements a few weeks ago of increased funding for homelessness, are still tragically and pathetically short of resources to do the job they do, with little praise, in their own time and with very great effort.
Unless the Government look at this amendment moved by Lord Hayter and come back with something positive, the most appalling damage will be done to one of the worst and most deprived sections of our community. That is why I am pleased and proud to speak in respect of this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, for raising this important matter. I have listened with great care, as indeed I did earlier this evening, when we had an extensive debate on the position of hostels for the homeless and hostels run by charities and other voluntary organisations. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur agreed to take the matter away and to reconsider the Government's position. Your Lordships will recognise that the position of people who sleep rough is very closely linked, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has just intimated, to the question of people who live in hostels and night shelters. We are really dealing with two sides of the same coin.
Having agreed to look again, without commitment, at the treatment of people who stay in hostels, I believe it would be sensible if I made a similar offer in respect of people who sleep rough. I think it would also be right for me to say at this stage that it is not clear that the aim of the amendment as described by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is achieved by the amendment as tabled; but perhaps that is something we can discuss between now and another stage. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I shall take this matter away and consider both this and the earlier amendment in the light of the debate tonight. On that understanding, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hayter: I am grateful to the Minister. I am delighted that he is prepared to have second thoughts about this amendment and I ask permission to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 8, leave out from beginning to first ("premises") in line 9 and insert ("If a person's sole or main residence at a particular time consists of").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a purely technical drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): In calling Amendment No. 13 I should say that, if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 14.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: I hasten to say that this amendment, which formally appears to leave out
754
exemption for students, is a probing amendment. It is the only way which we could find of raising this matter with the Government at this stage of the Bill. There is a serious issue here. There are other issues which will be dealt with later. However, this issue has not found itself on the face of the Bill and repeated attempts in another place failed to force it into the Bill. It concerns the 20 per cent. liability and whether student grants will be increased to compensate for that liability. If that is not the case and there is no compensation in student grants there will be a severe diminution in the standard of living of students, which has been going down for a number of years.
I am well aware of the arguments which have taken place between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security about the different responsibilities for students' income. I believe that, rightly, there has been some attempt to tighten up the DHSS regulations, but that is only right if the DES takes on the responsibility of giving students, particularly those whose means test shows that there is a need, adequate income on which to live. It has been a principle of our involvement in the financing of higher education that, subject to a means test, the state has taken responsibility for providing students with enough to live on. Until now we have never taken the view that it is desirable for students to build up debts, although that is undoubtedly what is happening at the moment. I am also well aware that the question of student loans is being floated in Government circles, but possibly that is something for the future.
In the meantime, we have a system of student grants and I ask the Government to confirm that there will not be an irrational, unnecessary and extremely damaging reduction in the standard of living of ordinary students by forcing them, without compensation, to be responsible for 20 per cent. of the community charge. If the Government can give that assurance there need be no further debate on this matter. If not, we shall have to find perhaps a more rational way of bringing this matter forward at a later stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was speaking also to Amendment No. 27.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.
The Earl of Caithness: These amendments would exempt full-time students from the personal community charge. There are, however, in our view no good reasons why students should not be subject to the community charge in the same way as all other adults. Like other adults, they make use of local services and vote in local elections. The accountability arguments are therefore just as strong for students as for anyone else.
We recognise, however, that full-time students are in a unique position because of their financial circumstances and their mobility. They will therefore have to pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge; that is, only 85p a week on average. Many students, of course, already pay rates, either directly

755
or as part of their rent. Indeed, if I cast my mind back to not so long ago I remember doing exactly that. The results of a recent survey carried out for the Department of Education and Science as part of the review of student finance which is being headed by my honourable friend Robert Jackson, suggested that over 60 per cent. of students contributed towards the rates, and that the average amount they contributed was around £70 a year.
The Jackson review, which I understand will produce proposals for consultation in due course, is considering how account should be taken of the discounted community charge liability in setting future levels of student support. The report will be concerned with all items of student expenditure and the extent to which the system already makes provision towards them.
