Sitting of 19 July 1989

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

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current level of United Kingdom manufacturing output; what it was on the same date in 1979 and 1981; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): In the three months to May 1989, the output of the manufacturing industry averaged 118, based on 1985 equal to 100. The comparable figures for the same three months in 1979 and 1981 were 108 and 89·6 respectively. Manufacturing output during 1989 has been at record levels, and in the three months to May was 9 per cent. and 32 per cent. higher than in the same periods in 1979 and 1981 respectively.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Minister's civil servants, although not the Minister, are to be congratulated on their ingenuity in trying to make a good story out of a disastrous one. Those figures confirm that following the deep recessionary policies of the Government between 1979 and 1981, our manufacturing base has still not recovered to the level that it was when the Government came to office 10 years ago. Is that not a savage indictment of the Government's economic policies and of the damage that those policies have caused to our manufacturing base?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman has asked this question in almost the same terms before, and he received a robust answer from my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. The hon. Gentleman may recall, although he was not here at the time, that we experienced a substantial recession, which also affected the rest of the world, since when manufacturing output has increased to a level that it has never reached before. It is a very good story.
    Mr. Kennedy: It has been 10 years.
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that there has been a recession. Growth is now 5 per cent. higher than the previous all-time peak growth in manufacturing output. The hon. Gentleman should remember that if he asks a question once and gets the right answer, it is not worth asking it again.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although there is some good news in my hon. Friend's answer, does he accept that the news could be even better if industries such as textiles and clothing were faced with fair competition rather than
    326
    diabolically unfair competition? There has been considerable investment in those two industries in particular, and they have excellent management and have sought to market their goods internationally, yet they are being undermined by unfair competition. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government came into the real world and examined the position of manufacturing industry, the picture could be even better than the one that he has presented to the House this afternoon?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend always speaks vehemently and articulately for the industries in his constituency. As he knows, my hon. Friend the Minister of Trade. who cannot be here today, fights long and hard for the interests of the textile industry in Europe. My hon. Friend makes a fair point, although it is worth drawing to his attention the fact that since the peak of 1979, there has been an 11 per cent. increase in production in textile consumer products. That shows how successful at least part of the textile industry has been.

    Monopolies and Mergers Commission
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether there have been any changes in the role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in recent years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): The principal role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has not changed, but its role has been extended over recent years by certain provisions in the Telecommunications Act 1984, the Airports Act 1986, the Gas Act 1986 and the Water Act 1989.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the primary function of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be to identify and prevent possible monopolies from being created and to stop price fixing in industry? Does he think that the MMC has been extending its functions in recent years by proposing how industry and markets should be structured and run? Is my hon. Friend aware that as a direct result of an MMC diktat on how the gas industry should be run, the textile industry in my constituency will face a massive increase in its gas bills? Does my hon. Friend think that the fact that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State had to alter significantly the MMC proposals on the brewing industry illustrates that he believes that the MMC has overstepped the mark?
    Mr. Maude: No, Sir. I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission carries out functions given to it by Parliament. It investigates matters that are referred to it either by the Director General of Fair Trading or by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State. It makes findings and recommendations. It is within the commission's powers to make the recommendations that it has made. We have implemented those that we think it proper to implement, in the way in which we think it proper to implement them.
    Where the MMC finds monopolies, as in the case of the breweries and British Gas, it is entirely within its powers to recommend action to rectify the public interest detriment. That is what the MMC did and we responded to it.
    Ms. Short: Does the Minister agree that we need a complete review of our monopolies and mergers legislation? In Britain, it is possible to have short-term raiding to break up companies and extract money and to detract from long-term investment in the productivity of our economy. That contrasts with what happens in West Germany and Japan, and it means that our industrial future is being destroyed in the interests of short-term takeovers. We need a new framework of law to encourage long-term investment.
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady is wrong if she believes that Government action prevents such things from happening elsewhere——
    Ms. Short: It is the framework of law.
    Mr. Maude: It is not. The hon. Lady is wrong if she thinks that it is the framework of law. We are talking about the way in which markets operate and how companies are structured elsewhere. The hon. Lady is talking about interfering with the right of individuals and companies to sell their shares to a willing buyer. One should not do that unless it is in the public interest. I seem to remember that not all that long ago Opposition Members were complaining about the growth of conglomerates; now they seem to be complaining about conglomerates being broken up.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does not the increase of between 8p and 10p in the price of beer announced by the brewers yesterday illustrate the importance of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigating the brewing industry and of the action that the Government proposed in their statement last week?
    Mr. Maude: It was right for us to respond to the report in the tough way that we did and to take the steps that we proposed, which will allow 11,000 more public houses to buy their beer at the cheapest price and from whoever they want. I urge pub customers to look round and find the best price for the beer that they want to buy. Not every brewery has increased its prices, by any means. There is a market and I hope that people will look for the cheapest beer that they can find.
    Mr. Clelland: Will the Minister advise the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that it would save Government time, and save it much effort in making its recommendations if it took into account company donations to the Tory party?
    Mr. Maude: The MMC might also want to take into account letters such as that written by Norman Willis, the general secretary of the TUC, to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State, in which he urged that all the recommendations of the MMC should be completely ignored. No doubt that was motivated by his well-known concern for Conservative party funds.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my hon. Friend share the widespread concern about highly leveraged bids? If so, would it not be desirable for the Hoylake bid for BAT to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, especially bearing in mind what the MMC said about the Elders IXL bid last year, which was similarly highly leveraged?
    Mr. Maude: The House will not expect me to express a view about that case. The Director General of Fair
    328
    Trading is considering what advice he should give to the Government on whether the bid should be referred to the MMC and while we are waiting for that advice, it would be quite wrong for us to comment.
    Mr. Gould: In the light of today's news on beer prices, might not the Monopolies and Mergers Commission be forgiven for concluding that its major role today is to provoke powerful monopolists to raise their prices so that the public has to pay the costs of successfully campaigning against the MMC's recommendations? Will the Minister at least reassure the MMC that it does have a continuing role? Will he think of saying something like, "I am minded to implement any recommendations that the commission makes in future if my party's paymasters will let me"?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman should have a word with his party's paymasters who have been lobbying extremely vigorously for us to ignore every one of the MMC recommendations. The TUC, and the Transport and General Workers Union, have been lobbying heavily. When the MMC finds that there is a monopoly operating against the public interest we must take action, and that is what we have done. Even if we had done everything that the MMC recommended that could not have affected what the breweries decided to do in the meantime.

    Enterprise Initiative
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total cost of the advertising campaign for the enterprise initiative; and what has been the average cost per take-up.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Newton): Expenditure on advertising the enterprise initiative since January 1988 has been about £19 million. Of this, we estimate that some £14·4 million has been specifically directed at promoting the six consultancy initiatives, which would represent an average of about £485 per application.
    Mr. Wilson: Will this obsessive reliance on television advertising, which is aimed far more at the electorate than at meeting any legitimate departmental purpose, survive the reign of its architect, Lord Young?
    Mr. Newton: Our surveys show that the advertising is reaching about 70 per cent. of the target market and that it is producing an encouraging response from business people. Inquiries about Department of Trade and Industry services have risen by about 20 per cent. this year. I am strongly in favour of having better services that are better known and more widely used to make British industry stronger.
    Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that this country's success was founded upon enterprise and initiative? I believe that £19 million is a small price to pay to encourage this country once again and to encourage young people leaving school, colleges and universities to think about running their own businesses. Such initiative and invention will make this country great again.
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The advertising is directed not only at the consultancy initiatives, but at the promotion of the education and enterprise initiative, which this year has contributed to

    329
    65,000 extra work experience places for pupils and to the recruitment of about 5,000 teacher secondments to industry.

    Chlorofluorocarbons (Fridges)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the reclamation of chlorofluorocarbons from redundant refrigerators and freezers.
    Mr. Atkins: The recovery and recycling of CFCs used as refrigerants in industrial and commercial refrigerators and freezers is well established and my Department is currently engaged in research into ways of retrieving CFCs from domestic appliances.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that the substantial problem relates to commercial freezers and refrigerators and that the problem is smaller for household freezers? The responsible firms that provide large fridges and freezers have been reprocessing for some time, but many small, badly behaved firms have not operated in a similar manner. Something must be done to bring them into line. Some local authorities have started to collect domestic freezers, but as yet they have no way in which to reprocess the refrigerators once they have been collected.
    Mr. Atkins: I differ slightly from the hon. Gentleman in that commercial and industrial refrigerators are being retrieved in great numbers, although I accept that there is always room for improvement. The hon. Gentleman no doubt appreciates that the difficulty is that domestic refrigerators use smaller quantities of CFCs and, given that there are about 30 million users of them in the country, a much more sophisticated approach to collection and recycling is required. That is why I said that we are working extremely hard on this matter with the Department of the Environment, as is the refrigeration industry, which has given a great deal of thought and attention to it.
    Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend will remember that I brought a delegation from the refrigeration industry to see him. What has happened since then? Will he use his best endeavours to persuade all Government Departments to change their specifications to ozone-friendly refrigerants and to follow the Prime Minister's advice? Private sector firms such as Sainsbury have set a good example, but health authorities are still specifying R12.
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority because he knows the industry well. As he said, he brought a delegation to me from the refrigeration industry board and the Institute of Refrigeration to talk about those matters. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I am in constant touch with other Departments with a view to encouraging them to do much the same as we are doing.
    Ms. Quin: Are the Government considering the introduction of a nationwide CFC recovery scheme such as that which has been announced in West Germany? Does the Minister accept that it is simply not good enough to leave the matter to individual manufacturers who may be unwilling to take on the extra costs for competitive reasons, making a Government strategy and Government measures necessary?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady should have realised from my answer that the Government are taking a lead in that respect. However, collection is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am keen to encourage any local authority initiative in the collection of refrigerants. As I said, the industry is taking many measures to try to improve the position.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Should not the Government be praised for having raised public perception of this important matter? Will my hon. Friend congratulate Gedling borough council on the specific initiatives that it has taken, on its own or with other local authorities, to organise the collection and reclamation of old domestic refrigerators and other domestic and commercial freezer units?
    Mr. Atkins: The answer to both questions is yes, Sir.

    Motor Industry
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to assist the British motor car industry.
    Mr. Newton: The Government's policies are designed to improve the competitiveness of business as a whole. The improved output and exports of the British motor industry are a clear sign of their success.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Chancellor recall that at the time of the acquisition of Rover Group by British Aerospace, the EEC Commission was concerned to restrict overall car production capacity within the EEC? What discussions have there been with the EEC since then, and with what result? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that Honda's output from Swindon will have access to all EEC markets and that it will be in addition to, not in substitution for, production at Cowley?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that the issues at Cowley are separate from the announcement that was made last week about Honda development at Swindon. Our experience with the Commission on Nissan car exports to Europe is a sign of what we can expect on Honda or, for that matter, Toyota exports. The EEC car market has undoubtedly proved rather more buoyant than was expected at the time to which the hon. Gentleman refers, not least in Britain. The EC's current regime seeks not to restrict capacity but to prevent the payment of state aids except on a level playing field basis. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the case of Toyota and Honda no Government aid is being paid.
    Mr. Beaumomt-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most hon. Members welcome the Government's measures, particularly in relation to Honda? Has he noticed that only 10 days ago the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was urging the Government to restrict the relentless use of cars? Better the sinner who repenteth, perhaps, but the hon. Gentleman repenteth because he thinks that it will help him with votes.
    Mr. Newton: I had not noticed the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), but I am sure that he will reflect on what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Cryer: The Minister will recall that when the statement was made about the Honda plant being installed it was said that his Department would help British component manufacturers to obtain a share of the component capacity in that factory. What means will he use to do that to help Hepworth and Grandage in Bradford, the foremost piston and gudgeon pin manufacturer in Britain, to obtain some of that capacity? If Honda manufactures its own engines it will erode the opportunities for British component manufacturers.
    Mr. Newton: The most helpful thing that we can do is to continue what we have been doing—creating a climate that assists the development of efficient and competitive enterprise and the opportunities for it.
    Mr. Oppenheim: When we take into account the misguided Government-sponsored mergers of the 1960s, the huge subsidies and trade protection in the form of a pernicious gentlemen's agreement which limited the choice of cars for consumers, has not the British car industry already had far too much help from Government? The best help that the Government can give is not to cosset or guide it, but to tell it to go out and make products that the public want to buy.
    Mr. Newton: We have created such a climate and that is why many people are coming here to make cars, thus strengthening our economy.

    Financial Services (Regulation)
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the regulation of financial services.
    Mr. Maude: I receive many representations on a variety of topics relating to the regulation of financial services. We carefully consider those which relate to the scope of the framework of the regulatory system, or the powers under the Financial Services Act 1986 which the Government retain. Those which relate to matters that are the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board or of another regulatory authority are passed to the appropriate body.
    Mr. Robinson: Does the Minister agree that there is enormous disquiet in the country, in the House and in the City in particular about the County NatWest-Blue Arrow-Manpower affair? Does he agree that when the public pays for a report it is entitled to see it? Is he aware that the reluctance of his Department to publish reports gives the impression that it is trying to operate a secret society instead of a major Department of State? Will he give an unequivocal undertaking to the House to publish the inspectors' report on the County NatWest-Blue Arrow-Manpower affair so that we may raise it, as appropriate, in the House before the recess?
    Mr. Maude: We shall certainly publish the report as soon as we possibly can.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend monitoring the extent to which the Financial Services Act, which was designed to protect the consumer, is in fact resulting in the rapid disappearance of independent financial advisers and intermediaries who are rapidly being sucked into being
    332
    paid agents of given products? Will this not leave the public bereft of the protection of independent advice under the guise of protecting their interests?
    Mr. Maude: I hope that it will not have that effect. I regard the existence of independent financial advisers who can give unbiased advice about which financial products customers should purchase as quite important. At the same time, it is important that people who hold themselves up as being competent to provide such advice should in fact be competent to do so. The operation of the Financial Services Act in the past 15 months has led to the withdrawal of some applicants to join FIMBRA, the regulatory body for intermediaries. Many of those were withdrawn because the applicants had stated on the application form things that were untrue. It is desirable that people who indulge in such behaviour should be prevented from offering their services to the public.
    Mr. John Garrett: Will the Minister enlarge somewhat on his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson)? Will he confirm that the Secretary of State has received the inspector's report on the Blue Arrow Manpower takeover involving County NatWest and some other leading institutions? Does he propose to publish it before the recess, or does he propose to stifle discussion on the matter?
    Mr. Maude: It is difficult to discuss the matter until it is published. I can confirm, as I think the hon. Gentleman already knows, that we have received the report and that we shall publish it as soon as it is proper to do so.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister able to give an assurance that, under the terms of the Companies Bill, clients of insurance brokers will be as fully protected as all other clients of financial advisers?
    Mr. Maude: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. There is no reason to suppose that what he suggests should not be the case.
    Mr. McCrindle: My hon. Friend has mentioned the comparative success of the Financial Services Act 1986. Notwithstanding its many critics, does he agree that it is surprising that the one financial transaction that is undertaken by most of us at one time or another, which is perhaps the most important in a lifetime—obtaining a mortgage—is outside the ambit of the Financial Services Act 1986? Why does the Minister not give some consideration to future legislative change to embrace that within its sphere?
    Mr. Maude: The lending of money is governed by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Financial Services Act 1986 was framed to regulate the provision of investment services and is designed to require all those who conduct investment business to be authorised. The borrowing of money on a mortgage is not an investment. Buying a house may be an investment, but borrowing the money is not. They are two different regimes, and it is proper that they should be. I see no reason to change that.

    Trade Statistics
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries the United Kingdom is running a trade surplus.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): In the 12 months to May 1989, United Kingdom visible trade was in surplus with Australia, Spain, Ireland, Greece and Canada.
    Mr. McAvoy: I thank the Minister for that answer. He listed five countries with which the United Kingdom has a trade surplus. Will he confirm that we are in deficit with the 19 other countries of the OECD?
    Mr. Forth: I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is correct.
    Mr. Marlow: One of the slight problems that the Government have is the balance of payments deficit. As my hon. Friend knows, one of the bases for that problem is the predeliction of the British consumer sometimes to buy foreign goods when British goods are equally good, if not better. Although my hon. Friend himself may not wish to use them, will he tell the House what powers he and the Government have to encourage people to buy British goods?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is well aware—if anything, he knows it better than I do—that as a member of the European Community we are not able explicitly to encourage the purchase of British goods in the public sector. What private companies or concerns do to encourage customers to buy their products is entirely up to them. The Department and the Government generally have always emphasised that when a company makes a product of good quality at the right price, there is no reason why the public should not flock to buy it. One of the things that the Department has tried to do in various ways, and with many policies, has been to give as much support as possible to industry to make good products so as to encourage people to buy British.

    Civil Research and Development
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to seek to increase the level of civil research and development spending by British industry.
    Mr. Forth: The Government have created a favourable economic climate, which encourages companies to invest in research and development themselves. Industry increased its own funding of research and development by about 30 per cent. in real terms between 1983 and 1987.
    Mr. Michie: Even taking that into account, at present British industry is enjoying record profits, mainly off the backs of the workers in industry and those who lost their jobs. Directors are giving themselves massive wage increases. Instead of putting money into research and development, they are putting it into their own pockets. That is quite different from what is happening with our major competitors abroad. They are putting a percentage of their output into R and D, which we are not and we are stagnating.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is wrong for two reasons. Largely because of the volume of noise—probably of approval for what I said—coming from Opposition Members, the hon. Gentleman did not hear me when I said that industry had increased its own funding of research and development by about 30 per cent.——
    Ms. Clare Short: We do not believe the Government's statistics.
    Mr. Forth:—in real terms between 1983 and 1987.
    Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) call the Minister a liar.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct to draw that to my attention. I did not hear it. I hope that the hon. Lady did not say that, but if she did I am sure that she would be prepared to withdraw the remark.
    Ms. Short: I said that we do not believe the Government's statistics. They lie to us all the time about statistics. That is my view and I think that that is allowed.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Can the hon. Lady help us to get on and confirm that she did not accuse the Minister of being a liar? That is all that I ask her to do.
    Ms. Short: I have just made it clear that I said that it was impossible to believe the Government's statistics because they lie to us all the time. I did not accuse the Minister of lying to us—I was referring to the barrage of statistics that we are given.
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we can accept that and get on.
    Mr. Forth: On the hon. Gentleman's other point. he claimed that we are behind other countries in civil research and development. We are ahead of some, at about the same level as some, and behind others. There is nothing wrong with that. It is hardly reasonable to expect us to be ahead of everybody.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend agree that all this concentration on research and development can be misleading, bearing in mind that in the world's most successful economy—in Japan—private industry and the Japanese Government spend relatively little on R and D, preferring to concentrate their resources on buying in licences from others, improving their technology and concentrating resources on manufacturing production and marketing?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. Interestingly, Japan is one country in the league table suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) which invests less than we do. We must try to maximise the effectiveness of the research and development spend in this country. The Department of Trade and Industry has many programmes to encourage collaborative research between higher education and industry, between different companies and within the European Community framework. That is the way to proceed and it will be much more useful to consider the effectiveness of our research and development spend in those terms than to look at the overall figure.
    Dr. Bray: I think that the Minister should check his figures. Since the German and Japanese industries spend 50 per cent. more of their own money on research and development as a proportion of their domestic product than British industry does, and since after 10 years of this Government British industry is plainly not increasing its research and development fast enough even to narrow, let alone close, the gap, with Germany and Japan, does the Minister agree that it is necessary for the Government to

    335
    increase their support and incentives for research and development rather than reduce them, as they have, from the peak level by 20 per cent. in real terms?
    Mr. Forth: It would be particularly futile and not a good way to spend any of our time for me to bandy figures with the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). If he would care to write to me, I am perfectly prepared to indicate—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These interruptions take up a lot of time and hon. Members want to ask questions.
    Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me I am perfectly prepared.
    Hon. Members: This is question time.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should be able to complete his answer. If he intends to write a letter, perhaps we can progress more quickly.
    Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman would like to do as I have just suggested, I shall be prepared to give him the correct figures, which I am sure he would find reassuring. We believe and continue to believe that by having a low tax regime and an environment in which companies can be profitable, we leave the decision of how to invest in their hands, rather than confiscating money from companies through taxation and imposing our decisions on them about how they should invest. That surely makes sense in a vigorous, capitalist economy.

    India
    Sir George Young: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the volume of British exports to India; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Atkins: British exports to India have risen steadily over recent years reaching a record £1·1 billion in 1988. My Department is actively promoting trade with India and we expect to see further increases, including earnings from inward investment and joint venture collaborations.
    Sir George Young: Is my hon. Friend aware that while many British firms are successful in winning export orders in India, some, sadly, face difficulties in getting paid because of delays in the Indian courts. Is he aware that one firm in my constituency won its court case against nonpayment in 1981, but has not been paid because of delays in hearing the subsequent appeal? In view of the delays and the impact on general exporting to India, what help can my hon. Friend and the Department extend to British companies which find themselves in that position?
    Mr. Atkins: I am fully aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. He will know—or perhaps I can inform him if he does not know—that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is pursuing the case strongly with India. We understand that at the moment there are still some difficulties, but we shall pursue the case that he has raised—it concerns a product which is perhaps unmentionable here—with full vigour and in due course, no doubt, there will be a satisfactory result.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the levels of inward investment into the United Kingdom in 1988–89, the contribution of the Government by way of regional selective assistance and the number of jobs created.
    Mr. Newton: According to the latest information available to the Invest in Britain Bureau, there were 277 inward investment decisions during the financial year 1988–89 which were expected to create 24,000 jobs. Many of these investments came without specific financial assistance, but during this period about 90 foreign-owned companies received offers of regional selective assistance, which is available only in Great Britain, worth around £140 million towards projects expected to create 18,000 jobs.
    Mr. Hind: That is excellent news, and a great share of that investment is going to Lancashire, particularly Skelmersdale, with investment in Longulf from the Yemen and Garrett Air Research from the United States. Can my hon. Friend confirm that over the past five years, among EC partners, Britain has achieved one of the largest proportions of inward investment, which has created a large number of jobs? He will know that Ministers from his Department, from the Scottish Office and from the Welsh Office constantly tour the world advocating the British cause and attracting new investment and jobs.
    Mr. Newton: I can confirm virtually everything that my hon. Friend has said. We estimate that over the past four years inward investment has created or safeguarded the better part of 200,000 jobs. A quarter of all United States and a third of all Japanese investment in the Community has come to the United Kingdom in recent years, and there have been some outstanding successes in my hon. Friend's part of the world. In addition to those that he mentioned, there is also Sanko Gosei, a leading Japanese manufacturer of moulds and plastics, which is to establish a £6 million plant employing 120 people at Skelmersdale.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister content that regional assistance is now virtually exclusively through inward investment, certainly in the north-east? His decision last week and the incompetence shown by his Department in dealing with the European Community in the case of North-East Shipbuilders in Sunderland and the announcement last week about the closure of a factory in Newton Aycliffe mean that the 2·5 per cent. of firms in the north-east which are British based are being undermined even more. What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that he supports British investment in the regions?
    Mr. Newton: Our purpose is to support the regeneration of the economic base of the north-east and other parts of the country. Nissan is achieving a great deal and providing additional opportunities for locally based industry, and Fujitsu is soon to arrive at Newton Aycliffe. The case for the success of what we are achieving makes itself.
    Mr. Holt: I hope that my right hon. Friend will take no notice of the whingeing from the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). Is not the north-east now booming far better than it has done for many years, and is that not reflected not only in the voices

    337
    of the chambers of commerce and industry, but even in those of trade union leaders in the north-east who are admitting that that is happening?
    Mr. Newton: It is happening not only on Tyneside, but on Teesside, as my hon. Friend knows. I hope to have an opportunity later in the year to visit his part of the area.
    Mr. Caborn: The Minister paints a glowing picture of the success story, but the figures for forward investment are rather different. Although that amounts to £7 billion, does not the export level of £15 billion in direct investment and £10 billion in investments in portfolios abroad show that there is a massive vote of no confidence?
    Mr. Newton: No, I would not agree with a word of it. Historically, the United Kingdom has benefited from an open and liberal trading and capital movement system. It is clear that we are benefiting from that now.

    Exports
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the volume of Britain's (a) food and (b) automobile exports in each of the past eight years.
    Mr. Atkins: Between 1981 and 1988 the volume of United Kingdom exports of food increased by 34 per cent. and that of passenger motor cars by 25 per cent. The full set of figures will be included in the Official Report.
    Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the food manufacturing industry employs more than 500,000 people, produces 6·4 per cent. of manufacturing industry output, and continues to serve the British economy extremely well?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. Since 1975, the industry has doubled its exports in volume terms. It makes a major and welcome contribution to our export achievements.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that in these two sectors, as in others, there will be a tremendous impact come 1992? Has he read the EEC report which states that 2 million jobs will be lost due to the effect of 1992? Some sources say that 200,000 of those jobs are in the United Kingdom. If the Minister does not know the answer, will he write to me?
    Mr. Atkins: I have not yet had the pleasure of reading the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. When I do so, I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will be in when I do so.
    Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the work of improving the export performance of the British motor industry has been outstanding by companies which I know are dear to his heart? Leyland-DAF, through its van subsidiary, has dramatically expanded its export potential within the Community. As for the Rover Group, one third of its production goes overseas. Jaguar is well known for its exports both to the United States and to Europe. The news that Peugeot is to start exporting cars to Japan must be a clear sign that we are in the car business to stay.
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend never ceases to sing the praises of the motor industry, about which he speaks with such considerable authority—[Interruption.] Unlike many
    338
    Opposition Members, my right hon. and hon. Friends know what they are talking about, usually from personal experience. My hon. Friend is rght to draw the attention of the House to the success story of the motor industry. Following are the figures:

    Exports of food passenger motor cars

    Volume indices 1985=100

    Overseas trade statistics basic

    Food1

    Passenger motor cars2

    1981

    83·5

    100·0

    1982

    82·9

    94·2

    1983

    94·5

    86·1

    1984

    96·5

    82·9

    1985

    100·0

    100·0

    1986

    109·5

    93·8

    1987

    116·5

    120·6

    1988

    112·1

    125·3

    Sources:
    1 MAFF
    2 DTI

    Financial Services (Regulation)
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the regulation of financial services.
    Mr. Maude: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) in response to question 7.
    Mr. Eadie: Given the answer that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West when he expressed great doubts about the working of the regulations, will he accept that an error was made when the regulations for the City were not made statutory? Does he agree that there is an abundance of evidence that when Governments meddle with legislation and make regulations permissive rather than mandatory, they find themselves in trouble? The Government are running into trouble, and the Minister should make that confession to the House.
    Mr. Maude: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard correctly the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, which had nothing to do with the Financial Services Act 1986 but related to a different kind of investigation under a different piece of legislation. He did not express any views about the efficacy or otherwise of the Financial Services Act. I can reassure the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on the issue of whether financial service regulation should be statutory. His question can be answered satisfactorily—it is indeed statutory.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider the EEC proposals for a single banking licence? Would not the creation within the Community of the largest unified market in the world for banking services present the City with considerable opportunities?
    Mr. Maude: It undoubtedly would. We hope that the Community will move swiftly to complete the single market in life insurance and in investment services as well.

    339
    The banking directive, to which my hon. Friend refers, will make the Community a more open market for banking than the United States.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that despite the authorisation requirements of the Financial Services Act, a number of the big, rogue fish who were responsible for running companies—a number of which had to close—are now surfacing in other guises in various parts of the City? Why are they not being cleaned out of the City, especially as FIMBRA, the Securities Association and a number of self-regulatory bodies are cleaning out their employees, who were only taking instructions from those rogue fish?
    Mr. Maude: Since the Financial Services Act came into force it has been illegal to carry on investment business without being authorised by the Securities and Investments Board or one of the regulatory bodies. It is impossible for any of those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred to operate a legal investment business without being authorised. Anyone with a record of misbehaviour can be prevented from operating. If the hon. Gentleman knows of anyone who is operating without authorisation, I should be grateful if he would supply me with details immediately.
    Mr. Nelson: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the overtures from the Opposition, the Government have struck the right balance between total free licence for the City and total state regulation? While the Government cannot anticipate future needs, I am sure that they will respond as necessary. Is it not true that experience both of companies legislation and of financial services legislation has already shown that the Government's middle-way approach of encouraging and supporting the self-regulatory process in the City has been a great success and should be continued?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right. It is essential that financial services legislation has full statutory backing, but it is equally essential that it should be flexible and responsive because the regulatory bodies need to be sufficiently fleet of foot to keep abreast of the changes in the market place.
    Mr. Gould: May I ask the Minister a question that he has ducked twice already? Will he publish the County NatWest report before the end of the Session and in time for the House to question Ministers on it?
    Mr. Maude: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman can find it in himself to quibble with the reply that I have already given him. I said that we would publish the report as soon as it was proper to do so. It would be a remarkable proposition to suggest that we publish it before it is proper to do so.
    Mr. John Marshall: The financial services sector takes a great interest in the Barlow Clowes affair. When does my hon. Friend expect to receive the ombudsman's report on that?
    Mr. Maude: I cannot do that because I do not answer for the ombudsman. He must conduct his investigation in the way that he thinks proper. I am sure that he will want to complete his investigation as soon as possible.