Our proposals strike the right balance between extending accountability to full-time students as active members of the community, who make full use of local services, and taking proper account of their particular circumstances. I believe that they meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I cannot say I heard that reply with any great satisfaction. This is a matter of quite general concern in university circles and, among others, to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Student life financially is very tight now. In fact, trying to organise inter-collegiate teaching arrangements in London we find it difficult from time to time to get people to go to lectures or classes at another college because they simply cannot afford the fares. I appreciate, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, that there is a review under way, but it is not concluded. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, may say that it is only a mere straw he is laying on the students. But the camel's back is very near to breaking. I hope that the Government will think further.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I too raised this matter during Second Reading. It is clearly very important. I agree that some students are very tight financially. I understood my noble friend to say that account was going to be taken of students' costs of living and their expenses when their grants are considered. It is important that the 20 per cent. community charge should be accepted from now on as part of the living expenses of students, as it will be for everybody. If my noble friend has said that, I am content. Can he please confirm what he said in the second part of his reply?
Lord Morton of Shuna: Before the noble Earl replies, perhaps he would consider the situation in Scotland. Students there, in the next financial year, will pay the community charge and also the community water charge. They have to pay the full community water charge but only 20 per cent. of the personal community charge. There has been no increase whatever in their grant which makes one doubt whether this review has any validity at all.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I should not like to give the impression of being mean regarding students' financial problems. Most of us appreciate the position. I certainly do, based on the experience of polytechnic students in the Wolverhampton and West Midlands area. If they are not adequately funded for all sorts of things, that ought to be looked at. It ought to be separate.
However, I should not like it to be done this way. I do not think it is a good thing to immunise a student from the problems and commitments that everybody has. If we want students to become good leaders in the community—and that is what we hope students will develop into—it is rather important that they should feel directly the impost of the sort of problems that everybody has to meet. I should not like to feel, on the community charge or anything else, that we give them complete immunity which puts them outside understanding the real problems everybody else has to meet.
If the financial situation of students, with their grants and everything else, is such that it is impossible for them to meet whatever the impost might be, that is another matter and we ought to look at it. But I would not tie the two points together. I think it is a good thing—with students, above all others, who will be the future leaders of this country—that they should have practical contact with the quirks and problems that everybody has to meet. Therefore I would suggest that this amendment is not the way in which to face up to the problem as regards the community charge affecting students.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the added contributions that have been made. I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that of course I recall that student life is always hard. I am sure it is no different today to what it was in my day, and indeed in the noble Earl's day. I would however repeat what I said earlier. The review which my honourable friend has carried out shows that over 60 per cent. of students are already contributing towards rates, with an average contribution of around £70 a year, which is considerably more than the average of 20 per cent. of the community charge. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, put her finger on it when she said that the report must include all items of student expenditure and the extent to which the system already makes provision for them. I confirm that the report will do just that. As it considers rates, it will doubtless also consider the effect of the community charge.
With regard to students in Scotland and water charges, I am sorry that I cannot at present answer the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. As he knows, water charges in Scotland are assessed on a different basis from that in England and Wales, and water is provided by the local authority.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That is true. However, there is such a thing as a water charge under the abolition of domestic rates legislation, with which I should have thought the Minister would be fully acquainted.
The Earl of Caithness: I am indeed acquainted with it, but it seems to have slipped my mind at present.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was right to say that we must not isolate students totally from the realities of society. We understand the points that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has made, and the Jackson review will take into account what has been said in the debate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate, notably for the general agreement that students have a very bad time financially if they are living on the grant available, and their conditions have been getting worse.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, seemed to suggest that I was proposing that students should be insulated from society. That was not my intention. I made clear that I want to make sure that the Jackson study, which is now taking place, should take full account of any additional cost that would arise from the community charge. The Minister has given some indication that this will be taken into account. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("where") to end of line and insert ("he chose to qualify as having such a residence between the area in which he is resident for the purpose of undertaking the course and his home area").
The noble Lord said: The amendment does not seek to change the position of students with regard to liability for the individual community charge. Subsection (5) provides that a student shall pay the community charge in the area in which he is taking a full-time education course. The amendment suggests that the student should be given the opportunity of liability for payment of the community charge in the area in which he is taking a full-time education course or in the area of his normal home address.
Both the Minister and my noble friend agree that students should not be insulated from the community. The student is treated as a citizen in the education town and in his home area. If he is able to satisfy the electoral registration officer, he can be on the electoral register in the area of his normal home address and in the area in which he is taking a full-time education course. In a parliamentary election he has the option of which constituency he will vote in. It seems to us that the Government are giving away nothing at all if they allow the student to have the option as to the area in which he should be liable for the community charge. That is the purpose of this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: This amendment seeks to alter the special residence rules for students which are contained in Clause 2(5). Instead of being registered at their term-time address it would allow full-time students to choose whether they should be registered at their home address or at their term-time address.