    Rain Forest Trees (Bournemouth Beach)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he is giving to the importation of 800 tropical rain forest trees for the protection of the beach at Bournemouth.
    Mr. Newton: There are at present no controls on the import of tropical timber into the European Community. It is therefore for the judgment of the local authority concerned whether or not a purchase of such timber is appropriate.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that Bournemouth needs 50 new groynes, which requires three acres of rain forest trees? Is he further aware that Bournemouth has already consumed 2,000 acres or more, an area the size of Epping Forest? Is it not folly to destroy the ecosystem of rain forests and leave them to global warming, so that the sea defences deteriorate and more protection is needed for coastal defences? Should there not be a policy of using metal or concrete groynes rather than mahogany groynes?
    Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and will ensure that it is considered by the relevant Ministers. The key issue is that we do everything possible to ensure the proper management of the rain forests. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has recently been discussing that matter with the Brazilian Government. We are also seeking to make progress in a number of ways through the International Tropical Timber Organisation. The hon. Gentleman and the House may rest assured that the British Government will continue to do all that they can to achieve that broad, essential objective.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot mummify the forests but should manage them on a sustainable basis, which may occasionally necessitate felling mature trees?
    Mr. Newton: That is another way of conveying the point that I tried to make. We are trying to focus on the proper management of the forests.

    Trade Statistics
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the countries within the European Community with which the United Kingdom is in a trade deficit.
    Mr. Forth: In the 12 months to May, United Kingdom visible trade was in deficit with West Germany, Netherlands, Italy, France, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg and Portugal.
    Mr. Allen: What do the Government intend to do about that?
    Mr. Forth: The Government have in place a number of policies to make industry even more aware of the opportunities presented by the single European market and the 1992 campaign. We are following up our spectacular success in increasing awareness with a number of policies aimed at persuading British industry—only British industry, and no one else, can affect our trade figures—of the potential offered by the single European market and the markets beyond, so that industry can gird its loins and sell British products throughout the

    341
    Community and beyond. We are confident that it will do so. In the three months to May, for example, exports to the Community grew strongly—by 8 per cent. over the previous three months—while imports fell by 1 per cent., so we are already on the right track.
    Mr. Curry: Is not British private sector well ahead of the field in investing in manufacturing and service bases in the Community? Is not that the logic of the Community, and will not the profits made overseas be turned into dividends for the benefit of shareholders and workers in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend, who has unparalleled knowledge of such matters as a result of the service that he has given to the European Parliament over the past 10 years, is correct to point out that Britain has already made moves to take seriously the opportunities and challenges that the Community market presents. By investing throughout the continent, Britain is placing itself in a strong position to meet that challenge as we move towards the fulfilment of the single market.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that Britain's deficit in visible trade with the rest of the EEC has increased fivefold since the Conservative Government came to power in 1979? Does he think that that increased deficit is a product of what he described earlier as a free and vigorous capitalist economy?
    Mr. Forth: In a very real sense, any deficit is obviously a product of a free and liberal trading regime. It is always up to the wealth creators and those in trade and in business in any one economy to make the best of the trading opportunities available to them. I have attempted to describe how seriously we take those opportunities and what we are doing about them. I stress again that it is not the Government but business that can improve the trade position. We are confident that the business community will do so.

    Breweries (Tied Loans)
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the future availability of tied loans from breweries to clubs and voluntary associations.
    Mr. Maude: As my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in his statement on 10 July, we do not propose to prohibit new tied loan agreements. However, we intend to impose the requirement on national brewers that tied loans should be restricted to beer sales and must be capable of termination by the borrower without penalty on no more than three months' notice.
    Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend for reiterating the welcome announcement of our right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State in confirming that the traditional source of finance available to sports clubs and to other clubs and associations in all our constituencies will remain open.
    Mr. Maude: We took the view that tied loans are a particularly useful source of finance for clubs. The only danger arises when clubs or pubs are unable to repay the loan without penalty, and we are taking steps to ensure that that cannot happen.

    Business in the Community
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of Business in the Community; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: I attended the Business in the Community president's committee on 7 March. In addition, I regularly meet representatives of BiC and its member companies in the course of carrying out my duties.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the village, town or city in which a business or industry operates depends very much on the contribution that that business or industry is prepared to make to the management of schools, the training of unemployed people and the cleanliness and general quality of the environment?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, I agree. That is one of the reasons why the Department's enterprise initiative, which is harnessing and encouraging all those elements, makes such an important contribution to the development of our towns and cities.

Local Government Finance
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the local authority grant settlement for 1990–91 for England.
As the House will know, next April sees the introduction of the new local government finance system. The community charge will replace domestic rates, there will be a uniform national business rate, and there will be a new grant system. Those reforms bring greater accountability to authorities' spending decisions. To give local authorities the maximum time to plan their budgets, I am today announcing the Government's proposals for aggregate external finance—that is, the amount of support that will be available to local authorities in England from Government grants and business rates. I am also announcing my assessment of total standard spending and the community charge for standard spending.
In the current year, 1989–90, English local authorities have budgeted for spending of about £30·3 billion. That is £1·2 billion more than the Government had provided for in the last RSG settlement. It is £1·9 billion more than the total of grant-related expenditure assessments, the Government's assessment of the amount which authorities needed to spend. Local authorities have budgeted to increase spending by 9 per cent. compared with 1988–89, which is more than the rate of inflation. Over the last four years local authority expenditure will have increased by 13 per cent. in real terms. This is excessive.
In assessing the amount of revenue spending that is appropriate for 1990–91—known as total standard spending—I have taken account of what can reasonably be afforded. I have also taken into account the amount that authorities are spending now, and the local authority associations' views about the pressures for increased spending next year. My right hon. Friend the Minister and I discussed that with them in the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 12 July. I have had regard to the continued scope for local authorities to make substantial savings through controlling their payroll costs, increased efficiency, competitive tendering and, in some cases, by eliminating wasteful and unnecessary activities. I understand that the value-for-money improvements now identified by the Audit Commission could be worth more than £900 million annually, and only £350 million of them have been achieved.
Under the new system, total standard spending is my assessment of the amount appropriate for authorities to spend in providing services. I propose that this total should be £32·8 billion. On a comparable basis, allowing for technical changes such as the ring-fencing of the housing revenue account and others, that is £1·2 billion more than authorities have budgeted to spend this year. It is a significant real increase on the amount that the Government assessed authorities needed to spend this year.
I propose that the aggregate amount of support that will be available from Government grants and business rates will be £22·9 billion. In addition, I intend to provide a further £200 million of support for two specific purposes, which I shall describe shortly. That makes a total for aggregate external finance of £23·1 billion in support of revenue spending—£1·8 billion more than in the current
344
year, an increase of 8·5 per cent. I shall announce in the autumn how the £23·1 billion is to be divided between standard spending grant, the various specific grants, and the amount likely to be raised from business rates. This implies that if local authorities budget to spend in line with our assessment, just under £10 billion will fall to be raised from community charges. That corresponds to a community charge for standard spending of about £275, broadly the same as the existing average rate bill per adult; £275 is the level of charge which, apart from the safety net, each charging authority could set if spending is in line with the Government's standard spending assessment.
The actual charge in each area in the first year will, however, depend on the transitional arrangements, and the level at which local authorities choose to spend.
As the House will know, we have proposed that there should be a four-year transitional safety net in order to phase in the impact of the new system. The objective is that people living in areas which traditionally have had low rate bills will have a period in which to adjust to the greater demands on them. I believe it is right that those people should have some protection. But, as originally proposed, that protection had to be paid for by the gainers postponing receipt of virtually all their gains.
I have therefore looked again at the safety net arrangements in the light of responses to our earlier proposals, with a view to achieving a better balance between the interests of gainers and losers. It is wrong that areas which have suffered under the present unfair system of resource equalisation should have to wait a further year before seeing any relief. Equally, I think it fair that areas which stand ultimately to have higher average bills under the new system should be expected to make some adjustment from the first year.
I am therefore now proposing new arrangements. In those areas in which charge payers can expect to see their bills falling, nearly half of the gain will come through immediately. To allow this, I propose that losses of grant support equivalent to up to £25 per adult should be allowed to feed through in the first year. This will allow those who gain from the reform of the finance system to see between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of their gain come through to them in the first year, although the precise figure will not be known until the autumn. In this way we can begin to move more quickly towards the position we shall have once the new arrangements are fully in force. As in my earlier proposal, the maximum amount of gain deferred will be £75 per adult, but whereas before this applied to a significant number of authorities, it will now only apply to a handful of the largest gainers. In most cases the gain deferred will be significantly less.
I turn to my two proposals for extra protection for certain areas.
First, there are some authorities where, due to the historical accident of low rateable values, the adjustment to the full community charge is generally greater proportionately than in other areas. I therefore intend to provide extra protection of up to £25 per adult for charging authorities in England where the average domestic rateable value per hereditament is £130 or less and where the introduction of the new system results in a loss. This means that in these areas there will be no loss. Authorities with average domestic rateable values per hereditament between £130 and £150 will receive support

345
on a tapering scale. This support will cost roughly £100 million. I will publish in the Official Report a list of authorities which may qualify under these criteria.
Dr. John Cunningham: Today?
Mr. Ridley: Yes, today.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has today announced that the Government will be making available a transitional grant to inner-London boroughs and to the City which will be taking over education responsibilities from ILEA on 1 April. The cost of this extra grant will be £100 million in 1990–91. It will take some time for the boroughs to eliminate wasteful expenditure inherited from ILEA. This grant will provide transitional protection for their charge payers while the savings are realised. Both these proposals will require minor legislative changes, which we will seek to enact in the Local Government and Housing Bill.
Compared to the original proposals for the safety net, these revised arrangements will enable much quicker progress towards the full introduction of the new local government finance system. A large percentage of the gains will come through to gaining areas immediately. In inner London, where community charges threaten to be highest, the proposed specific grant will help authorities to keep down charges. There will be special protection for areas with low rateable values and the maximum extra that local councils in any losing authority need impose on their local chargepayers works out at only 50p per week per adult.
In response to a parliamentary question, I am placing in the Library today illustrative charges showing how a safety net on this basis would have operated in 1989–90 had the new system been in force now. These illustrative charges reflect authorities' own 1989–90 spending decisions and show what the community charge might have been in each area. I have also exemplified the effect of a system of capital value rates and local income tax. Copies of these tables are also available in the Vote Office.
I shall be discussing these proposals with the local authority associations in September. I will bring forward full proposals for the settlement in the autumn, including details of the methodology which we propose to use to distribute standard spending grant between authorities.
Under these proposals, if local authorities control their spending and improve their efficiency, the average community charge need not be higher than about £275, and could be lower. We recognise the particular problems that some authorities face through the change to the new system, and we are providing extra help targeted on these areas. But it will be for local authorities to set their budgets, and for community charge payers to judge whether the amount they are asked to pay is justified.
Following is the list of areas potentially benefiting from extra protection:

Authorities where the average domestic rateable value per hereditament on 1 April 1989 was less than £150

Domestic rateable value per hereditament (£)

Burnley

103

Pendle

105

Wear Valley

113

Hyndburn

113

Domestic rateable value per hereditament (£)

Barrow in Furness

115

Teesdale

116

Calderdale

116

Easington

117

Kirklees

119

Barnsley

120

Copeland

121

Blackburn

122

Rossendale

123

Derwentside

125

Kingston upon Hull

127

Bradford

128

Torridge

129

Sedgefield

129

Allerdale

130

Eden

131

Bolsover

132

Wansbeck

133

Rotherham

135

Wakefield

135

Boothferry

136

Berwick-upon-Tweed

136

York

136

Gateshead

136

Sunderland

137

Ashfield

138

Sheffield

138

Carlisle

140

Doncaster

140

East Yorkshire

141

Craven

142

Rochdale

142

Hartlepool

143

South Tyneside

143

Scarborough

144

North Devon

146

Penwith

147

Tameside

147

Kerrier

148

Oldham

148

Leeds

148

Lincoln

149

Mansfield

149

Dr. Cunningham: The most important aspect of the statement by the Secretary of State is what he has left out. He has made no decision about, for example, the implications of national business tax and he has kept the House and the business community in the dark about it—so much for his plea in Newcastle upon Tyne last week about having debates on the basis of the facts.
The Secretary of State has introduced a new terminology to describe what he is doing-a kind of Ridleyspeak—but everything that he has announced today can be undermined at a later date by his decisions on the needs assessment for every local authority in England. He has allowed himself the flexibility to adjust those assessments by very large amounts. For example, on one set of figures in front of the Secretary of Slate, Birmingham needs £627 million to provide a standard level of finance—that is, to the Government's standards—but another set of figures for the same city shows Birmingham needing £750 million to provide a standard level of provision. Such latitude exists for every local authority, deliberately to allow the Secretary of State to exercise the

347
kind of political control that he wishes—or, perhaps more accurately, his successor wishes-to exercise over local government finance.
Contrary to what the Secretary of State has said, is it not the case that today's statement announces a major cut in Government support for local services? On the new calculation basis, total standard spending this year is £31·6 billion. The Secretary of State used old figures and the old basis. With inflation at 8·5 per cent., that means that local government needs £34·1 billion for the coming financial year, just to maintain the existing real level of spending. However, the Secretary of State is providing only for £32·8 billion—a major shortfall of £1·3 billion, simply taking inflation into account, never mind wage increases and other increases. The Secretary of State misleads the House when he describes that as a significant real increase. It is a major shortfall in what is likely to be required. His statement today increases the total by only 3·8 per cent. in real terms, which is less than half the current rate of inflation.
The Secretary of State says that local government expenditure increases are excessive, yet teachers' pay and police salaries are under the control of Ministers, not local government. Are salaries and wages to be funded in local government on the basis of a 3·8 per cent. increase, with inflation at 8·5 per cent.? Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the Government's intentions are in that regard? After 10 years of these policies, central Government expenditure has risen by 23·8 per cent. while local government expenditure has risen on the same basis by just 19 per cent. If any expenditure increases are excessive on that basis, it is central Government's not local government's.
If expenditure goes up simply by the amount the Secretary of State is talking about, where does he recommend that local authorities should make cuts? Should it be in employment, in the quality of services, or in the extension of services? How does he expect local authorities to make up a shortfall of over £1 billion with inflation running at its present rate? I am sure that the Secretary of State understands the reality, but I ask him whether he does. Inflation alone will add almost £40 per annum to each individual poll tax bill and it will be the Government, not local councils, who are responsible. How can the statement bring greater accountability to local government decision taking when over 70 per cent. of all funding is in the control of the Secretary of State? It is not in the control of local authorities and their committees. As he controls that level of expenditure, the major accountability for what is happening rests with him and his Department.
Why has the Secretary of State given no information on the likely level of the national business tax? Is it because of the already extensive fear and concern among small business people about the implications of that and the revaluation? How does he expect small business people to plan ahead without some clear idea about the burden of this new tax on their businesses?
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about average poll tax, but in the real world thousands of families face massive increases in what they are likely to pay. It was, after all, the Secretary of State who asked candidly why a duke should pay more than a dustman. He
348
is planning major increases for the majority of households. If one considers my own constituency as an example, the real likely poll tax in Copeland in the next financial year will be about £350 per person. The Secretary of State says that he is expecting people to pay only an additional 50p a week. In a four-adult family, that is £100 a year and in a five-adult family, it is £125 a year. How does he think that people on low incomes will cope even with those minimum levels of increase in their taxes? The Secretary of State is not living in the real world, and he knows it.
The real explanation for the statement and its deliberate obfuscation is simple. The Secretary of State knows that his Back Benchers, the overwhelming majority of whom voted for the legislation in the first place, are now panicking at its likely impact in their constituencies. They are enmeshed in their own ramshackle safety net arrangements. On the one hand, there is not enough in the way of safety net protection—in the north-west in particular—and, on the other, some Conservative Members are complaining about the likely bills that their constituents will face to fund the safety netting in the first place. It would be far better for everyone—although perhaps too late to save the Secretary of State—if he took the legislation away altogether instead of announcing further tinkering with it.
Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order of some substance. We have before us a statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have not."] We have listened to a statement which touches upon every constituency in the land. The document from the Department of the Environment giving the illustrative charges has been available to a handful of hon. Members, but it is not available to the rest of us, and apologies have already been given in the Vote Office. It may be too late to do anything about it now, on this important occasion, but I should like to protest on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps a lesson can be learned from this experience. Each of us wants to know how our constituencies are affected by the statement and by the criticism made of it. Can we be taken into Minister's confidence?
Mr. Speaker: As far as I am aware, the document is available in the Vote Office—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I shall have the matter looked into.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not the sitting be suspended so that every hon. Member may have access to the document? When I went to the Vote Office, I was told that some hon. Members had taken a number of copies away and handed them out on the Conservative Benches, although it seems that many Conservative Members do not have copies nevertheless. Will you, Sir, suspend the sitting so that we may all look at the document? Then we can reasonably debate this matter. The present state of affairs is most unreasonable.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Further to the point of order. Mr. Speaker. The statement of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was not accurate. A number of Conservative Members went to the Vote Office to get copies. The Vote Office will not give hon. Members more than one copy each and it has—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?
Mr. Devlin: My point of order is that the Vote Office will hand out only one copy to each Member. A number of hon. Members are sharing, and no more copies are available.
Mr. John Battle: When I asked the Vote Office for a copy of the document I was told that I was being given the last copy. There were no other copies available in the Vote Office and it seemed that there were not enough for every hon. Member to have a copy. It should also be placed on record that some of the figures to which the Secretary of State referred are in the Library but we cannot check the illustrative figures in the Library against the figures in the document.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Secretary of State can help us by explaining why copies are not available for all hon. Members.
Mr. Ridley: I apologise to the House. I thought that I had made arrangements for adequate copies of the document to be placed in the Vote Office. I now understand that the original supply was insufficient, and that reinforcements are coming hotfoot to the Vote Office. I apologise for the fact that there seems to have been a defect in the administrative arrangements.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that arrangements have broken down on a most important issue that affects all the people of England and Wales, and given that we cannot discuss the matter properly, may I ask you to suspend the sitting for half an hour?
Mr. Speaker: Clearly the House is in difficulty about this. We have another statement to follow. I believe that is would be sensible to take that statement first and then return to this one when, I hope, copies of the document will be available.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest we get on with the other statement.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we are taking, unusually, the second statement now, may we have copies of the statement made by the Secretary of State of the Environment distributed to hon. Members because, as usual, while the Secretary of State was speaking, copies of his statement, which were not available to hon. Members, were being distributed in the Press Gallery. I object to different treatment being given to members of the Press Gallery. We should have copies of the statement on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Speaker: That is not possible, but when we return to the matter I hope that the document that some Members have, but other Members do not have, will be available.

Legal Profession
3.56 pm
The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a statement made today in another place by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, which is as follows.
When I published the Government's Green Papers on the legal profession, which were designed to remove any unnecessary restrictions in the provision of legal services, I undertook to make a statement to the House before the summer recess. I have received over 2,000 responses to the Green Paper, and held discussions with many of those directly involved. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who helped in that process. All the points which were put to me in writing or orally have been carefully considered. The Government are today publishing a White Paper containing their own proposals for legislation.
The Government propose to introduce legislation which will set out broad objectives designed to further the interests of the administration of justice, to increase access to justice and to extend the range of those possessing rights of audience before the courts. All those involved in granting rights of audience will be required by the statute to have regard to these objectives. An independent statutory advisory committee on education and conduct will give advice on the achievement of these objectives. Again there will be a statutory requirement for all those involved in granting rights of audience to have regard to this advice. The advisory committee will have a membership broadly as set out in the Green Paper, but, in order to emphasise its independence from the Government, it will have the power to appoint its own staff.
The Government propose that both the Bar and the Law Society should have a statutory entitlement to grant rights of audience to their members in all courts. All those called to the Bar should receive rights of audience in all courts. On qualification, solicitors will continue to receive rights of audience equivalent to those they now possess. Solicitors will, however, also be eligible to progress to rights of audience in some or all of the higher courts, if they have achieved the necessary standards of competence and conform to appropriate rules of conduct.
All rules relating to the competence and conduct of advocates will continue to be made by the professional bodies, but, building on the current arrangements for the Law Society's rules, all changes in such rules will in the future require the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and each of the four heads of division, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor. All these will he required to have regard to the statutory objectives and the advisory committee's advice. Other professional bodies might subsequently be empowered by Order in Council, approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament, to grant rights of audience in particular classes of business in particular courts, provided their competence and conduct requirements satisfied the Lord Chancellor and the four heads of division.
Similar arrangements will apply for the future to any professional body which might want to have the right to

351
issue legal process or to take steps in proceedings on behalf of others. These rights are at present reserved by statute to solicitors.
The importance of ensuring that both a wide range of barristers generally and an adequate choice of specialist barristers are available to take cases in court requires that the Bar should continue to be able to make its own rules about partnerships and multidisciplinary practices. Considerable concern was expressed in the responses to the consultation that removing such rules might threaten the future viability of the Bar. The Government attach great importance to the continued existence of a vigorous independent Bar.
Solicitors, who are also frequently involved in litigation, ought to be treated on an equal basis to barristers. The Government therefore propose to remove the existing statutory restrictions which prevent solicitors from forming multidisciplinary partnerships, but to provide that the Law Society will henceforth be allowed to make its own rules about partnerships and multidisciplinary practices.
Except in so far as such rules are related to advocacy and the conduct of litigation and are approved as necessary in the interests of justice by the Lord Chancellor and the heads of division, they will be subject to review under the new restrictive trade practices legislation proposed in the Department of Trade and Industry White Paper "Opening Markets: New Policy On Restrictive Trade Practices". The links between the two sets of proposals, including an extended role for the Director General of Fair Trading, are set out in the two White Papers.
The Government propose also to remove the present statutory obstacles to multi-national practices and to ensure that lawyers from Scotland and Northern Ireland will have the same rights in England and Wales, and vice versa, as lawyers from other European jurisdictions will have under Community directives.
The Government propose to legislate, as the Green Paper suggested, to replace the provisions in the Building Societies Act 1986 with a power to allow the Lord Chancellor to recognise professional bodies as competent to authorise their members as authorised practitioners to undertake conveyancing for their borrowers. Conveyancing by such practitioners will be subject to the existing requirement that it is supervised by a solicitor or licensed conveyancer; and every such authorised practitioner will be required to offer its clients a personal interview with the solicitor or licensed conveyancer having conduct of the transaction. Throughout the transaction, that solicitor or licensed conveyancer will have a paramount duty towards the borrower.
There will be a detailed code of conduct laid down by statutory instrument by which authorised practitioners will have to abide. Moreover, authorised practitioners will be prohibited from providing conveyancing services to both seller and buyer in the same transaction, except in very limited circumstances and from providing estate agency services to the seller and conveyancing services to the buyer in the same transaction. Making the provision of one service conditional upon taking another, so-called "tying-in", in connection with house purchase will be
352
prohibited. Authorised practitioners will be required to charge for their conveyancing services on a basis that is not less than the true cost of providing them.
The arrangements are designed to provide adequate protection for individual clients and also to ensure that all those who want to provide conveyancing services, whether small firms of solicitors or large financial institutions, can compete on fair terms.
Litigation will be permitted to be undertaken on the speculative basis now allowed in Scotland. It will also become possible in such cases for there to be a moderate percentage uplift on the ordinary taxed costs otherwise payable, within a maximum to be prescribed by statutory instrument. There should, however, be no introduction of any kind of contingency fee linked to a proportion of the damages received.
I have dealt with these issues in particular because they are those about which there has been most public comment. These proposals, and others, are presented in more detail in the White Paper. Taken together, these proposals, which are an integral part of the Government's wider programme of improving access to justice, represent an appropriate balance between the encouragement of competition and the maintenance of standards in the administration of justice and the provision of legal services. I believe that those proposals provide a satisfactory framework for the future.
Mr. John Morris: It would be churlish of me not to welcome some of the results of more mature consideration by the Lord Chancellor of his original proposals which bore the mark of excessive haste and of being dragooned by the Department of Trade and Industry.
My first criticism is about the failure of the Government to provide time in the House to debate the proposals. Let the Government never forget that it is this House that has the right to be heard before the granting of Supply. Will the Leader of the House provide time for such a debate in the overspill, and obviously before a Bill is published, since otherwise everyone will have been consulted except the House?
I welcome the distancing of the Lord Chancellor from being involved, even indirectly, in the licensing of advocates. The independence of the staff of the advisory committee is a step forward, but will the members of the committee still not be the nominees of a political Minister? I take it that the advisory committee will have a power only of recommendation.
In the interests of freedom of choice, I welcome the Lord Chancellor's retreat from the concept of multi-disciplinary practices to include barristers. Has he done that because of the recognition of the fears of thousands of solicitors that they would be at the mercy of the City mega-firms which would have barrister partners? Would that have meant less and not more choice for the consumer?
What does the White Paper mean when it says:
"With exceptions"—
important ones, I hope—
"the new restrictive trade practices legislation may lead the Bar and the Law Society to implement a number of the changes canvassed in the Green Papers."
Will the Attorney-General please be specific: is this a back-door means of imposing parts of the Green Papers?
On conveyancing, if solicitors and licensed conveyancers are subject to discipline, which could mean striking

353
off, will the supervision of other conveyancers be undertaken in a similar situation with the same degree of force and necessary discipline? The White Paper uses a pretty phrase when it says that the Government's aim
"is to make justice more available to all."
They disingenuously claim in the Green Paper that contingency fees would be one of the means of providing an additional avenue to the courts. The gravest indictment of both papers is the failure of the Government to grapple with the problems of legal aid. The system is crumbling, and is becoming less available to the many and, strangely, legal aid practitioners are paid less than the market rate.
Is the Attorney-General aware of any hon. Member who has not had the experience of constituents at his surgery with cases due to be heard at tribunals and no representation? Such cases involve mobility allowance, constant attendance allowance and unemployment and industrial benefit. Thousands of pounds are involved, and if the cases are successful they could change the whole quality of life of hundreds, if not thousands, of our constituents.
The Government have given fortunes to their supporters. If the Government's broad objective to provide access to justice means anything, why should legal aid, tribunals and law centres be ignored?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his refusal to be churlish about the many things that he welcomed in the White Paper. He welcomed the insistence and emphasis upon the independence of the advisory committee. He asked whether the nominees would be the nominees of a political Minister. The advisory committee is independent. Its staff will be appointed by the committee in order to meet the anxieties expressed in the consultation lest the advisory committee should be the creature of the Lord Chancellor. The members will be nominated by the Lord Chancellor, but after very wide consultations and with the intention of securing a wide spread.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman welcomed the provisions relating to multidisciplinary partnerships between barristers and solicitors. Much anxiety was expressed about this during consultations. The fear was expressed that it would lead to the loss of independence of the Bar and to the erosion of the Bar. As the House has already heard, the Government attach great importance to the maintenance of a vigorous, independent Bar. Therefore the Government felt, having listened to the consultation, that it was right that they should leave it to the professional bodies concerned to decide whether there ought to be, or whether it is proper for there to be, multidisciplinary partnerships. I believe that the House will welcome this reliance on the professional bodies.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned restrictive trade practices legislation. Perhaps he and other hon. Members will wish to look at chapter 11 of the White Paper when they have more time than is at present available. The Bar's and the Law Society's current rules and codes will remain in force when the legislation proposed in the White Paper is implemented until either the professional bodies choose to amend them or to take some other step.
The remainder of both professions' regulatory frameworks will therefore be subject to the restrictive trade practices prohibition in the normal way. It will be up to the
354
professional body concerned to amend those rules which restrict or distort competition, or to apply for exemptions in the transitional period which the legislation will contain.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman ended with a reference to legal aid. I think that it is right to remind the House that the Government have already brought forward proposals for legal aid. They are committed to an effective system of legal aid for those of poor or modest means. This matter was discussed extensively during debates last Session on what became the Legal Aid Act 1988 which set up the Legal Aid Board and a new statutory framework. These proposals deal with the separate question of the structure of the profession which will deliver legal services, including those services which are delivered on legal aid.
I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's general welcome of the White Paper and the evidence it gives of heeding the results of the consultation.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Of course we want time to consider the proposals which appear in very small print, but I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and the Lord Chancellor for having had the further considerations which at first we were not promised, because the Green Papers were going to be a White Paper. I thank them for taking on board a number of representations.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the extension of the right of audience to solicitors, which is now made possible by the White Paper, will not eventually result in the fusion of the legal profession and the driving up of legal costs that we all want to avoid? Will he also assure the House that the removal of the near-monopoly on conveyancing by village solicitors will not further dry up the availability of legal services in rural areas, which is something all of us are concerned about?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that judges will not be enticed into the contentious situation where they have to decide whether solicitors should have the right of audience, in an atmosphere where the wrong kind of attitude will prevail with regard to our judicial leaders?
Finally, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that contingency fees, as proposed in the White Paper, will not lead us rapidly down the slippery slope, where legal fees escalate through the roof as in the case in the United States of America, and where people cannot be sure that they will always get fair and high-quality justice?
The Attorney-General: I omitted to answer one of the questions of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has heard what has been said, which is all the answer that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can expect.
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his general welcome for the proposals of the White Paper. He asked whether the proposals would lead to fusion. I can assure him that they will not. I said that the Government attach great importance to the continuance of a vigorous and independent Bar. The White Paper creates a structure so that rights of audience which are conferred by the professional bodies shall be subject to rules affecting training, competence and conduct, which will require the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the senior judiciary who are both required by statute to take heed of the advice given by the independent advisory committee. Therefore, if the proposals lead to the end which my hon.

355
and learned Friend fears, it will be only as a result of the operation of the structure which I have described, and will defeat the Government's declared intention that we should continue to have a vigorous and independent Bar.
My hon. and learned Friend also asked about the network of solicitors. There is great value in the maintenance of that network throughout the country. The changes which have been made to the Green Paper proposals, with the special safeguards written into the provision of conveyancing services, should go a long way to meeting the genuine fears that the financial institutions would present unfair competition.
My hon. and learned Friend suggested that judges might be enticed into acting in a way which was other than conscientious. I do not believe that that was more than a rhetorical flourish on his part. There can be no danger of what he feared from contingency fees when we take account of the fact that all that is proposed is conditional fees of the kind which have applied for a long time in Scotland.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Attorney-General accept that access to justice is not only the right of the citizen, but the Government have a duty to provide it? These measures do little to improve the scandalous position whereby between 10 million and 13 million people in this country are unable to enjoy rights of access because of the legal aid rules, and only those who are extremely poor or extremely wealthy are able to enjoy access to the courts.
Does he agree that the structural proposals will not reassure those who are concerned that the independent, expert specialist Bar will be available generally, on the cab rank principle, to those who may have need of those services in the future and who see the Government's move as a step towards the withering away of the Bar? Does the Attorney-General recognise that, although he introduced the Scottish role on contingency fees, it did not resolve the problem of access in Scotland and will not do so south of the border?
The Attorney-General: I dealt with the relevance of legal aid in answer to a question from the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). It bears repeating that the Government are committed to an effective system of legal aid to those of poor or modest means, and that the Legal Aid Act 1988 represents the Government's response to the needs of the moment. The Government do not intend that these proposals should lead to the withering away of the independent Bar and I think that when the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to read the White Paper in detail he will be reassured.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this is a thoroughly sensible response to the sensible comments made on the Green Paper, particularly because it preserves the independence of the Bar and the judiciary, which is important, while at the same time ensuring that they have regard for the proper administration of justice? In particular, it is welcome that, as I understand it, my right hon. and learned Friend has entirely rejected the odious United States contingency fee racket. Will he bear this point in mind? If solicitors are encouraged by the changes to move into banks, building societies or, even more
356
undesirably, estate agents' offices, there will be, particularly in rural areas, a diminution of the sort of general legal services that should be available to people in those parts.
The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said at the outset of his remarks. The key to this exercise has been the Government's desire to balance the need to encourage competition with the need to maintain standards in the administration of justice and the provision of legal services. This is not an easy balance to strike, but I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has got it right.
As to contingency fees, I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the change from the Green Papers, and I believe that there will be general approval—the consultation was strong on this—that we shall go not for contingency fees, as they are properly understood, but for the much more limited conditional fee applied in Scotland for many years.
I note what my hon. Friend has said about the possible effect of increased competition on solicitors, but solicitors have shown themselves to be versatile and capable of adapting to changing conditions of competition. I believe that they will bring those qualities to bear on the arrangements that the White Paper has described.
Mr. Peter Archer: Is not the real problem in our legal services inadequate funding? Is it not the case, on any computation, that whereas in 1979, over 70 per cent. of households were eligible for legal aid, that figure has fallen to less than 60 per cent.? Will the House have an opportunity to debate how what the Green Paper calls keen competition operating from the discipline of the market makes any contribution to the need for wider choice, consumer protection or adequate resources?
The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that, in 1979, the bill for legal aid was £100 million annually; it is now £500 million annually. We have to give the Legal Aid Act time to work before fair castigation of arrangements can possibly be made. That is an important matter with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree.
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the solicitors' profession as a whole will be pleased to learn that the representations made on its behalf by the Law Society have been so carefully and considerately dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues? Will he provide us with further assurance that the proposed regulations on conveyancing will be carefully and vigorously monitored at all times?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. The consultation has been unusually fruitful. More than 2,000 responses were received and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has given careful thought to each and every one. I am glad, but not surprised, that my hon. Friend believes that solicitors will be greatly reassured by the way in which their genuine and sensible anxieties have been heeded. That reassurance is justified. The whole purpose of the Bill is to try to achieve a balance between the need for competition and the need for the maintenance of standards. It is for the professional bodies, under the structure laid down by the White Paper, to make regulations, but they will also have

357
to have the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and of the heads of division. They must also receive the attention of the independent advisory committee.
Mr. Keith Vaz: What has the Attorney-General on offer for those who are involved, or wish to be involved, in the provision of public legal services? In particular, I see no reference in the White Paper to the development and extension of law centres, and no solution to the recruitment crisis that is gripping the Crown prosecution service.
The Attorney-General: I pay tribute to the great amount of important work that is done for the public good in the provision of legal services. When the hon. Gentleman has had time to read the White Paper more closely, he will see that the "Civil Justice Review", which the Government have accepted, contains proposals for wider representation by lay people in the county court and small claims court. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. It is something that is in part established, and it will be built upon. That is not neglected in the White Paper, and it is important that it should not be.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Lord Chancellor is to be congratulated upon having listened to constructive criticism of his original proposals, on having stuck to his guns on the main lines of his proposals, and on resisting the pressure, which was originally of an intemperate nature, which came from the Bar and the Bench?
Is not the Lord Chancellor to be congratulated also on his thoroughly welcome proposal that there should in future be the abolition of the lay observer, who is nothing but a snare and a delusion, being usually just an apologist for the Law Society, and the substitution of a legal services ombudsman, who will have a new statutory power to investigate the original complaint? This will be a great improvement and a tremendous help to lay people, who do not understand why their complaints have not been properly considered.
The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. The Government's purpose in bringing forward the Green Papers was to secure greater competition and lower costs, and at the same time the maintenance of high standards. There has been no departure from any of these purposes or objectives. Considerable anxiety was expressed in some quarters that certain aspects of the proposals in the Green Papers might work in the opposite direction, and the Government felt it right to heed some of the objections. I am glad that my hon. Friend believes that there has been an improvement without any departure from the important objectives to which I have referred.
I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the ombudsman. The ombudsman system is well tried, and I think that there is a good place for it in the provision of legal services, and especially in monitoring the operation of the professional bodies in the way in which, for example, they deal with complaints from the public.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Beggs.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Call another lawyer!
Mr. Roy Beggs: I am just a back-room lawyer.
358
The legal profession in Northern Ireland has had to cope with problems in circumstances very different from those experienced by the profession in England, Scotland and Wales. I feel that it has contributed much to normalising the difficult situation in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we are dependent on confidence being maintained in the administration of justice. To that end, may the House be told whether a legal aid board will be established in Northern Ireland and that those facing serious charges will continue to have the services of the most competent advocates?
The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has published a supplement to the Green Papers that is applicable to Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Gentleman's question about a legal aid board is one that he will need to be written to about rather than receive an answer today.
Sir Peter Hordern: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and the Lord Chancellor for bringing peace where there was conflict. Will the proposals make the administration of justice cheaper for the consumer than would otherwise have been the case? Will the course of justice be made any quicker as a result of his proposals, considering the interminable delays in litigation now?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. To the extent that the proposals promote competition, which they do in a real way, they will operate on cost in the way in which my hon. Friend desires and which the customer for legal services desires.
The "Civil Justice Review" published last year by the Lord Chancellor, whose provisions will form part of early legislation, is in part aimed at making litigation simpler and quicker. That is very much to be desired. Substantial proposals will be brought forward; they have already been outlined in the "Civil Justice Review". The entire Government share my hon. Friend's view.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the Attorney-General on his triumph in throwing back the Picts and Scots and free market hordes from north of Hadrian's wall. Is it not a humiliating climb-down for the Government? Does it not sanctify the system of government by barristers, for barristers, of barristers? Is it not true that he has done nothing about the restrictive practices of the Bar—for example, barristers' clerks, QCs, double fees and so on? He has not—[Interruption.] He has not allowed the Crown prosecution service to compete—[Interruption.] It is competition under the control—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Even I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Mitchell: Should not the Attorney-General have made what is essentially a service industry get out and serve the consumer instead of its own vested interests?
The Attorney-General: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman enjoys making that sort of speech, and we all enjoy listening to it, even though we hear it year in and year out. It is not fair to describe listening to consultation as a climb-down; indeed, it is rather hard to do so. If the Government fail to come forward with changes to their original proposals following a consultation period, they are accused of being arrogant and of the consultation being a sham. If, however, they come forward with

359
changes based upon that consultation, they are accused of a climb-down. I suppose that it was ever thus, but it is a little hard—not that that will disturb the hon. Gentleman.
I do not think that it can be described as a departure from the Government's original principle. The whole problem of, for example, rights of audience has been going on for 20 or 30 years. People ask why it was not left to rest after the royal commission. The answer is that the problem did not go away, and nor did the debate. That was recognised by the Bar and the Law Society when they set up the Marre committee.
I believe that what is now set out in the White Paper represents the skilful balance achieved by the Lord Chancellor, and it provides a real opportunity for evolutional change. It will break the logjam without risking breaking up the whole system.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the past six months have been well spent and that the proposals in the White Paper are greatly preferable to those in the Green Paper? Is he further aware that there has been a genuine exercise in consultation? Is it not only right that, when sensible proposals are made following a Green Paper, there should then be changes?
May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend two questions about restrictive practices? In future, will those members of the Bar who wish to accept instructions direct from a lay person be able to do so? Secondly, does my right hon. and learned Friend propose to remove the present restriction that non-contentious probate work can be done only by certain people?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks, particularly because he is a distinguished solicitor. There has been a great deal of work during the past six months and that has led to improvements. I am grateful that my hon. Friend recognises that.
On the question of the Bar taking direct instructions from a lay client, the White Paper makes it quite clear that the Bar Council should come forward with proposals in the form of rules of conduct.
Those rules, whatever they may be, will need to take account of the views of the advisory committee, and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and the senior judiciary will have to give their approval. It is not possible to say what will be the outcome of any proposals because the Government no longer propose to hold that matter under their own control.
There are proposals on probate in chapter 6 of the White Paper. Rather than take up the time of my hon. Friend and of the House in dealing with a matter of some technicality, I commend the fairly short proposals to be found in that chapter.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): In view of the new restrictions on corporate conveyancing, what further assurances can the Attorney-General give rural solicitors in respect of three specific issues? First, how will the regulations on conveyancing costs be policed, and who will be responsible for ensuring fair competition? Secondly, what will be the position in respect of the unequal balance of advertising whereby building societies and banks will be able to promote their services far in excess of the level that
360
solicitors in rural areas can afford? Thirdly, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that the first port of call for anyone involved in the conveyancing process is banks and building societies? How will people be encouraged to approach solicitors to establish whether their charges are competitive?
The Attorney-General: I shall try to answer briefly the hon. Gentleman's complex questions. Rural solicitors will be advantaged by the White Paper's proposed changes. Lending institutions will be required to set out their costs and to report the charges that they have been making. It will be open to those with an interest in such matters to determine whether those charges genuinely reflect the cost of the services provided.
There may be a disparity in the level of advertising as between the big lending institutions and rural solicitors, but small firms of solicitors have advantages that the big firms have not, including a local clientele and close contact with the communities in which they live and which they serve.
I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's final question when I remember what it was.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As a non-lawyer and an ordinary consumer who, from time to time, uses the services of the legal profession, I should like to know how many of the protestations against the Lord Chancellor's excellent proposals were made by ordinary citizens wanting access to justice but who are unable to obtain it because of the cost and complexity of the legal system. I doubt very much whether many such people thought to write in with their point of view.
The issue of contingency fees seems to evoke an hysterical response based on experience of the American system, which cannot be extrapolated automatically to suit our personal circumstances. Contingency fees provide a method by which ordinary people can gain access to the law without resort to legal aid. Therefore, they are an extremely important part of the original proposals. The situation in Britain is different from America, because in this country the amount of damages awarded is strictly controlled by the justices, and the cost of conducting the case in the courts can also be controlled to some extent.
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right to say that in this country judges and not juries determine the level of damages. That is a significant difference between the American system and our own. Nevertheless, strong objection to contingency fees was expressed in the consultations. I believe that the Government are right in seeing more disadvantages than advantages in that method of funding litigation.
My hon. Friend spoke about members of the public writing in, and asked how their interests were considered, particularly in respect of the speed and cheapness of legal advice. As I said, the "Civil Justice Review" contains many significant proposals for quicker, cheaper and more efficient provision of legal services.
As to consultation, chapter 1 of the White Paper reveals that 29 per cent. of the 2,000 responses came from members of the public, groups representing consumer interests, educators, and others.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Why do the Government not admit their

361
surrender to a bunch of self-seeking judicial hooligans led by Lord Chief Justice Lane, who is in danger of choking on his own hyperbolic verbosity?
The Attorney-General: On the assumption that such a question is in order, it is not one that I propose to answer.
Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the conclusion can be drawn that the Government have been deafened and blinded by the cannon of the Bar and Bench but have taken little notice of the grapeshot that has come from the ordinary jobbing solicitor? The argument that he has advanced about ensuring that banks and building societies compete fairly is, in my judgment, so much froth.
We should like to know precisely how that fair competition is to he policed. For instance, will a bank or building society be allowed to add the cost of its fee to a loan, and would that be prevented if the individual saw an independent solicitor? Those questions may seem petty at this point, but they go to the root of the matter. If the independent solicitor is to be destroyed, whether in Ynys Môn or the Wirral, anyone who thinks that there will be cheaper or more efficient conveyancing should consider the probate fees charged by banks.
The Attorney-General: What my hon. Friend has said about insufficient notice being taken of criticisms made by solicitors is at variance with what has been said this afternoon by some of my other hon. Friends who are solicitors.
Careful attention has been paid to what solicitors have said, and there is genuine anxiety about unfair competition. If, however, my hon. Friend has time to look at paragraph 5.13 of the White Paper he will see that, in addition to the provisions of the code of practice which appear in the Green Papers and are set out in annex D of the White Paper, there is a requirement for a personal interview with the solicitor responsible for the conveyancing to be offered to the customer. He must be told that independent advice will not be available from the solicitor acting for the lending institution, and that is then drawn to the attention of the client, who will be able to decide whether he wishes to go elsewhere for independent advice. Conflicts of interest must be drawn to the client's attention, and there is also a requirement for the true cost of the conveyancing service to be set out.
Questions of policing are important, and will be a matter for mature and detailed consideration. I believe, however, that the White Paper has gone as far as it reasonably can to meet the anxieties that have been expressed.
Mr. David Winnick: Can the Attorney-General explain to someone who is not a lawyer the dividing line between listening carefully to barristers and brewers and giving in completely, and listening to dockers, trade unionists and the former GLC and deciding to ignore all opposition?
The Attorney-General: The distinction is one that the hon. Gentleman would find it very hard to understand. It is based on paying attention to individual circumstances, and establishing whether objectives that everyone agrees are correct are likely to be achieved by the initial proposals or could be better met as a result of listening to what is said in the course of a consultation. That is what the Government have done.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Notwithstanding the invective employed in the last two or three questions, the package announced by my right hon. and learned Friend wil be widely seen as a reasoned, balanced judgment on a number of important and difficult issues.
May I ask a question about the multidisciplinary practices for solicitors? Once the statutory restrictions have been removed, what will happen if the Law Society and the governing bodies of other professions are either unable or unwilling to reach agreement on the terms on which such practices can be set up? What time scale will be involved before the Director General of Fair Trading can intervene? Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that the evolutionary process that he has described will require the redrawing of professional demarcation lines to reflect the realities of the market place more accurately?
The Attorney-General: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the proposals, because he speaks as a solicitor. One of the difficulties involved in putting control of such matters into the hands of the professional bodies—with the requirements for the concurrence of the senior judiciary and the taking of advice from an independent advisory committee—is the impossibility of foreseeing the outcome, let alone when the end will be reached.
I am not able to answer to my hon. Friend's question about the time scale; we shall just have to see how matters develop. I believe, however, that we should welcome the proposal for the professional bodies to be invited to present suggested rules that will take account of the lifting of the present statutory bar—in this instance, on the forming of multidisciplinary partnerships by solicitors. Whether the professional bodies take that opportunity, and when they do so, is not a question with which can deal today.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I welcome the Attorney-General's commitment to the independence of advocates in the higher courts. Will he join me in hoping and, indeed, expecting that the Law Society and the Bar—as part of their professional rules for independent advocates will insist on the continuation of the cab rank rule, and that advocates in the highest courts should not take part in the preparation or investigation of evidence for courts save in an independent and advisory capacity?
The Attorney-General: What the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the cab rank rule is very important, and the Bar has always attached great professional significance to it. What the solicitors and other professional bodies may do in that regard remains to be seen.
As for advocates' involvement in the preparation of cases in the criminal court, the principle laid down in the royal commission chaired by Sir Cyril Philips, which lies at the heart of the Crown prosecution service, provides that there should be a separation. That is a valuable principle.
Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend may remember the views that I expressed in an Adjournment debate. Although I am a barrister, I found it difficult to defend an absolute bar on solicitors being heard in the higher courts. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this seems to be a sensible compromise based on evolution and self-regulation? Will he confirm that the onus is now placed on those

363
who want to argue against solicitors being heard, and that the heads of division will have to bear that in mind if they do not want to be taken to task by a judicial review?
The Attorney-General: I am glad that, given his previous interest in the matter, my hon. Friend sees the value of the evolutionary structure provided in the White Paper. There is an opportunity for change, and the statute will express the intention that change should come. We shall have to wait and see how the structure, with its careful and sensitive balance, will operate in individual cases. An important feature, however, is that individual consideration can now be given by all concerned to separate types of cases, which I believe will make for a much more reliable result.
Mr. Tony Banks: Once again the Government have retreated in the face of opposition from powerful vested interests. Last week it was drinks all round for the brewers; today the barristers will be throwing their wigs in the air with joy at the Attorney-General's announcement.
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how much his rumoured threat of resignation if the Green Paper proposals were implemented in full influenced the Government's White Paper proposals?
The Attorney-General: Lord Denning once said that he had every Christian virtue except that of resignation. I certainly do not want to investigate such matters, save to say that the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in any newspaper.
There is no question of a retreat. I prefer to regard it as an advance: we have advanced much more reliably towards the attainment of the objectives that we have set out. Let me add that the present Government have contributed more to the establishment of competition and the break-up of old, traditional arrangements that did not operate to the advantage of the consumer than any Government that the hon. Gentleman has ever supported, or will ever have the chance to support.
Mr. Tim Devlin: I, too, congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the clever compromise that he has announced today. Further, however, to the answer that he has just given, may I ask him to exemplify the improvements that there will be for people who want to go to the Bar but who want to train first as solicitors? As a result of the White Paper proposals, will access for people coming from other European countries and for people coming from other branches of the profession be easier in the higher courts?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome of the proposals. I believe that there is material in the White Paper that should reassure those who wish to join the Bar straight away and young barristers. The Law Society recognises that as soon as someone has qualified as a barrister, from the time that he or she finishes pupillage, rights of access will be available to all the courts. In the case of solicitors, the Law Society recognises that it would be more appropriate to proceed by stages by reason of the fact that solicitors will not necessarily be specialist advocates. The Bar has also made substantial changes to its arrangements. It has provided for the payment of pupils and also for a very much more
364
advantageous environment for young entrants to the Bar. I believe that that in itself, very creditable as it is to the Bar authorities, is a consequence of the White Paper. Much advantage has been achieved, and I am glad that my hon. Friend thinks likewise.
Mr. Bob Cryer: During the Attorney-General's statement and climb-down from the Lord Chancellor's original proposals, he used the phrase that the new proposals were designed to preserve the viability of the Bar. Does that mean to preserve the huge fees that members of the Bar are used to receiving? Would not a reduction of the astronomical sums that they demand for often indifferent and incompetent work in the courts give greater access to ordinary people who cannot afford the sort of fees that the Bar demands? Is it not an outrageous example of the Government's unjust attitude that they can make a statement about people whose fees, if they were reduced to £100 an hour, would represent a marked reduction in the sums that they earn when they are busy attacking trade unionists, such as NUR members, who are lucky if they earn £100 a week? What is the Minister going to do about reducing the astronomical and parasitic sums that lawyers earn?
The Attorney-General: I have heard all this before. As it happens, I did not use the phrase that these proposals are designed to secure the viability of the Bar. I said that the Government attach great importance to the continued existence of a vigorous and independent Bar. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the effects of competition, as opposed to what is experienced by the consumer when there is a monopoly or a nationalised industry. If one wishes to go to the most fashionable silk, one can expect to pay a very large sum of money. If one wishes to go to the able but as yet very young practitioner, one will pay very much less money.
The point about an independent Bar is that 6,000 barristers are available to be chosen by anybody who wishes to secure their services. That is why it is so important that an independent Bar should be preserved. Therefore, for all the malice that the hon. Gentleman brings to bear upon those who provide legal services, I do not believe that there is any material here that can attract sensible criticism along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has just advanced.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that these sensible proposals will be welcomed not least because of the improved access to justice and to lawyers' advice that will be available to members of the public and also because they will provide the means for the customer to complain about inadequate services? Does my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that the principle of self-regulation that is enshrined in the White Paper and the independence of the legal profession are both very much in the interests of the consumer?
The Attorney-General: I readily acknowledge that. The White Paper uses words to the effect that the Government believe that self-regulation in the professions is the most effective form of regulation in the interests of the consumer. I believe that to be true. I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend regards them as sensible reforms. He also speaks as a solicitor. Since it suits certain Opposition Members to say that there has been a climb-down at the

365
expense of solicitors in favour of the Bar, it is very welcome that he, speaking as a solicitor, along with many others this afternoon, welcomes the proposals.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that his very presence at the Dispatch Box today suggests that the so-called radical reforming Government have now come to an end? It is one thing to take on the trade union institutions, the education authorities, local government and other aspects of British life, but when it comes to the lawyers versus the people the Minister runs away and gives in to the lawyers. During this parliamentary week one Minister has given in to the brewers who provide the money for the Tory party while another Minister, the Attorney-General, has given in to the lawyers, the very people who launder the money from the brewers and get it to the Tory party.
The Attorney-General: That was something worth waiting for all these noisy minutes. When the hon. Gentleman says——
Mr. Skinner: People out there will notice.
The Attorney-General: It is all very interesting——
Mr. Skinner: Has he burnt his fingers?
The Attorney-General: I should be very interested to be present in any court over which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) presided in a judicial capacity. Considerable fees would have to be demanded before anybody was prepared to appear before him, and very well earned they would be. [Interruption.] I wonder whether I might be allowed to intervene, however briefly? When the hon. Gentleman speaks of lawyers versus the people, he might reflect on the fact that without any law and the professionals to serve it there would be no freedom for the people.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: The Bar will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement. Could he assure hon. Members and law students who are studying in our universities and polytechnics that the system that he is devising, under which members of the public will be able to go direct to solicitors who will be able to take the case right through to the High Court, will provide sufficient advantages and encouragement to young people to go to the Bar so that the Bar does not wither?
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an anxiety that has been expressed in quite a number of responses to the Green Paper proposals. Since the Law Society recognises that it is appropriate that those who have been called to the Bar should have rights of access immediately to all courts once they have finished their pupillage, any students in the law schools who want to become specialist advocates are likely to opt for the Bar. There might have been some reason for anxiety if that were not the case and if everybody had to proceed by stages. However, since that has been recognised by the Law Society, it has enabled the Lord Chancellor to come forward with a very much simpler scheme for qualification for rights of audience. Therefore, anybody who really wants to be a specialist advocate and who is now a law student should feel that it is entirely appropriate to join the Bar and take his or her chance in that most competitive of professions.