This amendment would introduce an arbitrary and unfair element into the student residence rules which would give rise to resentment and, we believe,
758
dissatisfaction at universities and colleges. The purpose of having special residence rules is to prevent students having to register and deregister and re-register for the community charge at the beginning and end of every term.
Clearly, if we are to impose special residence rules, the decision as to which area they choose—home address or term-time address—would be somewhat arbitrary. It is quite clear that the same rule must apply to all students. If students were allowed to choose where they were registered at every university or college, some students would be registered at the university town, while others would be registered elsewhere. A student who registered at the university town might well resent the fact that a colleague registered at home was paying a lower community charge.
Moreover, allowing students to choose would create just the kind of administrative confusion which the special residence rules are designed to avoid. The registration officer at a university town would be faced with the task of distinguishing between thousands of students, some of whom he would be obliged to register and others whom he could legitimately ignore. How would he know which was which? His only option would be to identify every student and then carry out a series of exhaustive cross-checks with registration officers all over the country, in order to ensure that they were all correctly registered.
We believe that this would be an administrative nonsense, and it is for the reasons that I have given that I cannot support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Tordoff: Does it not make the problem of accountability a little difficult if the student is paying in one local government area and voting in another? Does that not breach the principle of accountability?
The Earl of Caithness; No, because the student will be using the facilities provided by the local authority when he is in term and when he is at home. Likewise, some of us, alas, have to find somewhere to perch in London at night and we use the facilities in London, as one does if one is lucky enough to live in the country. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, will use the facilities provided by the local authority in Scotland. We do not believe that it alters the accountability.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, because this was a probing amendment. We wanted to understand why the Government had put this in subsection (5). Having had the reasoning, we now have the opportunity to study it and decide whether or not to accept it. There is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised which we shall have to look at very carefully. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Cathcart: In calling Amendment No. 15, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 16.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. I understand that we are discussing Amendments Nos. 16 and 24 at the same time. The issues raised by these amendments relate to the question of those remanded in custody. When the issue was raised in the House of Commons at the Report stage on 19th April at column 702, Mr. Howard said:
"There was a vigorous Committee debate on this subject".
That refers to the question of remands in custody. He continued:
"Since then we have been reflecting on the arguments that were put to us and on the arguments that have been presented this afternoon. The case is not so clear-cut as has sometimes been suggested by the Opposition, but I accept that in some quarters there is considerable disquiet on the point. I shall therefore consider the points that have been made in the debate and will consult my colleagues and then report back to the House on the possibility of extending the exemption to cover prisoners on remand".
However, there is as yet no government amendment down on this point. I am bound to say that, in the light of what the Minister has said, I find that a little surprising, but no doubt the noble Earl will deal with the present position when he comes to reply.
I think that the case for change in the Bill on this particular issue is fairly obvious. First, convicted prisoners are already being exempted from the tax. That is obviously necessary because they are clearly in no position to earn any income. But what about those who are remanded in custody often for long periods? The number remanded in custody for between three to six months rose from 700 in 1979 to 1,800 in 1986. In the category of those remanded in custody for more than six months, the numbers rose from 300 in 1979 to 800 in 1986. Again that was a substantial rise.
What I find very difficult to understand is how it can possibly be right to distinguish between a man who is sentenced to, say, 18 months' imprisonment, who will not pay the tax, and another kept in custody on remand for over 12 months who will pay it.
As the noble Earl will be aware from his previous ministerial experience, the man kept in custody on remand for 12 months or more—there are many such men—will be kept in detention for a longer period than the man who is sentenced to 18 months, because the man who is sentenced to 18 months has the advantage, first, of remission and, secondly, of the possibility—the now strong possibility—of parole.
What happens, as is often the case, if the man on remand in custody for this substantial period of time is eventually acquitted? He will then have lost his liberty for a very substantial period of time—in many cases a year or more—and he will also have to pay the tax, whereas the man who is found guilty will be freed from the necessity of paying the tax and will also be in custody for a shorter period.
It seems to me to be quite astonishing that we are having to come back to this issue, it having already been raised in the House of Commons. I find it very hard to accept that there is any justification for quite
760
such a ludicrous provision in the Bill, and I very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to indicate that the Government will be tabling an amendment to deal with this anomaly. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I would strongly support this amendment because it seems to affect only those who are eventually acquitted. As I understand the position, somebody who is in the end convicted has his sentence backdated to the time he is remanded in custody and therefore he pays no community charge in respect of the period he is on remand.