Local Government Finance
Mr. Speaker: I am informed that adequate copies of the illustrative community charges are now available in the Vote Office. I think that we should proceed with the statement.
4.59 pm
Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Secretary of State resumes answering questions, I hope that he can clarify what appears to be a difference between his statement and the document that has now been issued to Members from the Vote Office.
In his statement, the Secretary of State said:
"the maximum amount of gain deferred will be £75 per adult."
As hon. Members can see, the following statement is made at the top of the tables:
"Safety net allows losses of up to £23 per adult and 47 per cent. of gains subject to maximum of £70 per adult".
The statement does not accord with the information on the tables. They show examples of over £70 per adult. Which is right?
Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order because I was given notice of it.
Mr. Lamond: Earlier today, while the Secretary of State was making his statement at the Dispatch Box, I thought that I saw the civil servants in the Box to your right, Sir, hand out a number of copies of the paper to Conservative Back Benchers. I say that I thought I saw that happen—I was not sure. I would not raise the matter with you, Mr. Speaker, if I had been assured by the civil servants that that was not the case.
Naturally, I went to ask the civil servants. When I did so, the Secretary of State and the Minister intervened to say that on no account were those civil servants to answer my question and that the only answer that I could have was from them. I am sorry to say that I am not prepared to accept any reply from the Secretary of State or the Minister. I prefer to have the truth, if possible, from the civil servants.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will accept this response from me. Since he raised the matter with me privately, I have looked into it and I can assure him that that did not happen.
Mr. Ridley: With regard to the point of order that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) raised, if he looks at the tables he will see that they are for 1989–90, whereas the arrangements that I announced for the safety net are for 1990–91, a year later. The figure of £75 which is the maximum contribution in 1990–91 should be reduced, because of the effects of inflation this year and next year, to a comparable figure. The hon Gentleman will therefore understand why we have used the figure of £70 as the cut-off point in exemplifying the system for the current year as opposed to next year.
The hon. Gentleman asked for details of the national non-domestic rate. The Inland Revenue has not yet completed its revaluation and given the details that we

367
need before we can give the hon. Gentleman those figures. They will be made available as soon as possible, and certainly in the autumn.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about the standard spending assessment. He is right—that is the variable in this package which we have not yet given the House and which is essential before any authority can calculate what its community charge may be next year. The authorities do not know what assessment we will choose. There is good reason for that, as the hon. Gentleman should know. We have been discussing the standard spending assessment with local authority associations since Christmas. We have been exemplifying all sorts of suggestions that the associations have put forward and asked us to exemplify, some of which the hon. Gentleman quoted. No choice has yet been made, because we should like, if possible, to carry the associations with us on what is the correct assessment from their point of view as well as ours. We cannot be firm until those decisions are taken.
The hon. Gentleman described this settlement as a "cut", which surprises me. It is an 11 per cent. increase in the provision that we made for the current year. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right to base his opinions on the budgets for this year, because the current year was a strange year in the history of rate support grant. It was the last year of the system and a number of authorities increased their spending, partly to unwind creative accounting, partly because they were not subject to grant penalties for so increasing their spending and partly for other reasons. It is, therefore, the worst year that the hon. Gentleman could possibly use to base his calculations on the budgets.
The hon. Gentleman asked in what way local authorities could achieve this settlement as the Government suggest. There can be enormous efficiency savings, some of which I mentioned in my statement. The tendering-out process, which has started, is beginning to show ever-greater opportunities for savings, and I think that that is the right answer.
The hon. Gentleman moved on to his constituency and said:
"the … likely poll tax in Copeland in the next financial year will be about £350 per person."
I have very good news for the hon. Gentleman. The safety-netted charge in Copeland is £196 this year, not £350. The hon. Gentleman is therefore totally wrong—almost by a factor of two—in making that claim. His council has an opportunity to get the amount even lower if it will look at its spending. The hon. Gentleman is a great beneficiary of the safety net that we have produced.
The hon. Gentleman may like to cheer up his constituents by telling them that there will be a 17·1 per cent. reduction in the business rate. He may not want it, but his constituents do.
Several Hon. Members rose ——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the great importance of the statement, but the House knows that it will involve legislation. I therefore hope that hon. Members will put pointed and brief questions and not go into great detail at this stage.
Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend accept that if non-domestic ratepayers receive
368
transitional relief while we transfer from an unfair rating system to a much fairer one in the longer term, it is obvious that householders in prudently run authorities should also do so, and to that extent the House will welcome his statement? Will my right hon. Friend reflect that not many prudently run local authorities have an average rateable value as low as £150? When discussing the matter with the local authority associations later in this summer, will he consider extending that?
Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have provided transitional relief for non-domestic ratepayers and for community charge payers. The systems will be different in each case because their circumstances are different. The careful, gentle transitions that we are providing will greatly ease the introduction of the new system. My hon. Friend was right in his comments on well-run councils. One council in his constituency, Cannock Chase, will make a small contribution to the safety net and will have a reasonably low community charge.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that he originally brought forward his original safety net proposals to protect those that might otherwise suffer financially under the financial changes associated with the poll tax. It appears that he has decided that, to buy votes for Conservative Members, it is worth sacrificing some of those needs that he previously identified. The problem is that he has not even satisfied Conservative Members, because he is not prepared to spend Government money to do so but simply tries to transfer money between the poor old ratepayers and poll tax payers in their areas. The right hon. Gentleman's successor will come under great pressure to make changes. The proposal does nothing to meet the needs of those areas where bills will increase or of other areas, including those Conservative Members who have been worrying about them, that are asked to finance his policies.
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that although those areas may be able to wait until the new Secretary of State takes office in the autumn, the people who will suffer most from the announcement are business ratepayers who, as he has made clear in his answer to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), will not be given an idea of how they will suffer until the autumn? They are already trying to draw up budgets for their businesses. Will the Secretary of State respond to that before the recess?
Mr. Ridley: Most of that was in the nature of statement rather than question. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in suggesting that we are reshuffling the money to provide interim protection. All we are doing is providing a sufficient grant for the safety net. It is better that that should be shown to the customer—each community charge payer—on his own bill so that he is aware whether he is contributing directly to or getting benefit from the safety net, rather than having it lost in the whole grant structure, which is the alternative.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Call Rhodes Boyson.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) try to contain himself now? I think that we have all had enough of it.
Sir William Shelton: My constituents will warmly welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend of a transitional grant for inner London to cushion the costs of the change from the Inner London education authority to local councils as education authorities. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how long the transitional grant will last? Will it be tapered? Will the educational content of the Government grant to inner London be more or less the same level as the £950 million that ILEA is spending currently each year in inner London?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall answer his later questions first. The new grant for the authorities that receive educational responsibilities in London will he tapered over a five-year period. That is extra to any grant that comes through the standard spending assessment, the details of which, as I said earlier, have not yet been finally decided. However, I doubt whether it will come to the full amount of the current overspend of ILEA of £183 per adult. He will he glad to know that for his constituency this year, the community charge, if we had had it in place, would have been £297 in Lambeth. He might equally like to know that if we had a system of combined local income tax and capital value rates in place, the burden on the average man in his constituency would be £1,218.
Mr. Rees: Will the Secretary of State turn his mind to the page of the statement headed "1989/90 Illustrative capital value rates and local income tax" and the six pages that follow? Surely the Department of the Environment cannot possibly know what the position will be after the next general election, about the rate of local income tax declared or about the nature of capital values. Were those figures drawn up by the Civil Service? Do those figures come out of the statistical department of the Department of the Environment? If anyone had suggested that such political matter should be provided under any Government under whom I served, the permanent under-secretary would have said very firmly that it was not a matter for the Civil Service.
Mr. Ridley rose——
Mr. Rees: I have not finished. Surely those seven pages should come from Conservative Central Office at the time of the next general election, when it sees what is in our manifesto. The Secretary of State is being too clever by half in cloaking a bad tax and that should not be done in a document such as this.
Mr. Ridley: I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not like having his own party's policy put to him. It seems extraordinary that he should have blundered into drawing attention to the fact that this is the adopted policy of his own party. [Interrruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must have a chance to answer the question put to him.
Mr. Ridley rose——
Mr. Jeff Rooker: It is a lie.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is a lie.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must not be accused of lying. He must answer the question that was put to him.
Mr. Ridley: I have received parliamentary questions asking me to exemplify certain systems of local authority finance. That is the question I have answered and, as far as I know, this is the system that the Labour party has adopted as its policy. If Labour Members want to alter any of the assumptions on which it is based, the hon. Member for Copeland has only to let me know and I shall alter the assumptions. However, on the assumptions clearly stated here and in answer to a parliamentary question, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will find that his constituents would have had to pay £252 in the first year of the community charge, if it had been this year, and £460 under the scheme of local authority finance that he supports.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend knows that at present the county councils pay to the district councils a certain percentage of the collection of the rates and a certain percentage of any losses incurred from non-collection. As I understand it, there is no allowance under the new proposals for the county council to pay anything to the district councils. Lancashire has 17 district councils, which means that Lancashire county council will make a substantial profit on the collection to spend on the harebrained schemes thought up by the Labour-controlled council.
Mr. Ridley: The question of shortfall in the yield of the charge which arises either through evasion of paying or through the costs of collection is still under discussion with the local authority associations.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Although I welcome the fact that Burnley will receive one of the biggest reductions, of £107 per head, as a result of having low-rated property, will the Secretary of State accept that we made that point when the Bill was going through Parliament? Will he also realise that the people of north-east Lancashire will recognise that these measures are being taken more with a view to saving the Tory marginal seats in that area? People with this concession will still be paying more than they are under the present rates system. This is only a transitional arrangement. The poll tax is grossly unfair because of its failure to take into account ability to pay.
Mr. Ridley: I take it that the hon. Gentleman now regards his seat as a Tory marginal, which may be underestimating the extent of our majority there after the next election. I was also glad that he recognised the help I have offered to seats such as his, which have a low average rateable value per household. The people of Burnley will like to know that the first year community charge, if it had been applied this year, would have been £173, but if they had had local income tax and capital value rates, they would have had to pay £499. What does he think is fair about that?
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Can my right hon. Friend explain why, if the purpose of the community charge is to make councils more accountable to electors, community charge payers in my constituency will have to pay an extra £49 a year to bail out extravagant Socialist councils such as Manchester, which have overspent like mad? What encouragement is there in the arrangements for councils that have followed prudent policies over the years?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend's constituents are already paying quite a lot to other areas under the resource equalisation mechanism in the rating system. Under the present arrangements they are paying £62 a head, whereas for the new community charge, we have been able to reduce the figure to £44. I think that my hon. Friend will find that that is a considerable improvement.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, even with the safety net, in Liverpool each individual will have to pay £338, whereas in areas such as Tewkesbury, where there is a slight increase, individuals will have to pay £239? That will place a greater burden on the mass of ordinary working people in an area with high unemployment and serious problems and under great stress. Is it not clear that the Government are putting the burden on to the shoulders of those who can ill afford to pay, whereas those who can afford to pay—the right hon. Gentleman's friends in his constituency—will get away with paying much less?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Tewkesbury council, which is, indeed, a very well-run authority, which is more than one can say for Liverpool. That is why Liverpool faces such a high community charge. The hon. Gentleman should address his question to Liverpool city council and not to me. He ought to ask the hon. Member for Copeland how he justifies a system of local authority finance which, in his own constituency, would make the average man pay £640 in local income tax and capital value rates.
Mr. Steve Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the present ludicrous and iniquitous system of block grant redistribution, the poor in rich areas have been subsidising the rich in poor areas for many years? Does he further agree that the great advantage of the present system of identifying the safety net is that the Government have identified it in order to eliminate it?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The present arrangements result in many very poor people having to pay over the odds to subsidise those in other areas who could well afford to pay the full amount. We are removing the inequity from the system—in one step next year, to be followed by other steps.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: May I ask the Secretary of State about Birmingham? Why should Birmingham poll tax payers pay a surcharge on the Tory tax of £67? It is one of only five local authorities on the whole list with a net overspend of zero. Why should my constituents pay £67 to subsidise overspending Tory local authorities such as Blackpool and Lancaster?
Mr. Ridley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the support of the new system. He may not know it, but for many years his constituents have been paying more than what the city of Birmingham requires to subsidise those authorities. That has happened under the system of resource equalisation. We have started his constituency on the road towards reducing that excess and winding it out altogether, but the large increase in rate support grant that Birmingham received this year has altered the figures for this year, as compared with last year.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me for saying that
372
we seem to swap one unfair system—which it certainly is—for another unfair system and that the people of Birmingham will not understand his assertion that we got too much last year and that is why the figure is getting worse this year or why the financial prudence of Birmingham city council is now being thrown in its face? However my right hon. Friend cares to explain it, the £67 is £67 that we should not have to spend. My right hon. Friend has uttered fine words about new Elysian fields of fairness in local government. Why is it that this year the system in operation is possibly the most unfair system that we have ever had and that all the great overspenders in London are laughing at the fact that Tory common sense has become a Tory folly?
Mr. Ridley: I understand my hon. Friend's impatience to reach the end of the transitional period and to have the full community charge in place in Birmingham. I can understand why he wants us to cease having to impose on the citizens of Birmingham the burden of having to contribute through the resource equalisation mechanism to other citizens elsewhere. We all share that objective, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The question is how soon and how quickly we should phase the arrangements out. I believe that it is generally accepted in the House that it is right to have a four-year transitional period over which to phase them out rather than putting an immediate end to all relief.
Mr. John Fraser: Given that the average rate burden per head of the population in Lambeth is £250, will the Secretary of State confirm that the non-safety netted poll tax will be substantially more than twice the present burden? Can he say whether the figures that he has published today are widely welcome among Conservative business men in Croydon, Bromley, Westminster, Wandsworth, Kensington and the City of London?
Mr. Ridley: With current spending rates, the full community charge in Lambeth this year would have been £543. The hon. Gentleman must take that up with Lambeth council because it is entirely due to that council and to ILEA that the figures are so extremely high. We have granted Lambeth relief under the safety net for four years, so the hon. Gentleman has four years in which to persuade its council to put its house in order.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to transfer community charge money from provident to improvident authorities under the safety net arrangements is to undermine the very basis of the community charge which, in the beginning, was that one paid only for what one voted for?
Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend has heard the argument about whether there should be a transitional period. Many hon. Members are grateful, and have said so today, for the transitional help that we have given to their constituents so that they will not have to move up to the full level immediately. That help must be paid for at the expense of those who have gains to come.
Mr. George Howarth: Ministers always refer to Knowsley as a well-run borough, although it has tremendous problems of deprivation none the less. Can the Secretary of State explain why Knowsley has turned out to be a net contributor to the safety net, given the extent of our problem as compared with those of

373
councils in constituencies represented by Conservative Members? Can the Secretary of State explain why in Merseyside—a fairly deprived area by any standards—three out of five local authorities, including those covering Bootle and Birkenhead, are net contributors to the safety net? Has the right hon. Gentleman any justification that would be in the least bit convincing?
Mr. Ridley: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman the disappointing news that those three boroughs are currently contributing to the permanent safety net that has existed in the form of resource equalisation. It is only by getting rid of that element in the present system that the full charge can be applied. We have agreed that there should he a transitional period before the full charge comes in. The fact that we have moved his constituents slightly in that direction is the result of my announcement today that all those losers will he asked to contribute £25 a head.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I know that my right hon. Friend has had many representations today and in previous weeks from many hon. Members who object to their constituents paying towards the safety net. My authority is a receiver of the safety net, but even though we receive some £89 from it, can he help me explain to two pensioners in my constituency, whose current rates payable are £267, why they will have to pay £624 under the new system? It will be difficult to explain to them that the new system is fairer and that they will be better off.
Mr. Ridley: What I have announced today will be of considerable help to my hon. Friend as she rightly pointed out. She would fare far worse under the Labour proposals. Were her constituents subject to capital value rates and local income tax they would be asked, on average, to find £554 this year. That is what someone on the average rate would have to pay.
Mr. James Lamond: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figures that he caused his civil servants to work out for party-political purposes and which he has tried to represent as Labour party policy, are incorrect? Column 8, from which he has quoted several times, gives the tax bill resulting from local income tax rates when expenditure in the domestic sector is raised 100 per cent. from that source. The example he gives is not, as he suggested, based on the average man, but on a single adult on average male earnings and in receipt of the single persons's tax allowance. If there were another column that showed a married adult whose wife was not earning anything, her contribution would not be what he has said, but would be nothing.
Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a question I will, of course, give him the full exemplifications for any system, any combination of systems or any types of people that he wants. I am longing to have any correction from the Labour party to the data upon which the figures of its twin-tax nightmare are based because it is time that the Opposition realised what a considerable problem they have if they persist with such an absurd scheme.
Sir Philip Goodhart: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that his Department's new proposals for calculating local authorities needs and assessments will substantially penalise authorities such as Bromley, that
374
have a good record of economic administration? Does he recognise that his Department's proposals could push the community charge for Bromley far higher than the £209 calculated in my right hon. Friend's paper?
Mr. Ridley: There is no decision on this. We have based the figures on what we believe is about the best type of standard spending assessment that we can devise. If that is the one that is finally adopted, the figures given would be very nearly correct. It is something that we must get right with the local authority associations and I do not believe that my hon. Friend need be worried by the extremes quoted by the hon. Member for Copeland because they are responses, in the main, to suggestions from various classes of authorities as to how the grant might he divided. Clearly those suggestions are designed to be in the interests of that particular class of authority. There is nothing wrong with that, but I doubt whether that would be acceptable to the generality of the associations.
Mr. Chris Smith: How can the Secretary of State possibly justify a system that produces results of such massive discrepancy between different authorities? The London borough of Barnet, which contains the Tory marginal constituency of Finchley, currently has an average rate bill per household of £708. The indicative first year safety-netted community charge will be £290 per person. Yet the London borough of Islington, whose constituents I represent, currently has an average rate bill of £776, which is not dissimilar to the one for Barnet, but its first year safety-netted community charge is £496 per head. That is twice as much as the Prime Minister's constituents must pay.
Mr. Ridley: Of course the hon. Gentleman must realise why: it is because the London borough of Barnet conducts its affairs frugally and efficiently, which can hardly be said of the London borough of Islington. He might like to know that the situation would be very much worse if his solution to the problem were adopted in Islington.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the position in Derbyshire and to the full community charge as outlined in column 3. It shows that, overall, Derbyshire has one of the highest sets of community charge in the country. That is not because of anything that central Government have done, but is largely due to the high-spending county council. Column 4 gives us a few of the transitional periods of payment. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the place that does best in Derbyshire is no marginal Tory seat, but that held by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? That area will receive a plus of £88, which is far better than that for any Tory authority or Tory constituency in Derbyshire.
Mr. Ridley: I apologise to my hon. Friend if I got it wrong.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Will the Secretary of State please explain why his statement, which was presented as a safety net to cushion the full effects of the community charge, means that in Avon, where there are six district authorities—only one of which is Labour—the safety netted community charge is, without fail, higher than his own estimate for the community charge this year? Why is the Secretary of State increasing the community charge for the county of Avon?
Mr. Ridley: I do not follow what the hon. Lady is saying. Spending in Bristol is high and, as a result, it has a high community charge in the short and long term.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend explain to me why Macclesfield borough council, one of the most prudently and responsibly managed in the country, which has a record of underspend and not overspend, should have to pay out for those authorities, particularly in inner cities, that have been irresponsibly and badly run? How can I explain to my pensioners who live on the retirement pension with perhaps a little additional private income, and to those who are unfortunately on income support, that they must bail out people in areas that have been badly run?
Mr. Ridley: I am sure that my hon. Friend has already explained to his constituents that they have been paying heavily towards other areas that benefit. What we are doing is unwinding the unfair system whereby his constituents and those of many other hon. Members must pay to areas of low rateable value for no other reason than that. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that in the new system that I announced today I have managed to reduce what his constituents must pay from £75, if it were for this year, to £51. That is some relief.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Will the Secretary of State give some thought to the people who live in a unique domestic architecture known as the Tyneside flats, with which I am sure he is familiar, as his ancestors built several thousand of them? Those Tyneside flats have a low rateable value, but, as a result of the withdrawal of the safety net from Newcastle, its underpinning, and the fact that Newcastle will now contribute to the safety net rather than benefit from it, those people in the Tyneside flats in my constituency, most of them elderly, will suffer. Will the Secretary of State give some consideration to that particular form of low rateable value housing and advance some concession to bring benefit from the disbenefits that his statement creates?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman's constituents will not benefit from or contribute to the safety net under the arrangements that I have put forward. This is only a device to equalise authorities, not a device to equalise different types of property or people within an authority. That function is carried out by the rebate system and 9 million people will be given help in the form of community charge rebates.
Mr. Michael Shersby: The first year safety net and community charge for the London borough of Hillingdon is shown as £342 compared with the community charge of standard spending of £240. That is due to overspending of £97 per head by that borough. In his statement, my right hon. Friend referred to the opportunities for savings which exist for local authorities arising from their payroll. Has my right hon. Friend's Department accumulated figures over the past three years to show by how much London local authorities have increased their payrolls, so that ratepayers can be given some idea of the increase that has resulted in that overspending?
Mr. Ridley: I cannot here and now give my hon. Friend the information that he seeks, but I shall see whether there is anything that we can give him to help him explain an
376
overspend in his borough of £97 per head this year compared with an underspend in some similar boroughs in outer London. There must be some reason to do with the efficiency of a council for such a situation.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know that we have a heavy day ahead of us. I am conscious of the fact that virtually every constituency is affected, although I think not in Scotland, but I shall do my best to call those hon. Members who are standing, provided that they ask brief questions.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Allerdale is a beneficiary of the safety netting arrangements but that in subsequent years will have some of the highest poll tax increases, first because of inflation and, secondly, because of the need to close the safety net from which it is now a beneficiary? Before the right hon. Gentleman quotes me the local income tax figure, let me say that any person who goes to the Dispatch Box and says that Allerdale's people will have to pay £775 in income tax under a Labour Government will be telling a lie to the House of Commons.
Mr. Ridley: I must tell the hon. Gentleman the correct figure. A single man on average wages in Allerdale would pay £491 under the Labour party's system. The hon. Gentleman should tell his constituents that, because I will tell them if he does not.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is rubbish and a lie.
Mr. Ridley: If it is a lie, and it is wrong, will the hon. Gentleman please tell me on what he would like the exemplifications based? We only need the assumptions to be corrected and we shall give him the exemplifications.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We should not use the word "lie". If hon. Members feel that something is untrue, they may say that it is wrong, but we must not break the traditions of the House by accusing each other of lying.
Mr. Richard Page: I support the principle of the community charge, but does my right hon. Friend accept that with a full community charge in my constituency of £285, and a first year safety net of £360, my constituents in presently low-rated accommodation will find the impact of the community charge severe enough without the extra £75 that they will have to pay under the safety net? They will ask me why they have to pay that £75 to bail out profligate councils and I will have great difficulty in giving them an answer. Will my right hon. Friend examine low-rated property and bring forward measures when the House reassembles after the recess before the matter becomes enshrined in law?
Mr. Ridley: This year, the average rate bill per household in the Three Rivers council in my hon. Friend's constituency was £827—one of the highest there is. That impost is already being levied on my hon. Friend's constituents. We are seeking to phase that out and he will find that his constituents gain considerably in the first year under the system that I have just announced.
Mr. David Clelland: Let me take the Secretary of State back to a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr.

377
Rees). It is undoubtedly legitimate for Tory party Central Office to criticise Labour party policies, but under what moral, if not legal, authority does the Secretary of State issue the document "Illustrative capital value rates and local income tax"? Is that not a blatant example of political propaganda at public expense, a practice that he has deprecated in local authorities? Is that not the height of hypocrisy and as near as can be to political corruption?
Mr. Ridley: The answer is simple. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Order Paper he will find that I was asked to set that out, and if a Minister is asked a question, he should, if it is possible, give the answer, which in this case I did very fully. The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman does not like it. That is all that is wrong.
Mr. W. Benyon: I did not vote for the community charge, but I understood that its principal object was to make local authorities truly accountable. In the circumstances, would not it have been more sensible and fair to make the Exchequer pay for the transitional arrangements?
Mr. Ridley: As I have explained, in a sense that is what is happening. We have two alternatives. We can either not show the contribution to the safety net on the rate bill, or we can do so. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is much easier to tell his constituents which part of the bill relates to the community charge and which part relates to the safety net, rather than the other way around.
Mr. Allen McKay: I accept that the system will give Barnsley some protection in the first year, but when we come to the full poll tax, 95 per cent. of my constituents' households will pay more. Will the Secretary of State take into consideration the needs element, which could, if the right hon. Gentleman is not careful, withdraw £24 million from that authority which it cannot afford?
Mr. Ridley: I understand that there is a particular problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and that he is coming to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government. We shall do our best to try to find a solution to the particular problem in his constituency.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his announcement today of an additional £200 million in grants for 1991 would, if applied to the figures that we have been given for 1989–90, have had the effect of reducing each person's community charge by £5 across the board? Is that not an excellent point to make to the country? Are we not hiding our light under a bushel by not giving such illustrative figures?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right. I should explain a rather technical matter in answer to his question. The £200 million made available next year will go to the inner-London authorities and to the low rateable value authorities which I described. In order to make the exemplifications for this year comparable—we have, of course, no means of adding grant to the figures for this year—we have had to make the figures for the exemplifications for 1989–90 £5 per head higher than they would have been if we had been able to add the extra grant. These figures would have been rather lower if we had. It is rather tortuous logic, but I am afraid that that is the way it is.
Mr. Elliot Morley: Is it fair that in these notional overspending figures a town such as Scunthorpe, which has been dominated for many years by one large industry, should be crippled because of the loss to the local council of the business rate? Can the Secretary of State explain why, on his own figures, Boothferry council is deemed to be spending more than Glanford, yet in the first year of the change will pay £60 more per head than Boothferry? Is the answer that the Secretary of State's figures are as nonsensical as his arguments?
Mr. Ridley: I did not quite follow what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think that he was talking about the difference in the rateable values between two councils, which, of course, will show up as soon as we move to the safety net, because the safety net is based on the present contribution.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one item in his statement is particularly welcome? It is the recognition at last of the need for special relief for those areas in the north that historically have averaged lower rateable values. However, will he look again at the way that that system will work? Sunderland and Leeds currently have approximately the same average rateable values. Sunderland is overspending by twice as much as Leeds, but instead of paying £21 more, people in Sunderland will, as a result of the relief, pay £27 less. It would be a much better solution to the problem, given its scale, if at long last we recognised that education is primarily a national service which should be funded by national and not local taxpayers.
Mr. Ridley: I am glad that my hon. Friend acknowledges the help that the rateable value specific grant will bring to areas in the north. There does not seem to be quite the same gratitude from the Opposition, but at least my hon. Friend sees the point. This is not the time for me to speculate on whether education should or should not be paid for out of local authority finance. Such debates were held in Committee and, given the statement on the assessments, I do not think that we can do it.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State said that he was unwinding the rate system. What he is unwinding this afternoon is his political career. It is quite magical to hear words from a political corpse. I hope that the Secretary of State will not be shuffled off in October. I hope that he stays at the Dispatch Box and suffers right up to the general election defeat that the poll tax will bring about. How come that a borough such as Newham——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had his chance.
Mr. Banks: How come that a borough such as Newham, which has the 11th highest rate in London, will end up with the sixth highest poll tax in London? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that Newham is the second most deprived local authority area in the whole of England and Wales? We have social problems that the Secretary of State does not even know about, never mind experienced.
Mr. Ridley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one matter; I hope that there will not be a reshuffle of the Opposition Front Bench because the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has not been here for

379
the last hour, is the greatest asset we have. He can tell his constituents from me that if they ever have the system of capital value rates and local income tax the average man on average earnings in Copeland will pay £1,116 to his high-spending Labour council.
Mr. Richard Holt: Would my right hon. Friend care to examine the situation in two neighbouring authorities, both of which I have the honour to represent in the House—Middlesbrough and Langbaurgh? Both authorities have approximately the same number of people, but there are two variants in terms of grant. Middlesbrough has a large ethnic minority and Langbaurgh has a large area of wasteland as a result of dereliction. Consequently, the ratepayers of Langbaurgh have the highest rate in the country to pay and endure. We have taken five separate delegations every year to see Ministers and each year we have been told, "Next year it will be different." Even when we came last week we were told that under the new system it would be different. But it is not different, and as a consequence I must tell my right hon. Friend that there will be outrage in Langbaurgh at the failure to recognise its special needs because it is not on the list, and will remain the highest rated in this northern area.
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend's constituency is another with a special problem like that of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay). My hon. Friend has seen my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and it is better for us to try to sort out the problem in the best way that we can. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that this year we have seen a 28·4 per cent. reduction in the business rate in Langbaurgh.
Mr. Harry Barnes: It has taken a long time for common sense to come to some hon. Members, as the question by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has shown. Is the Minister aware that fairness cannot be introduced to a system that is inherently unfair? In attempting to introduce some fairness to some areas, the transitional arrangements will lead to a comparative loss in high rateable areas while in low rateable areas there will be a comparative gain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said, problems arise in that some people will lose in low rateable value areas within constituencies that have a high rateable value, while people in high rateable value property in low rateable areas will gain. My constituency is directly affected by that, because some of the benefits that might transitionally come to other constituencies will not come to mine, as it is a mixed district area with different rateable values.
Mr. Ridley: Every constituency has different problems and different distributions of people and rateable values. There is nothing unique about that. We are seeking to phase out resource equalisation in the transitional safety net while at the same time providing protection for individuals through the very extensive system of rebates which should take care of anybody in an especially bad position.
Several Hon. Members rose ——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This statement refers to England. I therefore propose to call two for one because, of course, this is a United Kingdom Parliament and I shall then give Scottish Members an opportunity to put their point of view.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is only fair and equitable to help areas such as mine which have traditionally enjoyed low rateable values? Is it right that in Copeland, for example, the average rateable value per hereditament is £121 and therefore Copeland will benefit considerably from the statement? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that underlines that it is vital not to look at these matters in isolation, but to consider the alternatives? That is why my right hon. Friend was wise to warn people in Copeland on salaries of just £11,000 a year that they could end up paying £1,000 if the scheme of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is implemented.
Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will visit Copeland, as I hope to do, in order to make sure that the people there are made aware of that fact.
Sir Hugh Rossi: My constituents enjoy the unenviable distinction of having to pay the highest community charge in the country—£642 per adult. No doubt that is due to the fact that the local authority is overspending by nearly £400 per adult, and no doubt the electors will take account of that next May. Will my right hon. Friend tell me why a constituency in that situation should he making a contribution to the safety net? Will he introduce powers to rate-cap, and will he apply them vigorously to boroughs such as Haringey?
Mr. Ridley: Haringey is both a high-spending authority and a high rateable value authority, so its ratepayers currently contribute to other councils as well as having to pay a great deal to their own council.
I assure my hon. Friend that capping powers are in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and, if it is felt correct and necessary, we will not hesitate to use them.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The Secretary of State referred to what he called Labour party policy in relation to these seven pages. Can he tell the House the total cost of producing them—a cost borne by the United Kingdom taxpayer? Is the Secretary of State aware that, by producing these pages, he, personally has called into question the impartiality of the Civil Service? The head of the Civil Service ought to look at the damage that the Secretary of State has done to that service. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if Labour councils produced that kind of political propaganda the Secretary of State would impose a surcharge? We will be glad to see the back of him and of his double standards.
Mr. Ridley: I cannot understand why Opposition Members keep returning to this subject. It would be far wiser to try to forget it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I do not want to forget it. I am delighted for the hon. Gentleman to raise it. Opposition Members seem to be so extremely sensitive about their proposals being mentioned. That surprises me very much.

381
I have received a parliamentary question. Am I not supposed to answer it? Should I answer parliamentary questions from the Opposition but not from this side?
Mr. Tony Baldry: Is the reason that we are having to spend so much time this afternoon discussing safety nets, the consistent and persistent overspending by a large number of local authorities, almost all of which are Labour-controlled, such as the London borough of Lambeth which, on average, spends £303 per adult more than it needs to each and every year? Despite that, the council still has hundreds of council units of accommodation empty and hundreds that are full of squatters and it is spending thousands of pounds on the wages of former Labour Members of Parliament who have been defeated in an election and now act as its special advisers. Is it not necessary to introduce the community charge to protect the community as a whole from this consistent and persistent overspending?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Whether the new director general of Lambeth will succeed in putting up the community charge still further remains to be seen, but I would not be surprised if he did.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Can my right hon. Friend confirm two things? First, are all the swings that we are so exercised about very modest compared with those that would have resulted from rate revaluation? Secondly, would not areas such as Canterbury, where there have been enormous movements in house prices for reasons that have had nothing to do with local prosperity and a great deal to do with second home owners and other outside factors, lose very heavily if we retained the existing system?
Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The high house prices in some parts of the south-east, particularly his constituency, are the worst possible reason for the people who live there to be asked to pay more towards local government even when their council is a low-spending one. It is absolute nonsense at present. To bring it back in the form of an annual valuation—we must consider the expense of administering it—to clobber people who happen to live in areas where there are high house prices, is the most suicidal policy I have ever heard of.
Mr. Alex Salmond: What is the total additional funding that the right hon. Gentleman feels that he has to provide to meet the anxieties of English Tory Members now that the poll tax chickens have come home to roost? Does he realise that the maximum contribution change from £70 to £75 for 1990–91, implies an inflation rate for that year of 7·5 per cent.? Is that a forecast? If so, has he told the Chancellor?
Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman has listened to the statement, he would know that the aggregate external finance for England is £1·8 billion higher than the current year, which is an 8·5 per cent. increase. Those are the figures. The fact that they are higher than what we firmly believe the rate of inflation will be shows that this is quite a generous grant settlement.
Mr. Alistair Burt: On behalf of non-domestic ratepayers in the metropolitan borough of Bury, I welcome the anticipated 20 per cent. drop in their rate bills. Will my right hon. Friend reassure domestic ratepayers—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Give the hon. Member a chance.
Mr. Burt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can my right hon. Friend reassure domestic ratepayers as soon as possible that the main determinant of the community charge will be local authority expenditure rather than Government expenditure policy?
Mr. Ridley: I have no doubt that the very large reduction in business rate poundages which will reach the north with the introduction of the new system will make an immense difference to the prosperity of those areas and to their ability to maintain high levels of employment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of that.
We hope that the full community charge will begin to take effect as quickly as possible so that we get full accountability of councils to their electors. There will be two elements for a few years—the charge and the safety net—but that should not divert people from the essential task of looking at their community charge as a ready reckoner to assess the efficiency of their council.
Mr. Timothy Wood: I welcome the expected reduction in the business rate in Stevenage, which means that local businesses will be free from the high-spending local authority in that respect. The statement about safety nets clearly demonstrates the iniquities of the present system. I only wish that we were able to get rid of some of those iniquities rather more sharply.
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right on both points. This statement begins to get rid of the iniquities of resource equalisation rather more quickly than was originally expected.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the silence that greeted his statement before the unnatural break and the disarray that we have since heard from Conservative Members shows that the headless chickens are coming home to roost?
The attitude of those of us who are already suffering the poll tax and those of us who served on the Standing Committee on the Local Government Finance Bill who warned exactly what would happen to Tory Members who are now finding out about it is one of hell mend them, because they will find out a great deal more before it takes effect. Instead of spending money on bogus statistics, will the Secretary of State consider spending a little to set up a helpline for Tory Members who lose their seats because of the poll tax? There are plenty of counsellors available among former Tory Members in Scotland who lost their seats because of the poll tax.
Mr. Ridley: There are not nearly as many former hon. Members as there would be if there were a local income tax and capital value rates. In Cunninghame, North the Labour party would lose every seat if it brought that in.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the voters of Lancashire, West who, as a consequence of his listening to the arguments about a safety net, will now benefit by £25 a head? Will my right hon. Friend look at the figures in front of him for the Labour councils which surround Tory-controlled West Lancashire? He will know that every one of them—Knowsley, Wigan, St. Helens and Liverpool—will pay at least £40 or £50 a head, despite the fact that West Lancashire will contribute towards the safety net.
Mr. Ridley: It is a curious fact that the vast majority of authorities which can spend below their GREs are Tory-controlled and the vast majority which spend above their GREs are Labour-controlled. The reason for high community charges is high spending by inefficient Labour councils, and nothing else.
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks for seeing me and other delegates prior to this announcement, when we asked for a fairer system? Will he please record my bitter disappointment on behalf of the Birmingham ratepayers at the fact that this so-called juster technical system which he has found is one which increases even more the injustice faced by Birmingham poll tax payers? Will he think of a transfer to national taxation in line with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon)? That would mean that after the summer recess, we could, once and for all, do away with this iniquitous system which disprivileges the good housekeepers and is to the benefit of the bad.
Mr. Ridley: I must refer my hon. Friend to the fact that Birmingham currently contributes towards resource equalisation. The new system will phase that out. That is what we are doing, and that will be the beginning of the end of the rating system to which he objects so greatly.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many believe that the safety net provisions place a premium upon extravagance and a penalty on prudence? Will he confirm that the community charge payers of Barnet will be asked to pay £55, while the community charge payers of Islington will receive £173? In view of the lack of gratitude on the part of the recipients, will he consider ending this compulsory tax on Barnet's community charge payers? Will he confirm that the cost savings under competitive tendering can be as high as 20 per cent.? What would be the cost to the community of a local income tax?
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right—massive savings are available under the new competitive tendering, which authorities can take much further than they are required to do by the law. That is one way, among others, in which they can reduce their community charges. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who sat through the statement today, would agree that there are at least as many people who are grateful for the safety net as there are who resent having to contribute to it. It is obviously difficult to get the balance right, but I believe that in this case we have.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is well known that as you are Mr. Speaker, and stand as Mr. Speaker, you clearly cannot ask a question of a Minister, but you must have a constituency interest. I wonder whether I could assist you, Mr. Speaker, by asking the Secretary of State why, in Croydon——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman could best assist me by keeping his mouth shut.

Local Government Finance
  BILL PRESENTED
    LOCATION OF PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL
    Ms. Dawn Primarolo, supported by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. George Howarth and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, presented a Bill to restrict the location of pornographic material; to provide for licensed vendors of pornographic material; to extend the powers of trading standards officers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the Bristol Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Poll Tax (Popular Consultation)
6.14 pm
Mr. John Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the holding of a referendum before the coming into operation of the Local Government Act 1988.
After that statement, this could not be a more opportune moment to bring my Bill to the House. It will allay some of the fears of worried Conservative Members because it brings a solution to their problem: we should not have the poll tax. The Poll Tax (Popular Consultation) Bill is not an extension of the debate on the pros and cons of the poll tax which appear to be continually debated in this House. Debates have taken place in every town and city which have involved the community in the widest sense. Churches of every denomination have participated, as have charity organisations and every sector of the community, including bishops, priests and vicars. An overwhelming majority have reached the common conclusion that the poll tax is an unfair, regressive tax which discriminates against those with low incomes.
The public at large have a more detailed knowledge of the poll tax than of any other Government legislation which has passed through the House this Session. They are aware that the poll tax makes no allowance for extreme differentials in income or wealth. The public are aware that an elderly pensioner can be required to pay as much as a millionaire or a millionairess. The public want a fair local tax, determined by locally elected representatives and based on ability to pay, with a rebate scheme which would fully offset any hardship which a tax on low incomes would otherwise inflict.
The public have made an informed decision and have rejected a tax which resorts to bailiffs and the seizure of household goods. They have rejected a tax that will get its pound of flesh by imprisonment and, most importantly, they have rejected a tax which fundamentally threatens their democratic right to vote.
My Bill deals specifically with that right as a poll tax issue. My Bill will fully restore that fundamental democratic right, and because it offers every British citizen an extension of his or her democratic rights, its consideration by the House could not be more opportune. Its democratic expression has an affinity with the wider expression of democracy conveyed in the current celebrations of the French revolution, an important landmark in human rights, which coincides with other important democratic revolutions that have been enacted across eastern Europe.
They are all important landmarks in the advancement of the individual and the collective rights of the people. They are major historical events that tend to eclipse and overshadow the English revolutions, especially the peasant revolutions, when the general will of the people forced a dictatorial sovereign to remove a poll tax from the statute book. Regrettably, previous British sovereigns were no respecters of people's rights and offenders were the recipients of the ultimate in physical lessons, and had their heads removed. Steps were taken through the parliamentary process to prevent any succeeding sovereign from challenging the democratic rights of the people.
386
However, those parliamentary changes failed to foresee or anticipate political usurpation, intentionally or unintentionally, of the people's rights. That would require a Bill of Rights. Until that is on the statute book, I do not suggest that we should revert to the executioner's axe and, although I have heard people say that the Prime Minister behaves like a dictator, I do not suggest that we should remove her head—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The Prime Minister is supposedly Britain's greatest advocate of human rights, and lord of the rights of every nation and its citizens. She has stomped the streets of Moscow on walkabouts and met Russian dissidents. This weekend, she emphatically defined the high value that she supposedly places on the rights of the British people when she admonished the French President and reminded him of the Magna Carta. She supposedly stands spiritually shoulder to shoulder with Lech Walesa and the Polish people's rights. I ask her to stop denying the British people their rights. If the Prime Minister insists on continuing her charade, it will take Bills like mine to put her and her Government in their place.
I consulted the Prime Minister about a poll tax referendum. I wrote to her on 31 May, before the European elections, and said that I should like to make the most economic use of the polling station facility provided at considerable public cost to carry out a Coventry, North-East poll tax referendum, with the poll tax forms to be provided at my expense. She referred that request to the Home Office for its adjudication, and the Minister's response on 12 June explained that the polling station facility could not be used in that dual manner.
Having been denied that facility, and in the knowledge that the imposition of the poll tax is a matter of serious concern, not only to my constituents but to every hon. Member's constituents, I have introduced this Bill, knowing that it will have the widest possible support. Any Gallup or MORI poll would confirm that, as it would give every elector the same right of access to the ballot box as the Prime Minister imposed on every trade union member.
While this simply worded Bill may not be as visually impressive as the multi-page, word-saturated documents churned out by the Government, it is the most important Bill to come before the House this Session. It gets to the heart of the matter. It recognises the genuine will of the people as it provides them, in 30 frugal words, with the right to exercise their choice on the Government's infamous poll tax. I am grateful for this opportunity to bring the Bill before the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Bob Cryer, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mrs. Audrey Wise and Mr. Harry Cohen.

Poll Tax (Popular Consultation)
  POLL TAX (POPULAR CONSULTATION)
  Mr. John Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to require the holding of a referendum before the coming into operation of the Local Government Act 1988: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 October and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

Points of Order
6.22 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am amazed that the Bill moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) received the unanimous support of the House. It concerns a crucial matter, relating directly to the statement that we have just heard, and the critical questions that it raises. In view of the unanimity of the House, will you use your good offices to see whether there is any means by which we could, even at this late stage of the Session, facilitate the quick passage of the Bill, as it would not be opposed?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Second Reading is on 20 October.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We shall soon deal with 15 statutory instruments. Three of them carry on the Order Paper the notification:
"The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn the special attention of the House to the Instrument in its Twenty Sixth Report".
That report is in the Vote Office, but the Committee has not been able to conform with the Standing Orders and make a full report because it examined these instruments, which were drawn to our attention by our counsel, yesterday afternoon at 4.15 when we had our usual weekly meeting. That means that the evidence, which was taken over a period lasting well over an hour from civil servants involved in the drafting of the instruments, and which contains a great deal of background and elucidation material, cannot be provided for the House. In those circumstances, although this is not a point for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel that the statutory instruments should be withdrawn. By crowding through these statutory instruments, the Government are preventing a Standing Order from being operated. I wanted to draw that to your attention.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but it is for the House to decide whether it wishes to have regard to the Committee's opinion. There is nothing out of order about the motions before us. This is a matter for the House to debate and for the House to take a decision on at the end of the debate.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: We should really get on with motions 1 to 15 on water and public health.
Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on two issues. I hope that you will be able to consult Mr. Speaker on the first point, which concerns the problem that the papers with the statement were said to be available in the Vote Office, but were not. This problem has put Mr. Speaker and the occupant of the Chair, whoever that person is, in difficulty on numerous occasions. It is time that Mr. Speaker, you and others involved found a better way for making papers relevant to statements available to hon. Members when the statements are made. It is even more appalling that those papers are handed out to members of the press; they get a better service than hon. Members.
388
On several occasions the Secretary of State referred to a question that he had to answer, but it was a planted question, No. 215. This happens time after time. We always recognise those questions on the Order Paper because they bear that mark that shows that they were handed in for answer the day before.
What is particularly galling is that other hon. Members may have asked similar questions some time before, and got the answer afterwards in the reply to the planted question. The Chair should be making it firmly known—it is your job, Madam Deputy Speaker, to protect the interests of Back-Benchers—that the practice of Ministers, through their parliamentary private secretaries, of asking one of their colleagues to table these planted questions is to be deprecated and should be stopped.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the first point that the hon. Gentleman raised, I am sure that Mr. Speaker and my other colleagues in the Chair appreciate the sympathy that the hon. Gentleman and others have extended. I agree with what he said. As to the second point, it is a matter of procedure. I ask the hon. Gentleman to ponder it carefully and seek to raise the matter with the Select Committee on Procedure.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This concerns the documents appended to the statement, which we were told by the Secretary of State today referred to a parliamentary question outlining what the Secretary of State believes to be Labour policy. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is pure unadulterated lies and rubbish. Now——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has already dealt with that matter. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I must listen to it, but it must be a genuine point of order and not a matter for debate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is not a question for debate. I have tabled many questions over the past 10 years that I have been a Member of Parliament and on a number of occasions I have received the reply that questions cannot be answered because of disproportionate costs. In replying to that question, the Secretary of State has set a precedent because he has accepted that a certain question can be answered at a particular cost. I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Chair should establish what the cost was so that in future, when questions are not answered because of disproportionate cost, we might have the basis for appeal to the Chair to have the questions answered.
This is not a spurious matter. It is important because the precedent has been set for expensive questions to be answered. The Chair and Parliament should know what the cost was in this instance so that in future we can measure whether it is fair and reasonable for a Department to state that a question cannot be answered on the basis of disproportionate cost.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When a Minister responds to a question referring to the Opposition's policy—this arises during questions to departmental Ministers and especially during questions to the Prime Minister—the occupant of the Chair will invariably remind the Minister that it is for the Government to state what their policy is and that we should not respond by referring to the

389
Opposition's policy. That is because the Minister is responsible for Government policy. He has no responsibility for the Opposition's policy.
This afternoon we have seen an extension of the practice that Mr. Speaker deprecates during Question Time. When Mr. Speaker says that an hon. Member cannot continue asking questions about matters for which the Minister has no responsibility, the hon. Member must resume his place. In this instance, the Secretary of State for the Environment answered a planted question from one of his hon. Friends about Labour party policy——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not Labour party policy.
Mr. Skinner: I should have said "suggested" Labour party policy or "alleged" Labour party policy. As I have said, we have seen an extension of the practice that is deprecated by Mr. Speaker. If the practice is deprecated during oral questions, it is my opinion that the action of the Secretary of State for the Environment this afternoon should be deprecated and that it should be stopped.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the Minister. The points of order have been noted. We have a busy day before us and we must now proceed with the debate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I did ask for a ruling. I ask that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with Mr. Speaker, should establish the cost of answering the question which was the subject of my point of order. It would set a precedent for those of us who wish to establish whether we are being fairly treated.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time. I am familiar with the way in which he is able to elicit answers from Ministers. I suggest that he might take up the matter himself and seek the answer from Ministers by the various means available to him.

Water
6.33 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1147), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following motions:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Surface Waters (Classification) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1148), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Controlled Waters (Lakes and Ponds) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1149), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Pollution (Consents for Discharges etc.) (Secretary of State Functions) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1151), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water and Sewerage (Conservation, Access and Recreation) Code of Practice Order 1989 (S.I., 1989., No. 1152), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Director General of Water Services' Register (Inspection and Charges) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1154), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) (Designated Persons) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1155) dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Trade Effluents (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1156), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Pollution (Discharges by the National Rivers Authority) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1157), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Pollution (Radioactive Waste) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1158), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1159), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Pollution (Registers) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1160), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1161), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Appointment (Monopolies and Mergers Commission) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1162), dated 7th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Pollution (Revocations) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1150), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July. be annulled.
Mrs. Taylor: The motions relate to the regulations that the Government are introducing following the passage of the Water Act 1989. We are debating—yet again in rushed circumstances—important regulations that the Government are seeking to push through with the minimum time for consultation and discussion. So great was the haste of the Government to introduce the regulations that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had to insist on its right of proper scrutiny when the Government tried to bounce the Committee by presenting 15 sets of regulations and asking the Committee to deal with them within five days. That would have enabled the debate to take place last week, with even less time for consultation and discussion with outside groups.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said earlier, the Joint Committee had time to consider only three of the 15 sets of statutory instruments in detail. When the Committee had examined the three sets, it issued a pretty damning report in which it outlined the major defects and drew attention to sloppy drafting which should not form the basis of legislation. I hope that the Minister will clarify some of the issues that have been raised by the Committee. Its comments on the regulations are significant and important.
Everyone will agree that the water supply and water quality regulations, which relate to EC standards, are important. The Joint Committee reported that the drafting is defective and that there are unexpected uses of powers or provisions that give rise to doubt as to the vires of the regulations. Various examples are given.
The Committee queried regulation 3(6) with the Department's officials and witnesses. The Department's witnesses
"admitted that the drafting of the regulations was not successful."
Similarly, the witnesses admitted that the drafting of regulation 6(2) was defective and confusing. They agreed that the drafting of regulation 8(1) was deficient. The Committee asked the witnesses for the meaning of some of the phrases contained in the regulations. The witnesses confessed that the meaning was not revealed in the text because after the making of amendments there had been an accidental failure to make consequential amendments in the text of the instrument. It is obvious that the Government have yet again put their haste to rush these regulations through before the quality of the legislation that they have enacted. I could produce further examples, but I do not wish to detain the House too long.
The Joint Committee has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that, on the basis of its discussions and investigations, it has found an unusual and unexpected use of powers. The same criticisms are made of the water supply, sewerage service and customer service standard regulations.
When the Joint Committee was discussing these matters and taking evidence from departmental witnesses, the Department gave some assurances that amending regulations to rectify some of the drafting omissions would come into force on 1 September. We are nearing the summer recess and I ask the Minister what opportunity there will be for parliamentary scrutiny of the amendments. We have precious little time today to discuss 15 sets of regulations. If they are all as defective as the three that the Joint Committee identified, a host of defective regulations will be introduced while Ministers and their officials talk about possible consequent
392
amendments that it will not be possible to subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position. It is not good enough for Parliament to be asked to pass defective regulations which the Department has admitted that it intends to amend before they come into operation.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the hon. Lady agree that in these matters a balance must be observed? She will note that SI No. 1159 provides for the payment of penalty charges for unsatisfactory service. Is it not entirely desirable that the payment of such charges should become possible at the earliest date? Would not the course that she has outlined, where we might have to wait quite a long time for minor and technical defects to be rectified, prevent customers from availing themselves of the benefit of an entirely positive regulation?
Mrs. Taylor: The customer will not get the so-called benefits of the system in September. It will be quite some time before it takes effect. The problem is that the Government are intent on pushing ahead with privatisation as quickly as possible. That being so, they are not willing to consider the interests of consumers or of others. Our discussions on the Water Bill, as it then was, have been marked at every stage by the ridiculous haste and curtailment of debate which have been imposed by Ministers.
Fortunately, the public are not as naive as Ministers would wish and they have rumbled the consequences of privatisation despite, or perhaps because of, the Government's panic. There is no doubt that Ministers are longing for the recess so that they can make even more statements relevant and important to privatisation—perhaps on debt write-off or the value of the K factor—without even the degree of parliamentary scrutiny being allowed today. Given all the current speculation, it appears that Ministers responsible for the bad handling of the Act are likely to be out of the Department, even out of the Government, before the policy is out of the woods.
By allowing only three hours debate on 15 regulations, is the Minister saying that they are not sufficiently important to warrant more time? I believe that they are potentially very important. They could have helped to protect us from the worst consequences of privatisation—the threat to land, the problems that consumers will face in dealing with a private monopoly and problems with access to information.
A whole stream of regulations must be debated today in a short time. For example, there are the Surface Waters (Classification) Regulations, which comprise one group that we are happy to accept. I wonder why the Government accept 50 mg of nitrate per litre as an appropriate minimum standard for surface water extracted for drinking water when they opposed a draft EC directive set at the same limit. Is it simply that the Government are schizophrenic and will not agree to limits for Europe that they will agree to in Britain, or has there been a mistake and we are to have standards higher than some parts of the Government might wish? Of course, we do not make any complaints about that.
I hope that the Minister will answer one important question: to which waters will the regulations apply? Will he give us a straight answer? I hope that he will confirm that they will apply to all waters where there is abstraction

393
for drinking water. I hope that he will tell us tonight and not say that we will have an answer in a few weeks when everyone is on holiday.
Another set of regulations that cause concern, and that are certainly not adequate to give the protection that we need post-privatisation, are the Control of Pollution (Registers) Regulations. We acknowledge, even if the Secretary of State does not, that the public wants proper access to information and will increasingly demand it. The regulations are inadequate because they do not make it easy—indeed, they make it difficult—for the public to have meaningful access to critical information. Information is to be stored in a few places, in a technical form only, and there will be a charging system for access. That makes it difficult, to say the least, to obtain the information that the public may require. In addition, some water authorities define certain samples as operational and omit them from the register. That creates a huge potential for abuse.
We know that the Secretary of State has a new-found concern for accurate information. However, even before his statement this afternoon the Opposition had concluded that the old adage should be rewritten and that we should now say that there are lies, damn lies, statistics and Ridleys. The accuracy of the Secretary of State's information is—if I can say it—rather far from accurate.
We are not surprised that the Secretary of State and the Minister have not taken the opportunity provided by the regulations to improve public access to verified information. I hope that the EC directive on access to environmental information will ensure that information is not only available, but available in a form that can be readily used and readily understood by the public. It is a shame that the EC appears to be giving protection that should more appropriately have been provided by the Government.
The EC plays the same role in the drinking water regulations. It goes without saying that we welcome the transposition of the 1980 EC directive on drinking water quality into British law. After all, we pressed for that in Committee. We are concerned about the sloppy drafting referred to by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The transposition of that directive into British law takes us no further forward in the implementation of the directive. Only last week the Secretary of State pleaded with the European Commission for more time to implement a directive that the Government signed in 1980 and that should have been implemented by 1985. The Secretary of State said during the debate on Lords amendments to the Water Act that he could not accept the House of Lords deadline for compliance by 1993 because it was against Community law which gave a deadline of 1985.
We learned today that the Secretary of State was no more successful in pulling the wool over the eyes of the Commissioner than he has been in persuading the British public of the virtues of privatisation. No doubt he put the case badly. The basic position remains, and all outstanding action against the United Kingdom remains active. The Commissioner, despite the Secretary of State's comments to the contrary, is still not satisfied that the British Government have produced a reasonable timetable for compliance with the drinking water directive. The European Commission will take action against the United Kingdom on a variety of issues.
Mr. William Cash: Given the Opposition's feeling about this matter, is it not possible that, far from the Government taking a negative stance on the purity of water, they are in fact ensuring that any standards that are adopted are applicable to this country and its rivers and geological strata, which are not similar to those in the European Community? Are not the Government defending the British people, including my constituents, to ensure that there is water purity consistent with what we need?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's statement astounds me. The Government signed the 1980 directive and agreed to the standards and parameters laid down in it. Ministers have not said that they do not intend to implement the directive; they have simply failed to make any progress. Do the Government now intend to change their policy and, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, say that they should not implement the directive?
The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): The hon. Lady has failed to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Of course the Government intend to comply with the directive, including in the area represented by my hon. Friend, but we are not prepared to comply with it using technology that is unproven and may, in itself, lead to health risks for my hon. Friend's constituents.
Mrs. Taylor: That is complete nonsense. The Minister is looking to make excuses, because he wants to go hack on Government assurances on compliance. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) mentioned geological problems. There is scope in the directive for derogations where such problems exist. Earlier, the Minister accepted the need to implement the directive. If he is going back on that, the Commission will be very interested to hear about it.
Mr. Howard: I am not going back on it, but I hope that the hon. Lady is not challenging the bona fides of the advice on which we are acting, and which we put in detail to the Commission, on the denitrification technology that is necessary to comply with the nitrate directive in two areas of the country, including that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. That technology is not yet proven, and we cannot be satisfied that it would not itself pose risks to health. Is the hon. Lady challenging that evidence? If so, on what basis?
Mrs. Taylor: I am making the point that the Government are looking for excuses to delay action yet again. The Government have had since 1980 to produce their plans, but they deliberately prevaricated and delayed. They are now looking for even more excuses.
Mr. Michael Lord: It would be of great assistance to many right hon. and hon. Members if the hon. Lady would answer precisely the question just put to her by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister.
Mrs. Taylor: The Government obviously decided that they need to look for new excuses. When we debated the Lords amendments, the Secretary of State told the House that there was no need to worry about the problems surrounding nitrates because he would secure relaxations of the directive from the EC. Obviously he has not done so, so the Government are trying to change their tactics. We should be clear where responsibility lies. The Government signed the directive in 1980 and had nine years in which to