All we are dealing with are the poor people who are remanded in custody although innocent, as they are eventually found to be, who are liable to pay the community charge while they are prevented from earning any income whatever and who usually lose whatever job they have. In England and Wales they do not have even the advantage that those under the Scottish system have, that on summary trials in Scotland they can be detained for only 40 days, and on indictment can be detained for only 110 days. Each of those periods is quite considerable for people who are trying to retain a job. But if the period goes beyond that it is quite impossible to retain a job. The situation really has to be dealt with because we are penalising, or the Government are attempting to penalise, the innocent and letting off the guilty. That really is a very odd position, even for this Government.
If this amendment is not to be accepted, I have to speak to Amendment No. 16 which is also down in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh, and which suggests that the Secretary of State:
"shall produce an annual report".
This is obviously necessary because, as the noble Earl will be well aware, the number of prisoners on remand for long periods is increasing, goes on increasing and nothing seems to be able to be done to stop the increase of remand prisoners. Therefore it is necessary that Parliament should know how many people are affected by this disaster.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising the matter. It takes my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and me back to our former Ministry and the work that we did there. As the noble Lord said, there was considerable debate on this matter during the consideration of the Bill in another place. In view of that, we agreed to consider in consultation throughout the Government the possibility of extending the exemption to cover those held on remand.
I am now able to inform the Committee of the decision we have reached in respect of that undertaking. We have decided that the exemption should be widened to include those held in legal custody, including, for example, those held on remand and those committed to prison for contempt of court. We also propose to exempt people detained under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983.

761
We have decided on balance that accountability cannot reasonably be expected to operate properly for people who have no access to local services and are often held in a local authority area away from their homes. It also removes the anomoly that may have arisen where a remand prisoner is subsequently found guilty and where the time spent on remand is deducted from the custodial sentence. A person in those circumstances would be entitled to a retrospective exemption from the community charge for the period spent on remand, whereas a person who was found not guilty would be liable to pay the community charge for the whole period.
There are two exceptions to the general exemption for those held in legal custody. The first is fine defaulters. They differ from other prisoners in that they are able to obtain their release at any time simply by paying their fine, which will of course have been set by the court at a level which takes into account their means. The second exception will be those committed to prison for non-payment of community charges or residual domestic rates. A person can only be committed if his failure to pay results from wilful refusal or culpable neglect; in other words, if he had the money and could have paid but did not.
We have always made it clear that a person committed for refusing to pay the community charge will not, as a result, be exempted from the personal community charge. We shall bring forward a suitable amendment at Report stage. I hope that with that undertaking the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he can tell us whether the amendment will cover the Scottish Act as well.
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, it will.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am delighted to hear that clear and unequivocal statement by the Minister as regards the Scottish provision. I am sure that there will be wild celebrations in Barlinnie tonight!
Perhaps I may ask one further question. I do not expect the noble Earl to deal with it tonight. Perhaps he will write to me regarding people who are sent to a bail hostel pending trial by order of a court. The hostel is often outside the area where their families live. I am not pressing for an answer tonight. Some questions involving hostels have already been raised and no doubt the Government will reflect on that matter. The Minister will realise that people are sent to bail hostels as a result of an order of a court.
Having said that, I welcome what the Minister has said. I wish to study carefully what he has said to see whether it meets all our concerns. However, at first sight it would appear that it does so. Subject to the qualification I have raised as regards bail hostels, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Dartmouth-Kingswear Floating Bridge Bill
Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before midnight.

  DISPENSING DOCTORS AND PHARMACISTS: REMUNERATION
  DISPENSING DOCTORS AND PHARMACISTS: REMUNERATION
  EDUCATION REFORM BILL: DEFINITION OF TERMS
  EDUCATION REFORM BILL: DEFINITION OF TERMS
  WILDLIFE: ENDANGERED SPECIES
  WILDLIFE: ENDANGERED SPECIES
  HOMELESSNESS: LEICESTER REPORT
  HOMELESSNESS: LEICESTER REPORT
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: LOCAL AUTHORITY COSTS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: LOCAL AUTHORITY COSTS
  FORMULA RATING: TARGET DATE
  FORMULA RATING: TARGET DATE
  ILLNESS IN THE HOUSE
  ILLNESS IN THE HOUSE
  EC BUDGET: UK RECEIPTS
  EC BUDGET: UK RECEIPTS