395
come up with a method of dealing with the problem. Instead, they sat on the problem, and now refuse to deal with it because they want to prepare the water industry for privatisation.
Mr. Howard: I shall deal with that point in due course, but will the hon. Lady stop prevaricating and answer the question that I put to her? Is she challenging the scientific basis on which we have yet to test the technology that is necessary to achieve compliance in respect of Stafford? If so, on what basis? Such matters are far too serious to be dealt with irresponsibly, as the hon. Lady is doing.
Mrs. Taylor: I am challenging whether the Government are serious about their intention to comply with the drinking water directive. The EC has been compelled to take action against the British Government in many areas. I refer to the lax interpretation of the lead parameter in Scotland, nitrites in Norwich, levels of aluminium and bacteriological standards in Bradford, levels of aluminium, lead, polyforms and high pH2 in Calderdale, nitrates in Redbridge, aluminium in Birmingham, and illegal derogation from the required aluminium levels in Yorkshire. Time and time again, the Commission asked the Government for their plans for complying with the 1980 directive. I repeat that, after nine years, the Government have still not come up with any.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: I have given way on a number of occasions, and I have revealed exactly what are the Government's intentions.
Contrary to the Secretary of State's statements when the Lords amendments were debated, there is no prospect of a general relaxation of the directive. The regulatory committee established to monitor compliance with the directive is charged with the responsibility
"to improve and accelerate practical implementation of these Directives, and while retaining the protection provided to man and the environment …"
As the Minister and his officials know, the only likely change will be a more comprehensive specification of the parameters for pesticides. Any other changes are likely to involve the setting of higher, not lower, parameters for substances such as aluminium.
The Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) Regulations 1989 have been proclaimed by the Minister as giving the consumer a better deal. However, by comparison with the consumers' charter that we advocated in Committee, the regulations are pretty meagre, and they are totally inadequate for the dangers posed to the consumer by privatisation.
The Minister consulted on those regulations, but unfortunately ignored many of the representations he received. Certainly he ignored many of those made by the National Consumer Council, though he may have listened to the people who hope to run the industry post-privatisation. The National Consumer Council, like ourselves, welcomes the basic principle of a guaranteed standards scheme and of a compensation scheme, but there is much that the council would like to change. It points out that the arrangements for consumer redress are complex and not comprehensive, when they should be simple and easy to understand and use. The NCC also comments:
396
"Because the balance of power between individual consumers and a monopolistic supplier"—
such as the water plcs will be—
"is weighted in favour of the industry, we believe the burden of proof must rest largely with the water and sewerage companies."
The council has many arguments with the Secretary of State and with the Minister for Water and Planning, and is disappointed that its representations were not taken on board.
The regulations lay down the arrangements that should be observed if appointments made by the undertakers are not kept, yet such appointments will be imposed by the undertakers and will not be the subject of agreement between the company and the customer. Moreover, the customer will have to prove that the record of an appointment made by the company is incorrect, which it will be very difficult for the individual customer to do.
As to the interruption of water supplies, obviously the hon. and learned Gentleman listened to the industry rather than to the consumer organisations. The draft regulations stipulated that there should be 24 hours' notice of an interruption of supply, but now the Minister proposes no minimum period of notice. The regulations incorporate a number of glaring anomalies. They include the provision that anyone in debt to a water company will not be entitled to compensation. That is likely to create problems, especially if one bears in mind what is likely to happen to water charges and that the prospect of metering is looming. Both will lead to an increased number of debts and a higher percentage of disputed bills. All in all, the regulations do little to strengthen the hand of the consumer, and I hope that the Minister will think again about them.
Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will this evening answer the question asked of him by a number of consumer organisations. Will he confirm that any undertaker that breaks the code of practice and does not follow the regulations' guidelines will be liable to lose its licence? As even some Conservative Members said, one is dealing with a private monopoly which will pose many dangers to the consumer.
Mr. Edward Leigh: This is a matter of grave importance to my constituents as I represent an area that has been accused of being high in nitrates. I hope that the hon. Lady will answer my question; she has not done so yet, although she has been given many opportunities. If she has her way tonight, my constituents may be put at risk.
Mrs. Taylor rose——
Mr. Leigh: I do not want any more prevarication. My constituents may be put at risk if Labour's proposal is implemented, because the necessary technology is not available. It is about time that she answered.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is scaremongering yet again. He knows very well that his Government signed that directive and agreed the limits on nitrate. The Secretary of State may think that he knows better than the EC and the health organisations what constitutes a safe nitrate level, but I assure him that his consumers would like the 1980 water directive to be implemented.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: No, I have already given way far too many times.
Let me say a little about what many consider one of the most important of all the regulations, and one of the most controversial. It is controversial because the Minister has been very misleading. I refer to what will happen to the land owned by the water authorities. What are the implications for conservation, access and recreation after privatisation?
Throughout our discussions the Minister has tried to play down the problem of the protection of public land—for, until privatisation, it remains public. We all know that he faces a dilemma. The water authorities own nearly half a million acres of land—much of it in areas of outstanding natural beauty, even if not all of it is formally classified as such. The Government have bowed to different pressures at different times. In the House of Lords they introduced first one and then another set of amendments, and then came up with the proposal that a share of the proceeds would go to the public. That was, at the least, an admission that land sales would result in a gain.
The Minister's basic problem is that if he places too many restrictions on the use of the land he will send what are, from his point of view, the wrong signals and messages to the City. He must keep open the prospect of money to be made from the development of the land. After all, the water industry is a no-growth—or, at least, low-growth—industry, and such industries are not usually very attractive to the stock market. The land represents the "carrot". That is why the code of practice on conservation, access and recreation is full of pious intentions but is, as a whole, almost unenforceable.
The Minister is paying lip service to the protection of public access. He recognises that he must say something about it, but he is not doing anything. Neither the Water Act nor the codes of practice will necessarily prevent the water undertakers, their subsidiaries, holding companies or subsequent owners of the land from blocking public access.
That is a deliberate policy. The Minister had a choice: he could have written into the legislation real constraints on the use of land and access to it, but he chose not to. The cash-register mentality has prevailed. That is the problem with all the regulations—the interests of the new public companies come before those of consumers. That is why we shall vote against the regulations tonight.
7.4 pm
The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): The speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) typifies the approach to the legislation that the Opposition have adopted from the outset. It was full of wild statements and allegations which the hon. Lady, when questioned, was completely unable to substantiate, although they were bound to give rise to considerable concern in her constituency as well as in those of my hon. Friends. These are serious matters, and they deserve to be dealt with seriously rather than being made the subject of the kind of trivial scaremongering that we have heard from the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the Minister saying that people are not concerned about the quality of their drinking water? If
398
they are not concerned, why is the Commission receiving more and more complaints from areas where nitrates and aluminium are causing problems?
Mr. Howard: I shall be dealing with the views of the Commission. The fact remains that the hon. Lady made specific allegations about the quality of drinking water in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and entirely failed to substantiate her challenge to the explanation that has been given of why we may not be able to comply with the Community's nitrate directive in my hon. Friend's constituency by 1993. She maintained her position with a series of generalisations that did not back up her point. That is a disgracefully irresponsible attitude, and the hon. Lady ought to be thoroughly ashamed of herself.
Mrs. Taylor: Does the Minister accept that neither I nor any other Opposition Member is taking action against the Government because of the standard of British drinking water—that it is the European Commission that is doing so?
Mr. Howard: The Commission recently issued a reasoned opinion in respect of drinking water in some restricted areas of the country. The first point to appreciate—this is something that Opposition Members do their utmost to conceal at every opportunity—is that practically every member country of the Community has already been taken to the European Court for breach of the directive. We are the only member country that has yet to appear before that court for breach of an environmental directive, and I am confident that we shall maintain our good record.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Is there not something odious and wrong about the fact that an unelected body like the European Commission can lay obligations on a sovereign country such as the United Kingdom—obligations that will cause the Government and people of this country great trouble and cost—when that body has no democratic credentials and is responsible to no one but itself? It can make these statements and make others bring forward commitments, and it is no water off its back, to coin a phrase. Is that not democratically odious, and, when he is being frank, does not my hon. and learned Friend have the strongest reservations about it?
Mr. Howard: I think that it would be unwise to travel down the road along which my hon. Friend has tempted me. He used the word "odious", however, and what I find odious are the remarks of people such as the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who, in a broadcast earlier today, welcomed the fact that this country was being taken to the European Court. That is both odious and disgraceful, and another reason for her to be thoroughly ashamed of herself.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: What I said was that I was sorry that it had come to this, and that I wished that the British Government had taken action. If the British Government are not willing to protect drinking water standards in this country, we need to use the Commission to do so. It is the Government who are acting disgracefully.
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Lady checks the transcript of her remarks, she will find that she did indeed welcome the fact that the Commission was proposing to take us to court.
Mr. Knapman: I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Will my hon. and learned Friend therefore speculate on why the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) takes no notice of the letter dated 16 May 1989, which is available in the Library, from the gentleman who purports to have powers over this country, Carlo Ripa di Meana, who said:
"I am pleased to say that these discussions have now come to a satisfactory conclusion. The amendments … along with the statement which I understand to have been made when introducing these amendments in the House of Lords, satisfy me that the UK Government intends to rectify any deficiencies in water supplies as quickly as possible taking certain practicalities into account."
Is there not an inconsistency in EEC matters?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to identify the substantial progress that we made during our discussions with the Commission. However, I want to deal with the one outstanding issue which relates to the nitrates directive and to the fact that we have said that we shall comply with it by 1993, the deadline which the Commission has set for us in all areas except two. We cannot guarantee that we shall be able to comply by 1993 in those two areas because we are not yet certain that the technology exists that can be used without risk to the health of those who live in those areas. These matters are still under discussion with the Commission. Detailed technical discussion of those matters is due to take place tomorrow between officials of the Department and officials of the Commission. I am confident that when the Commission learns at first hand of the technical details as to why it is simply not possible to give a guarantee that we shall comply in those two areas by 1993 it will see the overwhelming good sense of the British Government's case and we shall hear no more about the matter.
Mr. Chris Mullin: The Minister has had eight years to explain the technical difficulties to the EC. What has kept him?
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman had been half as assiduous during our deliberations on the Bill as he purports to be now, he would know the answer to that question because it has been given many times. The drinking water directive came into effect in 1980. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury suggested, it is perfectly true that we signed it in 1980. We, in common with many other member states, assumed that compliance with the directive would be assessed on the basis of the average of the samples that were taken. We wrote to the Commission in 1982 and set out our understanding of how compliance with the directive would be assessed. We received no answer. We assumed that we should be entitled to proceed on the basis that that would be the way in which compliance would be assessed.
Having written in 1982, we received no answer until the end of 1987 when, for the first time, we received a letter from the Commission which said that it proposed to assess compliance with the directive not on the basis of the average of the samples that were taken but on the basis that each and every sample that was taken had to comply with the directive. We are prepared to comply on that basis. We have not sought to challenge that interpretation of the directive, but any reasonable person must appreciate that, since that letter arrived only at the end of 1987, to comply with the directive on that basis would inevitably
400
take a little longer than would have been the case if compliance could have been assessed on the basis of the average of the samples, which is what we had assumed to be the case during the long period from 1982 to the end of 1987.
That point arose during our discussions last week with the Commission. The version that I have put to the House is in no way in dispute. When I put this version to the Commission, there was no riposte, or come-back, or any attempt to suggest that it was inaccurate in any way. That is the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It is also the answer to the question that was put more than once by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. That is the reason why we have not yet fully complied in every respect with the European Community's drinking water directive.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. and learned Friend deserves the sympathy of the House for having to deal with a Commission that is so lax in the way that it operates. I hope that he will bear in mind in his dealings with the Commission the profound dissatisfaction that many Conservative Members feel about the way in which detailed legislation that is proposed in this country is interfered with. I hope that he will do his best to ensure—as I am certain that he will—that the Commission bears fully in mind the needs of each member state when considering such detailed proposals.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps the last observation that I need to make on the matter is that I am confident, as I have already said, that our discussions with the Commission will lead to a satisfactory resolution of the problem without the need for the Commission to take us to the European Court. If the Commission were, notwithstanding all these matters, to take us to the European Court on the issue, I can think of few things that would be more calculated to bring the Commission into disrepute.
As for the remarks of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, is so far as they concern the regulations that are before the House and the Opposition prayer that the regulations should be annulled——
Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Howard: Before I deal with the hon. Lady's remarks, I shall give way again to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Marlow: I should like my hon. and learned Friend's views on one other subject. Is it appropriate that a European institution should be responsible for deciding the quality of the drinking water that comes out of the taps in each member state? Should not each member state be able to decide for itself? My hon. and learned Friend has said that he is confident that we shall meet the standards and that we always do, whereas other countries do not. Is he confident that the Portuguese, the French and southern Italy will be able to meet those standards? Are we being picked on? Is there some degree of political spite by the Commission?
Mr. Howard: I can reassure my hon. Friend on his last point. There can be no question of spite. It is certainly not true that we are being picked on, because practically every other member state in the Community has already been taken to court for breach of this directive. My hon. Friend

401
mentioned Portugal. Portugal is a shining exception. It has not yet been taken to the European Court. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the regulations do not yet apply to Portugal since it became a member of the EC only recently.
Mr. Lord: Before my hon. and learned Friend leaves the question of nitrates, is it not the case that throughout most of the country there is no difficulty in meeting the standards but that, in some parts of the country, because of unusual agricultural conditions due to soil types and agricultural practices over the years, many of which are extremely complicated and will take quite a time to sort out, there are peculiar problems as a result of nitrates? They can be removed from drinking water by means of blending and diluting the water in other ways, and that is what we do when we can. However, in order scientifically or chemically to remove nitrates from the water we need new technology which, as yet, we cannot be certain about. Therefore, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, it would be dangerous for us to proceed too quickly. The Government are looking at agricultural practices in those areas with a view to doing something about them, but will if not take some time? Is not my hon. and learned Friend moving forward as fast as he possibly can, given those limitations?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I agree entirely with what he has said, and I am grateful for his intervention which has entirely accurately expressed the position. There is only one important point that I ought to add to what he has said before we leave the subject completely. It is important that people should not be alarmed by the Opposition's scaremongering tactics and their irresponsibility. Even in those few areas where the directive's nitrates level is exceeded, it is important to appreciate that all our advice is to the effect that there is no danger whatever to people's health.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury used generalisations about the regulations and repeated the criticisms of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We accept its valuable criticisms. We shall put those matters right by means of amending regulations as soon as possible. We have not heard from the hon. Lady any reasons why the House should strike down these regulations. That is what the debate is about and what the Opposition's prayer asks the House to do—to strike down these regulations, which put in place the detail of the regulatory structure that is to be provided under the Water Act 1989 and provide the means of achieving those fundamental environmental improvements to which we are completely committed and which will secure for our people the cleaner water environment that they want.
We spent over 300 hours debating the Water Bill. Hardly one of those hours passed without our being told by the Labour party how keen it was to see environmental improvements put in place. At every turn Labour Members assured us that they recognised the mistakes that their party had made and that their record in government was lamentable. They said that they now wanted to improve matters and put those improvements into place. At the first opportunity of translating those words into action in respect of these regulations, their reaction is to pray against them, strike them down and deny our people the means of improvement that the regulations represent.
402
What do the regulations achieve? To what do the Opposition object so violently that they wish to strike them down? Are they the water drinking regulations? For the first time, they incorporate directly into the law of England and Wales the European Community's drinking water directive and, in many respects, go beyond it, imposing standards more stringent and demanding that those in the directive. Our view—this may be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—is that the Commission should not be the final arbiter of drinking water standards in this country and there are respects in which we should go further than the Commission's directive would suggest. When that is the case, we do not hesitate to do so, and that is what the regulations provide.
For hour after hour during our debates on the Water Bill, the Opposition told us how keen they were to see the drinking water directive incorporated into our law. We were criticised for not incorporating it directly into statute. Now we have brought forward regulations that will achieve the incorporation of the drinking water directive, and more, into our law. What on earth are the Opposition doing voting against it, seeking to strike it down, seeking to deny our people the benefits that this provision will secure?
Why do the Opposition want to strike down the regulations that will give effect to customer service standards and the payments that the new companies will have to make when they breach them? The regulations provide for the £5 cash payment or credit for each occasion or day on which certain standards are not met. Why do the Opposition want to deny that benefit to customers of the privatised water industry?
Why do the Opposition want to strike down the regulations that provide for some of the details of the operations of the National Rivers Authority, increasingly recognised as the strongest environmental protection agency in Europe? Hour after hour in debate on the Water Bill we were told that the NRA lacked teeth. In many respects, these regulations give it those teeth. The Opposition's immediate reaction is to seek to extract them by striking down these regulations.
Mr. Cash: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, contrary to the views that are consistently expressed by the Opposition, including the Front Bench, on matters relating to water and water pollution, Conservative Governments have consistently—all the way through, from 1875, to 1936 and 1974—introduced legislation to improve trade effluents and deal with pollution? The whole of the Opposition's policy is constructed on a consistent policy of hypocrisy.
Mr. Howard: I know far better than to take issue with my hon. Friend on any matter relating to the 19th century, but I am happy to be able to agree fully not only with his reference to what happened in that century but with his more recent references. He is right; we have always taken these matters seriously. One need look no further than the history of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Labour Government's shameful neglect to implement it and do anything that would have enabled the public: to play a part in monitoring water pollution. Labour's record—or lack of it—speaks for itself.
Why does the Labour party wish to strike down the provision for the code of practice on conservation, access

403
and recreation? This document, in draft, was described by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), whom I am delighted to see in his place, as fine in principle and welcomed by many organisations. Since then it has been further improved. It is an important step in ensuring that the privatised water industry acts in accordance with the considerable duties laid upon it in the Water Act. What on earth is the Labour party doing in seeking to strike down the order that gives effect to that code of practice? Labour's attitude passes all comprehension.
I shall explain to the House exactly what the regulations and orders will achieve and why it is so important for the future of our water environment that they be approved by the House. The drinking water quality regulations are perhaps the most important of all these measures. If there were any doubts about the Government's commitment to high quality water supplies and to full implementation of the Community's drinking water directive, those doubts must surely now be laid to rest. The regulations comprise a comprehensive system for safeguarding the quality of our water supplies.
Sir Hugh Rossi: My hon. and learned Friend has just said that the regulations are a comprehensive scheme for protecting our water supply. I understand that the regulations relate only to drinking water. As he knows, the Environment Select Committee was concerned with wider problems of water quality. Can my hon. and learned Friend say when those other matters—for example, river quality—will be tackled and, in particular, give the timetable for laying down water quality objectives under section 105 of the Water Act?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am dealing with the measures that cover the drinking water regulations. Other regulations before the House touch on those wider matters, including the powers of the National Rivers Authority and the extent to which the public will have access to records on river water quality. My hon. Friend is right: the regulations do not deal with river water quality standards.
We want to deal with those matters as soon as we reasonably can, but I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it would be sensible to await the NRA's advice before these standards are set. That is one of the more important functions of the NRA. It will advise the Secretary of State on the setting of the standards and, when they have been set, the NRA will have the important task of regulating discharges to ensure that those standards are met. We are some way off putting those standards into place, for the good reason—which I hope that my hon. Friend will accept—that it is important to have the NRA's advice before we take that step.
The drinking water regulations fully incorporate the stringent requirements of the Community directive directly into our law and go well beyond it in a number of important respects. They make it absolutely clear that all water supplies must comply not only with the European Community's quality standards but with 14 additional national standards. These include controls on certain chlorinated solvents, copper and zinc and acidity. The lead
404
standard is also tighter than the one set in the directive. We believe that it is important to continue reducing people's exposure to lead from any source.
The regulations provide for frequent monitoring and analysis. They lay down minimum sampling frequencies far higher than those in the directive. For example, the regulations specify monitoring frequencies for aluminium, iron and manganese at least four times higher than those in the directive. They require sampling normally to be done at the consumer's tap and impose requirements relating to the collection and analysis of samples, with laboratories subjected to independent quality control checks. In addition, the drinking water inspectorate to be established shortly will check on the water undertakers' monitoring and analysis.
There are a number of new requirements for water treatment. All water supplied will have to meet certain minimum treatment requirements. Many more water supplies than now will have to be treated to reduce plumbo-solvency. No new chemical or product will be able to be used in treatment or mains relining unless its use has been approved by the Secretary of State.
The availability of information on water quality is crucial. People are entitled to full information about the quality of their water supply. For the first time, comprehensive information on water quality will be published regularly in a way that highlights whether supplies are complying with the quality standards and, if they are not, what is being done about it. A public record containing information about analytical results for every water supply zone will be established from next January. It will show clearly whether samples comply with the standards set in the regulations, particulars of any relaxations from the standards granted by the Secretary of State, details of any undertakings given under section 20(5)(b) of the Water Act for each zone and progress with those undertakings.
The public record will be held at all water offices normally open to the public, and the address and telephone number of one of these offices will be on the annual water bill sent to each customer.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that there will be a charge for access to that information?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady made that allegation in the course of her remarks. She is wrong about that as she has been in so many other respects. No charge will be made for access to that information.
Mrs. Taylor: Is the Minister saying, therefore, that there will be completely open access to and complete accountability of all information? Can the Minister go further and say whether that information will be presented in a form that is understandable by the layman, or are we to see computer print-outs such as the present print-outs, which are coded and virtually unintelligible to the layman? That is not proper access to information, is it?
Mr. Howard: Here again we see the Labour party's attitude——
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Answer the question.
Mr. Howard: We see it at its most unattractive. Information will be available in the form in which it becomes available to the water undertakers. They will

405
provide information about the samples that they take. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that someone else should edit the information and put it in a manner that, she says, would then be understandable by the public? Who would be the first to complain in that case that the figures were being doctored, if not the hon. Lady herself?
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister want the public to have access to meaningful information or not?
Mr. Howard: I do, and that is why the information is being made available in the way in which I have suggested.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. and learned Friend will probably know that in the gas industry, for example, consumers are entitled when they receive their hills to tick a box saying that they want a declaration of calorific value supplied to them. Will my hon. and learned Friend examine the method used in the gas industry to see whether it might be a useful way for consumers to ask for information about water supplies? Does my hon. and learned Friend also agree that the Opposition are talking sheer rubbish? I doubt whether one in a million people want to waste time on this. Only those who are stirring up this nonsense will want to. Those of us who have been drinking tap water for many years are surviving perfectly safely and do not want this nonsense perpetrated.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is correct in describing the Opposition's remarks as absolute nonsense. I cannot make an estimate of the number of people who will want access to these records and information, but I am determined that anyone who wants to should be able to gain access and see the information. That is what the regulations provide. On my hon. Friend's first point, I will study the matters to which he referred. However, he will appreciate that there are considerable differences between the gas and water industries and it may not be possible to adopt the precedent in the way he suggested.
Mr. Raffan: Does not the performance of members of the Opposition Front Bench on access to information contrast sharply with their behaviour when in office when they kept details of discharge consent applications secret from the public? They prevented the openness and access to information that this Government are now providing.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Dewsbury to complain about the fact that the information will not be comprehensible when the Government whom she supported—and she was a Member of Parliament at that time—denied the customer access to that information altogether. It was not a question whether the information was comprehensible. The information was not available as a result of a deliberate act of a Government whom the hon. Lady supported day in and day out in the Division Lobbies.
Local authorities have a continuing interest in the quality of water supplies. The regulations will help them by requiring the water undertakers to send them additional information about supplies in their area at regular intervals. There is also a duty on water undertakers to notify both the local authority and the health authority immediately anything happens to a water supply that could be a significant health risk.
The principal task of the new drinking water inspectorate will be to check compliance with these
406
regulations. It will have access to all the undertakers' records and will carry out a technical audit of its results, sampling and analysis arrangements, progress on its compliance programmes and action taken where a standard is breached. If the inspectors find any shortcomings, they will need to discuss corrective action with the undertaker and advise the Secretary of State on the use of his enforcement and prosecution powers. They will also produce regular published reports on their activities.
All these measures add up to a first-class system for ensuring that the high quality of water supplies in England and Wales is maintained and further improved. Tight legally enforceable standards, full disclosure of information, Government commitment to full compliance with the Community directive and a new team of inspectors provide the proof. Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain to the House what precisely she objects to in these regulations and why she will recommend the House to vote them down later this evening.
The second group of instruments is concerned with the control of pollution. They carry forward the updating and strengthening of the pollution control system in the Water Act and give immediate effect to the new systems from the transfer date. These instruments put in place from transfer date the essential regulatory mechanisms required to maintain and carry forward the basic element of the pollution control system—the regulation of effluent discharges.
In addition to this essential structure, the Act provides new powers for pollution control, including those for setting up protection zones, and further precautions in respect of dangerous substances. It introduces systems classifications and provides the basis for the system of statutory water quality objectives to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir. H. Rossi) referred. We shall be bringing forward further statutory instruments under these new powers when we have been able to complete the detailed preparations necessary. These will include, most crucially, taking advice from the new expert body and the strongest environmental agency in Europe, the National Rivers Authority. These instruments will be available to be taken into account in the river quality survey beginning in 1990.
Let me make clear the fundamental principles underlying the regulations. The first is openness and public accountability. In the Control of Pollution Act 1974 public registers, Britain already has a notably open and accountable system of water pollution control. These regulations extend it. They provide, for instance, for the inclusion of additional material, including in due course relevant river quality objectives and other data. In addition, they remove anomalies and loopholes in present arrangements and notably they require that in future the time limit for inclusion of data on the registers is to run from the taking of the samples rather than the receipt of the analysis by the registrar. We have recognised that consent arrangements could allow excessive delay in inclusion of results on the register and we are remedying that.
The second key principle is the absolute separation of poacher and gamekeeper. The NRA will itself make few discharges, but it will make some—for instance, from fish farms. In all the circumstances, it is clearly appropriate

407
that some authority other than the NRA should be responsible for authorising them. Accordingly, one set of regulations modifies the Act to cover these circumstances.
The third key feature of the regulations is their rigour and comprehensiveness. It is obviously of the greatest importance that there should be public confidence in the probity and effectiveness of the system for granting applications for discharge consents. The regulations provide full and formal arrangements on such matters as public representations, appeals, and treatment of commercial confidentiality.
I ask the hon. Member for Dewsbury again—although her attention seems to have wandered from the serious matters and from the regulations, which are so important to the future of our water environment—which of these principles and which aspects of the regulations the Opposition object to.
Let me deal with the regulations on surface water classification on which the hon. Lady asked a specific question. She seems to be wincing. She took the trouble to ask a specific question and I take it that she wants it answered. If she contains herself for a moment, she will have the answer. As I said, I shall deal with the regulations on surface water classification and the associated order in respect of ponds and reservoirs. Together, they provide for due implementation of an important Community directive, directive 75/440 on the quality of surface water for drinking, and a critical link between the quality of water in the environment and in supply. They involve a first and preliminary use of the powers to introduce systems for water quality classifications, which will be used in due course for the general classification of surface waters for the establishment of quality objectives. These general classifications will cover not only standards necessary for abstraction of drinking water but also for fisheries, conservation, irrigation and other purposes.
It is, however, necessary to put in place now the system for the classifications in respect of abstraction for human consumption so that the level of treatment required for different qualities of water entering the supply system may be determined. That is so that we can put in place a regulatory framework for the new water supply companies and can give effect to the EC surface water abstraction directive. The regulations incorporate the mandatory EC values. Water authorities have already classified the waters from which thy abstract on this basis, but monitoring for compliance with the classifications will in future be a matter for the NRA.
The relevant lakes and ponds order is required simply to ensure that pollution controls apply to all waters from which water is abstracted for supply purposes. The hon. Member for Dewsbury has the answer to her question. Without that, we could not guarantee that all abstracted waters were properly classified and regulated.
A final measure concerned with the control of pollution deals with the discharge of trade effluent to sewers. Where these contain dangerous substances, they will be subject to authorisation by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Allen McKay: The Minister will recall that in Committee I asked about the pollution of rivers from old mine workings and referred to the fact that the Act would remove British Coal's responsibility in respect of polluting rivers. When we
408
produced evidence of the problem and asked for certain assurances, Ministers told us that they would consider the matter and give assurances, before the Bill became an Act, that grants to local authorities would, or could, be made to overcome the problem. Are we to get that assurance before this legislation leaves this place?
Mr. Howard: I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that he would consider the nature of the grants available and draw them to the hon. Gentleman's attention. We shall ensure that that is done, if it has not already been done. My inquiries suggest that the water authorities are concerned about the problem; they are aware of it and are considering ways in which they can contribute to dealing with it.
An important element of the environmental package within the Water Act is the code of practice on conservation, access and recreation. I do not intend to say much about the code itself, which we debated at length in Committee. Its scope, its detail, and the fact that in our view it embodies the very best available guidance on these matters speak for themselves, but I ask the House to note three points.
First, the code was laid before Parliament within an hour of the signalling of Royal Assent to the Bill. That is a measure of our determination to take the code seriously and to put its provisions into effect at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Mullin: Does the Minister agree that the real measure of the Government's determination will he whether the code of practice is enforceable?
Mr. Howard: Of course the code of practice will be enforceable, and of course it will be taken into account when decisions are made about the extent to which the undertakings are carrying out their statutory duties, which are specified in some detail in the Act. Has the hon. Gentleman already forgotten the many hours that we spent in Committee debating these measures? He knows perfectly well that the code is enforceable. That is why it is the subject of the regulations. That is why it is given statutory force.
The Opposition continue to claim that the code will have little effect. When we put the draft before them in Committee, they claimed that the original draft would be diluted and weakened. In fact, it is fuller and stronger. We took the consultation process very seriously. We have taken on board many of the points that were made during the consultation exercise and the draft, which was commended by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe during our deliberations in Committee, is now even better than it was when it attracted his complimentary attention.
Mr. Elliot Morley: I shall deal with this matter later in the debate. I think it fair to say, however, that the code before us now is not, in essence, the same as the draft code, which, while I felt it was good in principle, had many weaknessess in practice.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the code is not the same as the draft code. It is better than the draft code, it is stronger than the draft code, and it is more complete than the draft code was. It has been welcomed by the environmental organisations, which we consulted in detail on it. I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that the agreement between us

409
about the excellence of this code is so far undisturbed—even after his recent intervention. Of course, our agreement may not survive his speech later in the debate. No doubt he has been got at by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and I have a nasty suspicion that we shall hear as churlish a speech from him as we heard from her. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will prove me wrong.
I do not propose to say more than a few words about the other measures before the House.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: If one accepts for one moment that the Minister is right and that the code is stronger than the original draft, could that not be because, despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, he recognises what Opposition Members and the associations of conservation groups outside the House know—that many aspects of the code are not worth the paper on which they are written because its terms are not enforceable? It is easy for the Minister to strengthen the code given that he knows that it is not important.
Mr. Howard: That is a most extraordinary statement. The House is debating regulations that will have statutory force. They will be debated in another place early next week and they will be part of the law of the land. The Secretary of State, on whom substantial duties are placed by the Water Act, will be obliged to take into account the provisions of the code in carrying out his duties. If he does not take into account the provisions of the code sufficiently, he will be subject to judicial review by the independent courts. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) must be aware of that. How can he possibly suggest that the code will not have any force? Of course it will have force, and it will act as a further powerful reinforcement of our determination to ensure that the legislation gives us the highest possible standards for our water environment.
The regulations are a necessary development of the framework for regulating the privatised water industry in the Water Act 1989 recently approved by Parliament. They are an important part of our policy to privatise the water industry as the quickest and most cost-effective way in which to ensure that we all benefit from even higher water standards. I am sure that their provisions will be welcomed by those concerned to achieve better standards in industry and, in particular, better environmental standards. I invite the House to reject the prayers of the Opposition.
7.49 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: It feels like it has been a long day already so I will not delay the House for too long.
I shall vote against the regulations because of the discretionary powers that they give to the Secretary of State. Obviously we do not trust him, and after the debate on the poll tax his own Back Benchers do not trust him. When will the Conservative party realise that it is no good to Euro-bash any more? It tried that during the European elections and it was defeated. It is sad, and it brings no honour to the House, that a European Commissioner must protect our people because their Government have failed to do so. Conservative Back Benchers seem to take pleasure from criticising the Commissioner because he is not British, but that gentleman is doing a service to this country by ensuring that our water standards come up to a reasonable level.
In a debate earlier this month we learnt that 10·8 million people in England and Wales are drinking water
410
that is not of a standard recommended by the EEC. The Government have been in power for 10 years, but after that time their record on water purity means that 20 per cent. of the population is drinking sub-standard water. Things will get worse rather than better.
Currently, because of privatisation, the Government are forcing water authorities to relax standards regarding the sewage that goes into our rivers and seas. In certain areas—my constituency is one of them—relaxation of standards at sewage works means that effluent will go into the river before water is drawn off to become drinking water for my constituents. Such is the policy advanced by the Government and it is little wonder that we are wary of anything that the Minister proposes.
The Minister said that information about standards would be made clear to the public. I have had an example of the simple approach that has been adopted by North West Water. As the Member of Parliament for Carlisle I properly asked that water authority whether it could supply me with the details of the sewage works in Carlisle for the last year. I was sent 10 pages of computer read-out. No explanation was given; instead, the pages detail such things as sussols, bods and Mg/Ls. The public will not know what they mean and it is clear that that water authority has no idea what the public wants to know. Fortunately, earlier in my life, I worked in a laboratory and therefore I could understand the information. That document shows that North West Water has been acting illegally in my constituency. It is clear that 8 per cent. of the effluent going into the River Eden, one of the finest salmon rivers in Britain, is above the acceptable standard.
What have the Government done about such things? The answer was given in a document published by the Friends of the Earth, which states:
"Your water authority has been discharging sub-standard sewage effluent. That's illegal. Selling off water companies that break the law is not easy … so the Government's solution is to relax the standards for over 1,000 sewage treatment works. That's legalised pollution".
We shall vote against the regulations because we do not trust the Secretary of State. Alarm has been created in my constituency and I am sure that the Secretary of State has received many letters voicing that alarm. As late as Saturday I received one from the Rockcliffe parish council.
Mr. Howard: The point about regulations is that they become part of the law of the land, which must be obeyed by everyone, including any Secretary of State, whether the hon. Gentleman trusts him or not.
Mr. Martlew: Presumably the Minister believes that the 10-page document I received from North West Water abides by the law of the land. It may abide by the word of the law, but not the spirit of it.
I received a letter from Rockcliffe parish council which was odd because it is not part of my constituency and nor is it a hotbed of Socialism.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Given the hon. Gentleman's sophistry, I must tell him that my colleagues and I are rather concerned that the list that he flourished from North West Water is the pools results for the last available football Saturday. He is wrong to suggest the Government have lowered standards. For years there has been a derogation from standards, but it is untrue to say that the Government have lowered standards. The hon.

411
Gentleman and I spent many months debating the Water Bill in Committee and surely he accepts that one of its important features is that it will raise standards?
Mr. Martlew: I agree that standards should be raised, and nothing would please me more than if North West Water wrote to me to say that it would stop polluting the River Eden. In fact it has increased the level of pollution by 25 per cent., and it will still be within the law. I am happy to put the document in the Library if the hon. Gentleman wants to look at it, if he has time after finishing a game of squash in the morning.
Rockcliffe parish council wrote to me because sewage from my constituency is polluting its lovely village. It wrote:
"The Council wishes to complain in the strongest possible terms against the proposal by the North West Water Authority to increase by 25 per cent. the amount of sewage released into the River Eden at Carlisle."
It states that current standards are not good enough and that Rockcliffe has to put up with all sorts of terrible pollution. The parish council also mentioned Rockcliffe marsh, which is on the Solway, and which is one of the finest wildlife havens in the country. The council asked me what I would do. I am asking the Minister whether he will retract the instructions given to North West Water. If he does not issue such a retraction, will he turn down any subsequent applications from North West Water?
People are extremely concerned about their drinking water, about effluent and the state of our rivers. They do not want privatisation, but the debate is not about privatisation. It is a sad day when Europe must protect the British people from their Government. I hope that we will win tonight.
7.57 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for his comprehensive and erudite explanation of the regulations, which satisfy all reasonable people, including my hon. Friends.
There are many regulations, but I shall restrict my comments to three that relate to drinking water quality, the control of pollution and access to land when owned by the water companies.
The regulations fully incorporate the requirements of the European drinking water directive into British law. In Committee it was suggested that either the regulations would not be introduced or, if they were, they would be literally watered down. The regulations, however, go well beyond the requirements of the drinking water directive. My hon. and learned Friend has said that there are 14 additional national standards. He mentioned industrial and chlorinated solvents, copper, zinc and acidity standards. Perhaps the most important of all in terms of public perception is the lead standard, which is also tighter than that allowed for in the directive. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will agree that that, coupled with tighter controls on vehicle emissions, will help to satisfy the public.
Timing is all-important and 1995 is a realistic deadline. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said, the 1993 deadline is not. He said that the amendments proposing a 1993 deadline
412
"ignore the question of practicality. Large investment programmes cannot be carried out overnight for very practical reasons that have nothing to do with the money involved."—[Official Report, 3 July 1989: Vol. 156, c. 92.]
My brother is a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and the citizens of Wincanton and several other towns and villages up and down the country have particular reason to be grateful to him. Their effluent goes downhill and is treated in modern premises in an approved place. We are now in 1989. The companies have yet to come into being, and planning permission must be sought. Quite apart from the units having to be designed, planning permission will take some months.
The planning and building of sewage stations provides the opportunity to put modern pipes under most of the streets of each village and town in the locality, and that must be done with a minimum of disruption to the local population or the local Member of Parliament's life is not likely to be pleasant for some time.
It is no wonder that the European Environment Commissioner observed of Britain that no other country in Europe now has such a determined awareness of environmental problems. I am surprised that Opposition Members did not mention that. After all, that was printed in The Guardian, which is their bible, on 17 July 1989. I am sorry that they missed it.
The regulations lay down requirements under the Water Act in respect of sampling, analysis, treatment of water and available information to customers—all matters which were lacking under the previous Labour Government. In particular, they specify minimum frequencies for the sampling of supplies and require sampling normally to be done at the customer's tap. That is the most important point at which sampling should be undertaken.
The regulations impose requirements relating to the collection and analysis of samples and specify that the laboratories must be subject to independent quality control checks. All water supplies will have to meet several minimum treatment requirements. No new substance will be cleared for use in water treatment or for the relining of pipes unless it has been approved by the Secretary of State. That will reassure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) who, a few months ago, spent some four or five hours on that subject. The public have to be reassured that additives to water supplies can be made only under the strictest of conditions.
Comprehensive water quality information will be published regularly, enabling customers to see which supplies regularly comply with quality standards and, where they do not, what action is being taken to remedy the situation.
The second group of statutory instruments deals with pollution. They carry forward the updating and strengthening of the pollution control system in the Water Act and give immediate effect to the new system from the date of privatisation.
Again the Opposition have said that 1993, not 1995, is a responsible deadline. But what credence can their proposals have when they have yet again failed to answer questions that we have put to them time and again? Can the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) explain why the Labour Government took no action to implement part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which deals with river pollution? We await the answer to that. Why did the previous Labour Government

413
prevent members of the public from initiating prosecutions of river polluters—a subject on which we heard so much in the Committee which considered the Water Bill?
Mr. Pike: Whatever the Labour Government did in the period up to 1979, is not the simple fact that the Labour Government were in office for four years while this Government have been in office for 10 years? The important point is what the Government have done in those 10 years.
Mr. Knapman: But on what basis can the Opposition say that the 1995 deadline is too late and that it should be 1993? The investment that is necessary can come about only through our proposals. It will never be achieved through the Treasury under a Labour or a Conservative Government.
Mr. Raffan: If the Conservative Government did what the Labour Government did when they were in power and cut expenditure on river infrastructure by 50 per cent. there would be an outburst of horror. The Government have increased expenditure, yet the Opposition still dare to attack us. Of course we shall remind them of their record because it is so deplorable and disgraceful.
Mr. Knapman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend who, as always, makes his point well. Outrage comes easily to Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) knows, Opposition Members do not like to be reminded of previous Labour Governments' records.
Opposition Members know well the questions that I have to ask, because we have asked them so many times. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has asked them on occasions. He might care to take over for a moment or two. How did the previous Labour Government discharge their responsibilities for monitoring pollution by sewage treatment works when it kept no records of the adequacy of their performance? Will the Opposition explain why the previous Labour Government kept details of discharge consent applications secret from the public and refuse to let them participate in the process of granting them?
We have asked those questions before and we shall ask them again. I suspect that we shall get no answer, but that does not really matter, does it? With that record, what right do the Opposition have to lecture us on whether 1995 is a reasonable date for achieving those ends? They know well that if a Labour Government came to power again—an unlikely event—they would have no more chance of achieving those standards than they did in the past.
Water authority land was also a subject of protracted exchanges in the Committee which considered the Water Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth for not suggesting that the proceedings have been truncated, as he did last week. I think that I heard my hon. and learned Friend the Minister say that we have now been debating these issues for 300 hours. I am not sure whether we are just coming up to 300 hours or have just exceeded 300 hours, but that is hardly truncated.
After privatisation, water companies will be under a duty to make their waters and associated land available for recreation so far as that is consistent with their other functions. My hon. and learned Friend has leaned over backward to oblige the persistent lobbyists on that matter. However, will he confirm that the main defence against unwelcome developers on water authority land must be the
414
planning process? If something is wrong, the answer is not to introduce separate Acts of Parliament on every conceivable subject, but rather to ensure that any inadequate planning processes are changed.
I was born and brought up on the northern slopes of Dartmoor and I know that planning regulations in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are particularly strict and would prevent any unsuitable development on water authority land after privatisation, as they do now. The Government's proposal to give every district authority the duty to draw up local plans will strengthen the planning system further to protect against unwelcome development. I do not know whether the proposals are perfect, but they are far better than anything that has gone before.
I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends take what is possibly the last opportunity before the recess to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and his colleagues on the splendid way in which they have taken the legislation through the House since the middle of December.
8.12 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: The substance of the regulations is an increase in the powers of the Secretary of State. Those powers have the potential to undermine some of the promises made during the passage of the Bill. We must welcome the adoption of the European Community directive on drinking water. However, we must ask when the proposals in it will be implemented. During the debate on the Lords amendments the Government defeated the amendment relating to implementation by 1993. Will the Government tell us when they propose to implement the directive?
The European Commission is to be congratulated on its insistence that the Government should stop ducking and weaving over the introduction of drinking water standards. The Commission has asked the Government to tell it within two months what they will do about implementing the nitrate directive. Will the Minister tell us when he will reply to that demand from the environment Commissioner?
Mr. Raffan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain how the Government are ducking and weaving on the European Community directive when they have incorporated it in law and have imposed 14 additional national standards. That is an extraordinary way to duck and weave. Long may Governments continue to do that when it means improving on the standards that have been put to us by Europe.
Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman does not say when the directive will be implemented. We are all waiting for an answer to that. We welcome its adoption but when will it be implemented? The European Commission has posed that question and so far we have not had a clear answer.
Mr. Howard: Was the hon. Gentleman not here when I dealt with this question earlier or was he here and asleep? Did he not hear me say that we shall comply with the Commission's nitrate directive in every area bar two by 1993? In the other two we expect to comply by 1995. I gave the reasons why we could not comply with those two by 1992. Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that he and his party were concerned about this matter and about the accusations that were made about delay in implementing

415
the directive in the 1980s? What complaints did his party make in the 1980s about the progress being made in implementing the Community directive?
Mr. Livsey: We certainly complained on many occasions about non-implementation. In 1980, the Government acceded to the directive but they have taken nine years to bring forward legislation. Now they cannot clearly tell us when the directive will be implemented, although I gather from what the Minister said that some of it will be implemented in 1993 and the rest in 1995. That is not soon enough. The Commission wants to know why, and that is a reasonable question.
Mr. Howard: When exactly did the hon. Gentleman's party complain about the pace at which we were complying with the directive in the 1980s?
Mr. Livsey: I will not engage in debating points. The point has been made by my party a number of times and the Minister knows that. We need to move on.
Earlier in the debate the Minister tried to protect his position by talking about sample averages. I am sure that he is well aware that one definition of average temperature is a person with his head in the oven and his feet in the fridge. Water samples containing nitrate can be widely disparate. Is the Minister saying that samples with twice the acceptable level of nitrate are acceptable in terms of public health? What advice did the Minister's scientists give about the proposal that averages would be used for nitrogen content? How many scientists resigned from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution because their scientific consciences cannot come to terms with the way that the Government are proceeding on environmental protection?
Statutory instrument No. 1147 deals with the definitions of wholesome water and incorporates EC directives. Part 3 gives the Secretary of State power to relax those standards, and that power needs to be probed. Under what circumstances would he relax the standards, and in what situation would such relaxation occur? The document says:
"Authorisation is necessary as an emergency measure".
It also says that authorisation depends on
"the nature and structure of the ground in each area".
Some matters relating to that must be clarified, in the public interest.
Statutory instrument No. 1151 is about consents to discharges and allows the Secretary of State to determine requests for discharges of effluent above the recommended levels. We had a long debate on the Lords amendments about the 1,000 works that have broken the consent standards. In the next 12 months the Department of the Environment will allow the water plcs to go beyond the limit. Will powers about consents for discharges above the recommended levels be invoked? The statutory instrument clearly confers such a power and it would completely undermine the National Rivers Authority. It makes a mockery of the new regulatory body because it gives the Secretary of State the final say. The National Rivers Authority has, rightly, been given high billing by the Minister as an important environmental protection agency. I certainly recognise and welcome that. However, if it is not adequately resourced and is undermined by statutory instrument No. 1151, will it be an effective body?
416
Statutory instrument No. 1154 deals with the right of the public to inspect the register held by the Director General of Water Services. I hope that the information on the register will be available at the weekends as well as during normal working hours so that people who are engaged in their everyday business during the week can inspect the register on, for example, Saturday mornings.
I welcome statutory instrument No. 1155 which deals with pensions. In my constituency Welsh Water will soon become Welsh Water plc. The pensions of its employees obviously need to be protected.
Statutory instrument No. 1156 is important because it empowers the Secretary of State to determine applications for discharges of dangerous substances above accepted levels. It includes chemicals that are persistent in water and could include materials such as aldrin or dieldrin. Although they have been banned, sadly, some irresponsible people are still using them. The substances include atrazine and simazine which cause great difficulties in water catchment areas. I find it somewhat intriguing that the acceptable level of dangerous substances can be raised.
Statutory instrument No. 1158 deals with radioactive discharges. It treats radioactive waste as ordinary waste. This is another example of mollycoddling the nuclear industry. At present, 808 premises in England are authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to discharge liquid radioactive waste into the public sewers. This regulation appears to weaken the conditions of the 1960 Act by allowing the Secretary of State to bring such discharges within the scope of the Water Act 1989, and to treat them as normal. Perhaps the Minister will reassure the House on that.
Statutory instrument No. 1159 deals with compensation for customers who suffer at the hands of water companies. I suggest that £5 is insufficient and that the condition which gives the companies a let-out in cases of industrial action should be withdrawn.
In general, one should be critical of these statutory instruments because of some of the powers that the Secretary of State is taking to himself. He will be able to alter some of these regulations almost at will and some of the regulations act against the environmental quality of water.
The Minister should ensure that the proceeds of the sale of the industry are reinvested, for example, in the National Rivers Authority to ensure that it can function properly as an effective environmental protection body and to ensure that it is properly funded so that it can do its job properly.
There is no doubt that the basis of this privatisation is partly the sale of land. The flotation is made more attractive by this realisation. The water plcs are busy setting up subsidiary companies to exploit this asset.
Finally, I shall point out a technical matter to the Minister. The code of practice is already out of date in some of its wording because it refers to the Nature Conservancy Council when, only last week, it was amalgamated with the Countryside Commission. I hope that the drafters of the code will take account of that significant change.
8.23 pm
Mr. Gerrard Neale: I remind hon. Members of the serious contamination incident that took place just over a year ago in my constituency. I speak the day before publication of the independent health panel's

417
report on that incident. Various aspects of the regulations relate to it and I should like to make a few brief comments about them.
However, I should like first to refer to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), who spoke on behalf of the Democrats. I do not know whether my colleagues share my view, but I am unclear whether the Democrats intend to oppose or to support these regulations. Hon. Members who represent constituencies that have an historic involvement with his party—under whatever name it trades—will not be surprised at that, because there has been considerable confusion about where they stand on a range of issues.
I say to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), in the absence of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who made a speech at the start of this debate, that there will be considerable astonishment in Camelford, given the interest that Labour Members appeared to have in the Camelford incident, and given the number of references that they made to it during the debate, that they intend to vote against these regulations.
The Opposition's constant criticism has left the clear impression that their sole objective is to stop privatisation. They want to find every possible accusation to level at the Government to try to stop privatisation, and they do not want to give credit for any of the regulations.
One need only take a cursory look through the regulations to see that they offer a range of measures which will be far more helpful to the consumer than any that existed before. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) in congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on his work to ensure that these provisions were brought before the House on behalf of the consumer.
As my hon. and learned Friend said, there will be far clearer powers over environmental health cover through local authorities. Water authorities will have to provide much more information about the way in which their laboratories are run. A series of provisions in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 are fundamentally helpful to the consumer.
Bearing in mind the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House still wish to speak, I shall concentrate on one part of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations. There will be great relief and pleasure because of regulation 30, particularly because of subsections (5) and (6), which, brief as they are, should be repeated. They provide:
"(5) A water undertaker shall notify a local authority and a district health authority as soon as may be after the occurrence of any event which, by reason of its effect or likely effect on the water supplied by it, gives rise or is likely to give rise to a significant risk to the health of persons residing in the authority's area.
(6) An authority who have received a notification under paragraph (5) may require the water undertaker to provide them with such information relating to the event and its consequences as they may reasonably require."
I have to tell my hon. and learned Friend, who has been exceedingly helpful throughout the Camelford incident and its aftermath, that it is astounding that, in this day and age, the House finds it necessary to include that provision in regulations. I do not deny that it is now essential that it should. At Camelford, 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphide were dumped into the drinking water and the water supply of 20,000 people was affected. Who would have imagined
418
that the water authority would decide not to tell the public health authority and the environmental health authority the truth for some weeks?
My hon. and learned Friend will recall—he saw me then—that at the time I said that one of the most astounding features was that there was no statutory requirement on water authorities to inform the health authority and the environmental health officers. He said then that the Government would give the most serious consideration to this. I can only thank him for including these provisions in the regulations.
Given the criticism of these regulations, what my hon. and learned Friend said at the Dispatch Box is worthy of note. He is aiming for far greater honesty with the consumer. This is the whole purpose of the regulations. He does not want—no sensible person would—any of the information to be doctored. Any information obtained by consumers must represent a direct copy of what has been produced in accordance with the sampling processes under these regulations.
By providing that information and being honest with the public, we shall save ourselves from what has happened in north Cornwall over the past 12 months as a result of the deceit of the water authority, which did not release the facts about what had caused the incident. That deceit infected every honourable statement made subsequently by any organisation. No matter what the independent health panel says tomorrow—it is my sincere hope that it will have discovered that there is no permanent health damage, which has been the hope of all of us since the incident—and no matter the lengths to which it has gone to analyse what happened, great doubt was instilled in people's minds as a result of the water authority's inability to tell the truth.
Among the many welcome regulations, this one is vital in ensuring that should such an incident recur, through accident or whatever cause, the water authority concerned will make what has happened known to the environmental health office and the health authority. It should also make available every possible source of information that either of those two authorities needs to protect the health of the people in its area.
We have heard a great deal of criticism about the Government's desire to privatise the water industry If I had any doubts about this before the Camelford incident, I have not the slightest doubt now. That incident was caused by a public utility, a state-controlled body, which manifested the most shocking quality of management. It was able to exercise a monopoly not only over the supply but over the information processes, the responsibility for pollution and so on.
The Government's wisdom is shown in these regulations and in the Water Act itself. It is vital that we separate those processes and give the state, through the Secretary of State, clear-cut powers of control and of monitoring, through the drinking water inspectorate. The Camelford incident showed how welcome this move is. That should be separate from the supply of water, which must be carried out under stringent regulations laid down in the Act, in these statutory instruments and no doubt in subsequent measures.
Mr. Mullin: Who does the hon. Gentleman think will be in charge of the South-West water authority, about which he used the word "deceit", after privatisation? Will the same Mr. Keith Court be responsible, on higher pay?
Mr. Neale: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that that decision is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He will also know, if he has studied the matter carefully, that at the time of the incident my view was that the chairman should have resigned. Everything that has happened since the incident has vindicated that view. I said then, and I still believe, that he could not possibly have known what was going on when it happened, but he did know shortly afterwards and he chose not to inform the public. Subsequently, to his credit, he apologised for not doing so.
For that reason, if for no other, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister deserves credit for making certain through these regulations that never again will it be possible for a water undertaking, whether inadvertently or negligently, to cause such an incident and then to avoid telling the health authority and the environmental health organisation what happened, and giving them all the information that they require. That offers far better protection than do many of the other elements in these regulations. My hon. and learned Friend will have the whole-hearted support of Conservative Members, and I congratulate him on introducing the regulations.
8.37 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: I am honoured that the Minister thinks that any endorsement that I have given to the code of practice in the conservation, access and leisure regulation recommends it for public consumption. If the Minister accepts some of what I shall say, I shall be happy to give my whole-hearted endorsement to the code of practice. He can even stamp on the bottom, "As recommended by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe" if he deals with these points.
The main thrust of the measures in the code of practice is fine. They have been well thought out and well written, because they were recommended by the Nature Conservancy Council. That is a Government organisation for which I have nothing but the utmost respect. Therefore, it is a tragedy that the organisation in which the Minister was indirectly lavishing praise for drawing up this document is to be reorganised and broken up. One cannot have a great deal of confidence in a Government who treat one of their most effective bodies in this way.
As it is likely that the Secretary of State will no longer be in his position soon, I hope that his successor will think carefully about the way that the NCC has been treated. If the Government's commitment to conservation is to have any credibility, they need bodies such as the NCC, with its expertise, commitment and experience, to put a gloss on any Government measure dealing with conservation.
Let me deal with the reasons why I think that the regulation on the code of practice should be voted against unless it is changed. First, we see a great weakness in the enforcement of the code. Section 10(2) of the Act states:
"A contravention of a code of practice as for the time being approved under this section shall not of itself constitute a contravention of any requirement imposed by section 8 or 9 above or give rise to any criminal or civil liability, but the Secretary of State and the Minister shall each be under a duty to take into account whether there has been or is likely to be any such contravention in determining when and how he should exercise his powers by virtue of this Act."
What steps would the Minister take in enforcing the regulation if it were found that a supplier was breaking it? The Minister would find that he had a bit of a problem. That is one of our main objections to the privatisation of
420
water. Would the Minister take away the licence of the water plc? There would be nobody else or nothing else to replace the plc. Exactly what measures, hold, control or sanctions does the Minister have over the water plcs and how will he use them?
The Minister said that the code of practice is not the same as the measure that we were discussing and he argued that it has been strengthened. It is true that during the Bill's consideration in another place the Government accepted some sensible changes on the lines of amendments that we tabled in Committee. Everyone would have been saved a great deal of time and trouble if the Government had accepted amendments then instead of waiting until the Bill was considered in another place. I welcome the changes that have been made to the Bill, strengthening the code of practice, but parts of it have been changed for the worse and there are some serious weaknesses.
The priority given to nature conservation seems to have been lowered by the priority that has been given to leisure interests. I am not saying that nature conservation should always be put in the way of leisure interests and that there should be some special consideration that is not already present, but I think that the leisure organisations and groups would recognise that one of the great money-spinning potentials of privatising water is the commercial development of leisure facilities at reservoirs and on land that the companies own.
When the code of practice was in draft form, it suggested that if there were a conflict between leisure interests and conservation interests, conservation interests would be given priority. That is no longer clear in the new code of practice. There is a concern that when there is a conflict of interest the commercial leisure interest will succeed over the conservation interests. That is a real threat. We discussed in Committee examples which were set out in a journal entitled "Liquid Assets", which was published by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. The journal demonstrated that there are conflicts already at some of our major reservoirs.
Mr. Pike: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the Ramblers Association's concern that North West Water is considering developing a theme park at Rivington Pike which will bring the commercial interests very much to the fore.
Mr. Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing that example. It shows that there is already a conflict between leisure and recreation interests, the commercial motive behind them, and conservation interests. Another example is Rutland water, where there has been a conflict involving the extension of fishing licences in various parts of the reservoir and the need to keep parts of the reservoir available for wintering wild fowl. There will be other conflicts. There is a clear conflict between the leisure use of power boats for water skiing, for example, and the interests of wildlife. There are conflicts about the siting of marinas and timeshare developments arid wetland habitats. The conflicts are numerous.
When there is a conflict, who will decide what come first—conservation interests or leisure interests? How clearly will attitudes towards zoning various water board lands and reservoirs for various interests and activities be taken into account? Once the water authorities have been

421
privatised, what hold will the Minister have over them if they break the existing agreements—many of them are voluntary—with the various conservation groups in the management of their areas and the demands of their shareholders to maximise their revenue by developing commercial leisure interests? That is the major weakness in the code of practice and it is one which needs to be addressed. Unless the Minister can convince me that there are safeguards, I believe that we should reject the measure.
There are one or two smaller issues. We discussed the emergency operation procedure in Committee. The draft code of practice made it clear that when emergency procedures were being carried out by water authorities, the NCC would be consulted. I know that there are procedures for this when sites of special scientific interest are involved, but there are sensitive areas that do not have that status. There needs to be some protection for them so that the NCC can use its experience and expertise to advise water plcs on how to carry out repairs when there is an emergency. I have in mind drainage and the building of flood banks. We must ensure that there is the minimum amount of damage to sensitive areas.
In the draft document, plans were set out for annual consultation with conservation bodies. There is still provision for such consultation in the code, but it is no longer on an annual basis. I wonder why that alteration has been made.
The main conservation bodies are well known to the Government and they consult them, but in certain areas, on water board land, there are issues that require the attention of specialists. There is a need to involve various organisations that have a specialist interest, whether in orchids, moths or butterflies. I am not sure that in certain circumstances the consultation of specialists will take place and that we shall have the benefit of their advice.
There seems to be nothing in the code of practice that will make the water plcs take into account the effect of discharges on flora and fauna. Great damage can be caused in terms of the ecology of water courses if the nutrient enrichment of certain areas goes over certain levels. There are EC directives that cover the pollution of rivers and take into account wildlife. I suspect that the Government are in breach of some of the directives because they have given discharge consents to various sewage works without taking into account the effect that that will have on wildlife. The Government may find themselves in court on more than one issue if they do not take the effect of discharges into account.
I have raised some of the main issues that involve the code of practice, conservation and recreation. There are others that I know my hon. Friends will cover, especially the protection of access for ramblers. I do not believe that the code goes far enough in that direction. When it comes to nature conservation—I return to my original point—the code is fine in theory. It has taken into account many of the issues that I wanted to be considered, but I am not convinced that it can be applied successfully to ensure that water plcs take its provisions into account. With the conflict that will inevitably come between leisure and recreational use and conservation, I believe that there is a serious weakness.
8.49 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: If we did not enjoy politics, most of us would not be here. However, certain issues are so important that politics should take a back seat, and one of those is public health and safety. That was very much on my mind during the quite disgraceful speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I am sorry that she has not remained in the Chamber to listen to the debate because I wanted to tell her about what is happening in Lincolnshire over the issue of nitrates. Lincolnshire is in the east midlands, an area of traditional arable farming. There is considerable concern not just among the general public but among the farming community about the use of nitrates. The debate rages.
We are told that there is no hard evidence that nitrates are injurious to health—yet the Government are taking the issue seriously and, I have no doubt, will act. It may be necessary for denitrification plants to be set up in certain areas, such as my constituency. We are told that the technology is not yet proven. If the Labour party were to have its way—and on this issue I can assume only that it is playing politics—and we accepted its ludicrous suggestions, denitrification plants would be set up that might prove more dangerous than the possible dangers of the current position.
These are highly technical matters. I shall not debate tonight whether it was wise for Britain or other nations to sign the directive. I have my doubts about the wisdom of the Commission becoming involved in the detail of drinking water policy. My view is that it is par excellence—to use a French expression—a region where national Governments should take precedence over the Commission. Nevertheless, the directive was signed. The Government are arguing a fair case—that they signed the directive, intend fully to carry it out, but that there are certain difficulties in doing so, not least practical difficulties such as planning. It has nothing to do with money; in some cases it may be impossible to carry out the directive in time.
I can only assume that the hon. Member for Dewsbury was, once again, playing politics and was not really concerned with public safety when she suggested that we could implement the directive by 1993. I cannot believe that she was serious. As I understand it—of course, I may be wrong—we are actually going further than the original proposals. We are tightening procedures, but we are not carping or playing politics; we are simply trying to do our best for the British people. The Government should be congratulated on that. We are talking about sampling, treatment and controls that we have not previously had. We have never had a drinking water inspectorate.
During our last short debate on these matters my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) spoke at length on access to Barn Elm reservoir, a matter which greatly concerns him. I spent about 20 years of my life living only a few yards from that reservoir, so I know what access to it has been like over the years that it has been controlled by a nationalised industry. Quite simply, there has been no access; there has been no recreation. One of the advantages of bringing this sort of legislation before Parliament is that the scrutiny will ensure that access to reservoirs and land owned by water authorities will be better for recreational and conservation interests than it has ever been before—[Interruption.] The

423
hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) may laugh, but he must recognise what has happened over many years with land owned by water authorities.
Mr. Morley: I was mildly amused because I know that already fencing is being erected on land in the Yorkshire water authority area that has traditionally been walked over. That is being done in advance of this legislation. The land is being put into a wholly owned holding company ready for the Yorkshire water authority to cash in on privatisation—and it certainly will not be for conservation or leisure.
Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is always ready to produce anecdotal evidence, but he is not prepared to study the provisions in the legislation. For the first time, statutory requirements are laid down. The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to study the code of practice——
Mr. Morley: I am.
Mr. Leigh: I think not. All that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to do is to produce anecdotal evidence rather than deal with what is in the legislation.
I wish briefly to deal with the K factor. I have often argued the case with my constituents—and I think that I have convinced them—that we will achieve the best of both worlds because although we will have private water companies that will attract private investment, they will not be wholly independent. They can only set a price laid down by the indpendent director of water services. I know that there must be a balance with K, but I have been impressed with the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that we should place more emphasis on ploughing back profits into conservation measures and improving quality.
The Government should explain—and they should begin now—that, unfortunately, charges will have to rise. There is no doubt about that. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I say that they have to rise because there has been gross under-investment in the water industry for many years. I shall not discuss what happened under the last Labour Government—we have had all those arguments—but we should now admit to the British people that we cannot escape an increase in charges. The charges are not related to the profit motive that Opposition Members claim to be the point of the legislation; they relate to improving quality and to ensuring that investment is ploughed back for the benefit of consumers. There will be a balance between the consumers and those who invest in the industry.
In the long term there will be a strong code of practice, improved access and recreation. For the first time, that code will set down the most rigid standards of wholesomeness and there will be a K factor that will ensure decent investment in the industry to the benefit of all. I should have thought that any objective observer, looking at the issue in that way, would conclude that we have it about right.
8.58 pm
Mr. David Hinehliffe: The House is debating 15 sets of regulations concerned with various aspects of the new water industry, but I shall comment only on pollution. I question whether there is any meaning
424
or relevance in regulations to control pollution when we are all aware that the Government effectively announced an amnesty on prosecutions for pollution in the run-in to privatisation.
I make no excuses for being somewhat parochial in my view of pollution. Water is a major political issue and a matter of deep concern for Yorkshire people because of the river pollution problems that Yorkshire has faced for a number of years. Earlier, the Minister accused Opposition Members of making wild statements and allegations. Recent press reports on the state of the Humber estuary cannot be said to be wild statements or allegations because they were backed by facts. It appears that the Humber is now polluting the North sea and many other rivers on the east coast. That worries not only my constituents but those of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).
As to the regulations relating to sampling, the recent National Rivers Authority working group report made the point that present analysis of the Humber estuary is of little value for the purposes of water quality management because some of the pollutants discharged into the Humber have not even been identified. Therefore, I question the relevance of the regulations to the problems of the Humber estuary. I question whether they give the NRA sufficient powers to prosecute those responsible for the Humber's major pollution problems.
Greenpeace estimates that discharges from no fewer than 1,500 pipelines are polluting the Humber, with complete immunity for those responsible. Those discharges come from sewage works owned by Yorkshire Water itself, metal smelting plants, oil refineries and chemical complexes. Numerous different types of discharges are all contributing to major pollution of the North sea, which is something that should deeply concern and worry us all. We should see what we can do to improve upon that appalling situation.
The Humber is a receptacle for 300 miles or more of class 3 rivers in Yorkshire Water's area and for 90 miles of class 4 rivers. They are the most appalling and dead rivers in the country. They emanate from south Yorkshire and were debated in Committee.
The end of the line has been reached for the policies of Yorkshire Water, whose incredible complacency towards pollution has led to the problems now facing the Humber estuary. In the run-up to privatisation, the policy of Yorkshire rivers has markedly deteriorated. The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who earlier intervened but left the Chamber a considerable time ago, made the pont that the Government are not themselves responsible for the lower quality of river water. If, after 10 years in authority, the Government cannot be said to be responsible, who can?
I cite the example of Driffield canal, which is in a predominantly urban area and not one having many industries. In the course of a decade, that canal has been transformed from a pleasant waterway with an abundance of fish and wildlife to slow-moving, black sludge. The prime polluter of that canal is Yorkshire Water, which has allowed sewage consent levels to rise five times higher because its nearby sewerage works could not, some considerable time ago, meet the required consents. That led directly to the deterioration of that once beautiful waterway to what is now slow-moving, black sludge.
Few people in Yorkshire are celebrating the recent announcement by Yorkshire Water of a 27·5 per cent.

425
increase in its profits to £56·5 million. Record profits were also recorded for the previous year. In the run-up to privatisation, Yorkshire Water is fattening up its organisation to attract investors. Imagine what could have been done with that £56·5 million in dealing with the problems of the Humber estuary, Driffield canal and Yorkshire's class 3 and class 4 rivers, as well as with the sewage works owned by Yorkshire Water. A good deal could have been done with it. The move towards privatisation has allowed pollution to continue.
What could have been done with the £700,000 that Yorkshire water has spent in the past financial year on paying advisers on privatisation? What could have been done with the money put towards the £20 million spent on the Water Authority Association's propaganda campaign—especially the £1·1 million spent in Yorkshire on regional advertising propaganda, a sum dragged out of Gordon Jones in recent days?
When we consider that a blind eye has been turned to the real cause of pollution in areas such as mine, the regulations become largely meaningless. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friends and others: this is a worrying situation, and news of a pollution amnesty gives me no great confidence that the regulations will improve it.
9.5 pm
Mr. James Hill: Let me add my voice to the congratulations that have been conferred on the Department and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the able way in which a difficult Bill has been handled—and, moreover, on preventing the House from having to sit into the first week of August. I think that we are all very grateful for that.
I wish to speak only because I do not believe that the regulations cover a serious problem in the Southampton area. Part of the problem has been caused by a Greenpeace ship, the Moby Dick, which came up the Solent. The crew tied a wire around the propeller of the sludge vessel that distributes sewage—after some sort of treatment—into the Solent, and the Southern water authority warned that if it was not removed within three days raw sewage would go into the Solent.
Unfortunately, a different Department issues the licence. I think that there should be a gathering of great minds. The Ministry of Agriculture, which issues the licence for the dumping of sludge in an area just five miles south of the Isle of Wight, has been doing so for many years, and those who have monitored the site—certainly the Ministry's inspectors—have said that such dumping causes no harm either to the environment or to fish stocks. That may well be so, but will the Commission take it on board for another 20 years?
I believe that an industrial process is the answer. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, ltchen (Mr. Chope), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, contain four depots. The reservoirs fill up quickly with raw sewage which, on being treated, takes on the consistency of a thick paste. It is then taken to an area south of the Isle of Wight and discharged. Quite often, human nature being what it is, the ship leaves a trail of sludge leading to the dumping area. I have already asked the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that the actions of the crew, the dumping process and the licences are well monitored.
426
When I met the chairman and directors of the Southern water authority on one of the sites in the sludge farm in Marchwood, I feared that they were in no way prepared to spend many millions of pounds on industrial treatment. Apparently a firm in the midlands—BVH—turns the sludge into oil or graphite which can in turn be turned into burning bricks for generating plants.
We must think again about the treatment of sewage. We can no longer, because of our Community connections, continue with the old methods of disposing of raw sewage, or partly treated sewage. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will bear that point in mind. However, with the privatisation of 10 water authorities, he is faced with a difficult problem, and I wish him the best of luck.
9.10 pm
Mr. Howard: With permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say that, rather against the odds, we have had an interesting debate? I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and his brother. My hon. Friend made some powerful points. We have yet to get any answers to them from the Opposition. He put his points in the form of questions that have yet to be answered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) spoke, on the basis of his particular constituency experience, of the difficulties that can arise. At all times, he has been most assiduous and motivated by the determination to ensure that what happened in his constituency about a year ago should not, if at all possible, happen again but that, if it ever happened again, proper procedures should be in place to deal with some of the consequences. We have listened carefully to the points that he has put to us from time to time and we have been able to incorporate some of his suggestions in the regulations. I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the determination with which he has pursued those questions, not only on behalf of his constituents but also in the wider interests of all our constituents so as to ensure that incidents of that kind do not recur.
In a characteristically robust contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) made some important points about public health and safety. They, too, have not been answered by the Opposition. We look forward with great interest to the speech which is to be made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I cannot say that the hon. Gentleman's track record in answering questions is such as to inspire confidence that we shall receive any convincing answers during his speech, but we always live in hope. He may be able to answer the legitimate questions that have been put to him during the debate about the Opposition's attitude. It is their attitude that has posed so many questions during the debate and they have been signally unprepared to answer them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) asked a number of questions which he recognised were the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister would have had those answers if I had been given a chance to speak.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Committee, but he raised a long point of order at the beginning of our proceedings.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Member for Test appreciates that those are questions that should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I know that his questions will be considered seriously by my right hon. Friend, for I shall draw them to his attention.
Answers to questions have been requested.
Mr. Cryer: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Howard: I am very happy to answer them, as I did during my earlier speech. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) asked a large number of questions and I shall deal with the points that he raised. He asked about the medical advice that we have received about the nitrates standard on the basis of average samples which we originally understood to be the basis on which compliance with the European Community directive was to be assessed. I am happy to respond to that point. Our advice from the chief medical officer was that 50 mgl was the appropriate standard to be interpreted as an average, provided the concentration in any sample did not exceed 100 mgl. We acted on that advice and were convinced that it was sensible and reasonable to approach this matter on the basis that average samples were sufficient.
The hon. Gentleman made an assertion about the effect of these regulations on the radioactive waste regulations and the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. I am happy to tell him that these regulations do not affect the application of the 1960 Act. They deal with the radioactivity of the discharge. The radioactive properties of any waste will continue to be governed by the 1960 Act.
The hon. Gentleman asked also in what circumstances the relaxations that the Secretary of State would be empowered to give under regulation 4 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations might be granted. Those powers directly reflect those that are contained in the drinking water directive, which grants powers to make relaxations when there is a mechanical breakdown, when there are exceptional meteorological conditions or in circumstances arising from the nature and structure of the ground. The circumstances in which those relaxations are likely to be granted mirror those that are contained in the drinking water directive.
The hon. Gentleman said that Statutory Instrument No. 1151 allowed the Secretary of State to undermine the National Rivers Authority by granting discharge consents with lax standards. He is wrong. It does nothing more than set out the procedures for appeals to the Secretary of State as provided for under schedule 12 to the Water Act 1989. The hon. Gentleman's point was based on a misapprehension.
I was surprised to see the hon. Gentleman nod his head vigorously in agreement with a point that was made by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) about the Nature Conservancy Council. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was complaining about the recent decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the NCC. One of the important effects of my right hon. Friend's decision was to make a separate Nature Conservancy Council for Wales.
Mr. Livsey indicated assent.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman now shows from a sedentary position that he welcomes that decision. When the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was criticising it, he vigorously nodded in assent. The hon. Gentleman must decide what his position is. I am glad that that decision has his support. I hope that it will have the support also of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who perhaps will tell us whether he agrees with his hon. Friend and whether he thinks that it was a good or bad idea to have a separate Nature Conservancy Council for Wales. We look forward with great interest to hearing his answer.
The conclusion to be drawn from the Labour party's stance on these statutory instruments—the only one that can reasonably be drawn—is that it does not wish to improve drinking water quality standards or our pollution control systems, that it does not support the issuing of guidance on good practice in conservation, and that it does not want customers to have the right to compensation for breach of standards. The party that boasts about its support for open government does not want to support even the moves for greater accountability in the control of pollution provisions and arrangements for access to the register of the Director General of Water Supply. Perhaps the only form of open government that the Labour party is prepared to support is leaked documents and the information contained in them.
The Opposition have made no case for the annulment of the instruments. I invite the House to join with those who welcome the Government's prompt action to complete the new environmental regime needed before vesting and to reject this utterly irresponsible attempt to obstruct and frustrate the progress they will achieve.
9.20 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: The Government's plan to privatise water has long been recognised, in the words of a Conservative Back-Bench Member, as deservedly unpopular with members of the public of all political persuasions. During its passage, it has become increasingly complex, with a web of bureaucracy being woven to compensate for the manifest defects in the Government's plans. Today we come to the last legislative step in the process—or almost the last. I say that because, as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has exposed, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) underlined in her opening speech, these statutory instruments need to be amended now, even before they are adopted, simply so that they will make sense. It appears that the Government intend to bring in those amendments during the recess and to discuss them only after implementing the regulations and after the House returns. What a mess. Is it surprising that we should pray against this unsatisfactory set of documents?
It is ludicrous to have three hours to debate all 15 documents, given the importance that we place on trying to rescue the water industry from this mess and building the best possible protection for the public into the system. Time is short, so I can touch only briefly on some of the important issues underlying the many contributions to tonight's debate, each of which is worthy of separate scrutiny.
Let us look, for example, at Statutory Instrument No. 1151—the Control of Pollution (Consents for Discharges

429
etc.) (Secretary of State Functions) Regulations. Here we see the power of the Secretary of State to call in applications for consent if asked to do so. Can we trust the Secretary of State being set as an arbiter above the National Rivers Authority and able to override it? Let us consider the experience with planning powers over the past few years. The Government are increasingly using the powers of the Secretary of State to remove or override provisions that were enacted to protect the public. We cannot trust the Secretary of State and we cannot trust the Government.
Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman now suggesting that it is his party's policy to eliminate call-in powers in planning applications? If it is not his view that those call-in powers should be eliminated, why is it wrong to have comparable powers in relation to water control?
Mr. Michael: My case is that the call-in powers and the powers of appeal have been abused under this Government to a shocking extent. They have used those powers to undermine the decisions of this House.
When we turn to the statutory instruments on supply and sewerage services and customer service standards, we see the Government's innovation of the £5 fine. That sounded rather attractive when we started off. However, when one looks at it and at the application, it is, of course, nominal and surrounded by caveats. If
"the complaint is frivolous or vexatious",
the fine need not be paid. That is necessary, but who decides?
The Joint Committee's findings are most telling of all. It said:
"Regulation 5(2) makes water or sewerage undertakers liable in ordinary circumstances to pay £5 to a customer who has made a complaint in writing … if they do not within 10 days send him either a substantive reply or an initial reply which explains why there cannot be an immediate substantive reply and says that a substantive reply will be sent within 20 days from the receipt of the complaint".
The Committee points out that there was no provision for any payment if the promise of a substantive reply was not kept, and the Minister has not answered that point in today's debate. That is shirking. The prescribed standard requires the promise to be made, but does not require it to be implemented. That is complete nonsense. It is not a drafting error; it is a major basic defect which reflects the Government's grave concern about whether they will be able to con the City into buying what the public do not want to sell.
Mr. Cryer: That was one of a number of points made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Officials from the Minister's Department promised several new amendments to the regulations that are to be laid, presumably when Parliament is not sitting, to correct the hastily drafted regulations that are being forced through Parliament. Parliamentary rights are being trampled on, and my hon. Friend has given an excellent example of our concerns.
Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting my point with such authority. It is a very serious point and the Minister completely failed to answer it during the debate.
Let us examine the Water Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) Regulations——
Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Michael: No, the Minister has had his chance.
The Joint Committee drew the special attention of both Houses to the instrument on pensions on the ground that the drafting was defective. What have we heard about that?
Let us examine the code of practice on conservation, access and recreation. Time is so short that I cannot go into the details of its defects, but I shall answer one point that the Minister made. He mentioned a separate Nature Conservancy Council for Wales. That is less important than the Opposition's proposal, which Conservative Members voted down, for a separate Rivers Authority for Wales. We demanded subsequently that meat should be put on the bones of the committee that is to advise the Secretary of State on matters affecting Wales. The Committee appears in the Act, but there is no meat on its bones; it has no real powers and it has no real authority. It is a failure of will on the part of Ministers who should represent Wales.
As I said, the code on conservation, access and recreation contains several weaknesses. If the Government were serious about protecting and promoting public access, a number of measures could have a beneficial effect. The most important of those concerns enforcement. No matter how weak or strong the code is, section 10(2) of the Water Act makes it clear that
"contravention of the code … shall not … constitute a contravention of any requirement imposed by section 8 or 9 of the Act."
That means that the water undertakers will be free to ignore the code completely and to have regard only to the duties in sections 8 and 9. The provision is the only sanction available and the Minister should have said that he intended to give some reality to the code by using that sanction. Only if the Government intended to use that sanction—because the Act is otherwise so weak—would there be any sense or meaning or depth to the code.
Then we come to the control of pollution registers on which many important points have been made. The regulations specify that information on derogations has to be made available to the public. The Minister and Conservative Members have said that time is needed to introduce schemes to put right the present illegal discharges. I use that term because a derogation is a sort of probation period for the polluter, during which specified time a scheme of works is to be undertaken to end the illegality.
Last week, like other hon. Members, I examined the details of the recent rash of applications for derogations—in my case, those in Wales. The information is available in St. Mellons which, while inconvenient for most of Wales, is relatively convenient for me as it is in my constituency. Like other members of the public who have been able to make the approach, I was received courteously and my questions were answered—at least until I asked for the information about the schemes of work. I was told that the information is not kept; it is not available; the Government do not require it.
I had previously asked the Secretary of State when each scheme would be started, when it would be completed and to what standard discharges would be improved. The answer that I received to all those questions was that the Department did not know. I thought that, given the Minister's claims that the regulations improve matters, we should find something in the regulations to deal with this. But the Government do not know and they do not care. To

431
talk about meeting standards and then to take no interest in the method or the cost of doing the job is a failure. The Government are not demanding the appropriate records to be kept on the meeting of derogations and the schemes of work that are needed. That is a failure.
Let me deal with water supply and water quality, on which the Joint Committee's remarks are devastating. There is no doubt that in this case the regulations require elucidation. On the presence of coliforms, the Department's witnesses admitted that the drafting of the regulations was not successful. They admitted that the drafting of regulation 6(2) was "defective" and "confusing".
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Michael: The Government's regulations are defective and confusing. The accusation has not been answered by the Minister and I certainly shall not give way to hon. Members who cannot be bothered to be here for the debate when the Minister has failed in his task tonight.
Mr. Cash rose——
Mr. Howard rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is not giving way.
Mr. Michael: Two weeks ago the Secretary of State took the word "wholesome" out of the Bill and, across the Dispatch Box, told me that that word meant nothing. It appears in the regulations. In addition, paragraph 3 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations represents an attempt to back off from the EC's 100 per cent. criterion on water quality. Paragraph 11 states:
"a water undertaker shall determine, in respect of each of its water supply zones, such number and location of sampling points as will in its opinion secure that analysis of samples obtained from those points in respect of the parameters listed in Tables A to E will, so far as is reasonably practicable, produce"
the data needed. The undertakers decide, and that is the weakness in the regulations.
Paragraph 23 contains the phrase
"so far as is reasonably practical the appropriate requirements shall be satisfied".
Again, the requirements will not be enforced or pressed on water authorities. Paragraph 28 suggests that it should be a defence for an undertaker to show that it took
"all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence".
Who will decide? Subsection (4) says:
"Proceedings for an offence … shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions."
The Director of Public Prosecutions cannot enforce the regulations; nor can a local authority; nor can consumers. What sort of regulations are these?
Tonight the Minister and his Back-Bench Members have followed the old Tory maxim, "If your case is weak shout a lot and be insulting," together with the new Thatcherite maxim, "If you are in trouble, pretend that the last 10 years did not exist." I shall make one point in response to questions asked by the Minister and others about Labour's record. From 1974 to 1979, average capital expenditure on water authorities was £1,254 million per annum. From 1979 to 1987, the Conservatives
432
achieved an average of only £922 million. That is not a good record. That is a cut. In each debate the Minister has tried to move the goal posts and——
It being three hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the Order [14 July]:—
The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 310.

Division No. 309]

[9.32 pm

AYES

Allen, Graham

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Anderson, Donald

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

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fisher, Mark

Armstrong, Hilary

Flannery, Martin

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Flynn, Paul

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Ashton, Joe

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Foster, Derek

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Fraser, John

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Fyfe, Maria

Barron, Kevin

Galbraith, Sam

Battle, John

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Beckett, Margaret

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Beggs, Roy

George, Bruce

Beith, A. J.

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Godman, Dr Norman A.

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

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bermingham, Gerald

Gordon, Mildred

Bidwell, Sydney

Gould, Bryan

Blunkett, David

Graham, Thomas

Boateng, Paul

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Boyes, Roland

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bradley, Keith

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Grocott, Bruce

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hardy, Peter

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Haynes, Frank

Buckley, George J.

Heffer, Eric S.

Callaghan, Jim

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Home Robertson, John

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cartwright, John

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Howells, Geraint

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Clay, Bob

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clelland, David

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cohen, Harry

Illsley, Eric

Coleman, Donald

Ingram, Adam

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Corbett, Robin

Kennedy, Charles

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kilfedder, James

Cousins, Jim

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Crowther, Stan

Kirkwood, Archy

Cryer, Bob

Lambie, David

Cummings, John

Lamond, James

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Leadbitter, Ted

Dalyell, Tam

Lewis, Terry

Darling, Alistair

Litherland, Robert

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Livingstone, Ken

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Livsey, Richard

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

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dewar, Donald

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dixon, Don

Loyden, Eddie

Dobson, Frank

McAvoy, Thomas

Doran, Frank

McFall, John

Douglas, Dick

McLeish, Henry

Duffy, A. E. P.

McNamara, Kevin

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McWilliam, John

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Eadie, Alexander

Marek, Dr John

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Fatchett, Derek

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

433

Martlew, Eric

Rowlands, Ted

Maxton, John

Ruddock, Joan

Meacher, Michael

Salmond, Alex

Michael, Alun

Sedgemore, Brian

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Short, Clare

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Sillars, Jim

Morgan, Rhodri

Skinner, Dennis

Morley, Elliot

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

Mowlam, Marjorie

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Mullin, Chris

Snape, Peter

Nellist, Dave

Spearing, Nigel

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Steinberg, Gerry

O'Brien, William

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

O'Neill, Martin

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Turner, Dennis

Parry, Robert

Vaz, Keith

Patchett, Terry

Wall, Pat

Pendry, Tom

Wallace, James

Pike, Peter L.

Walley, Joan

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Prescott, John

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Primarolo, Dawn

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Radice, Giles

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Randall, Stuart

Wilson, Brian

Redmond, Martin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Worthington, Tony

Richardson, Jo

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rogers, Allan

Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Allen Adams.

Rooker, Jeff

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Aitken, Jonathan

Buck, Sir Antony

Alexander, Richard

Budgen, Nicholas

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Burns, Simon

Allason, Rupert

Burt, Alistair

Amess, David

Butcher, John

Amos, Alan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Arbuthnot, James

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Carttiss, Michael

Ashby, David

Cash, William

Aspinwall, Jack

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Atkins, Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Chapman, Sydney

Baldry, Tony

Chope, Christopher

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Churchill, Mr

Batiste, Spencer

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Bellingham, Henry

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Bendall, Vivian

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Colvin, Michael

Benyon, W.

Conway, Derek

Bevan, David Gilroy

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cope, Rt Hon John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Cormack, Patrick

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Couchman, James

Body, Sir Richard

Cran, James

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Critchley, Julian

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Boswell, Tim

Curry, David

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Day, Stephen

Bowis, John

Devlin, Tim

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Dorrell, Stephen

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dover, Den

Brazier, Julian

Dunn, Bob

Bright, Graham

Dykes, Hugh

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

Eggar, Tim

Browne, John (Winchester)

Emery, Sir Peter

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

434

Evennett, David

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lang, Ian

Fallon, Michael

Latham, Michael

Favell, Tony

Lawrence, Ivan

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lightbown, David

Forman, Nigel

Lilley, Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Forth, Eric

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lord, Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Franks, Cecil

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Freeman, Roger

McCrindle, Robert

French, Douglas

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Gale, Roger

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gardiner, George

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Gill, Christopher

Maclean, David

Glyn, Dr Alan

McLoughlin, Patrick

Goodhart, Sir Philip

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gorst, John

Major, Rt Hon John

Gow, Ian

Malins, Humfrey

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Mans, Keith

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Maples, John

Gregory, Conal

Marlow, Tony

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hague, William

Mates, Michael

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Maude, Hon Francis

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hampson, Dr Keith

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hanley, Jeremy

Miller, Sir Hal

Hannam, John

Miscampbell, Norman

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

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Mitchell, Sir David

Harris, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Hawkins, Christopher

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hayes, Jerry

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hayward, Robert

Morrison, Sir Charles

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Moss, Malcolm

Heddle, John

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Neale, Gerrard

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Needham, Richard

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Neubert, Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hill, James

Nicholls, Patrick

Hind, Kenneth

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Holt, Richard

Norris, Steve

Hordern, Sir Peter

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Howard, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

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

Page, Richard

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Patnick, Irvine

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Pawsey, James

Hunter, Andrew

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Irvine, Michael

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Irving, Charles

Porter, David (Waveney)

Jack, Michael

Portillo, Michael

Jackson, Robert

Powell, William (Corby)

Jessel, Toby

Price, Sir David

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Raffan, Keith

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Rathbone, Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Redwood, John

Key, Robert

Rhodes James, Robert

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Riddick, Graham

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kirkhope, Timothy

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Knapman, Roger

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Knowles, Michael

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Knox, David

Rost, Peter

435

Rowe, Andrew

Thorne, Neil

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Thornton, Malcolm

Ryder, Richard

Thurnham, Peter

Sackville, Hon Tom

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Tracey, Richard

Sayeed, Jonathan

Trippier, David

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Trotter, Neville

Shaw, David (Dover)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Viggers, Peter

Shelton, Sir William

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Walden, George

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Shersby, Michael

Waller, Gary

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Walters, Sir Dennis

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Ward, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Squire, Robin

Warren, Kenneth

Stanbrook, Ivor

Watts, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wheeler, John

Steen, Anthony

Whitney, Ray

Stern, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Stevens, Lewis

Wiggin, Jerry

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wilkinson, John

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wilshire, David

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stokes, Sir John

Winterton, Nicholas

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wolfson, Mark

Sumberg, David

Wood, Timothy

Summerson, Hugo

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Tony Durant.

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 4, insert the following new clause—Increase for child benefit—
  ". In section 63(2) of the Social Security Act 1986, after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  '(aa) which increases the sum specified by virtue of section 5(1) of the Child Benefit Act 1975 by a percentage not less than the percentage by which the sum prescribed for the purposes of section 21(6)(a) above in respect of a child aged less than 11 years is increased by the up-rating order; and'."
  Mr. Speaker: This amendment involves privilege.
  9.46 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The issue is not a new one for the House. We discussed it on 18 January on an Opposition Supply Day, on 24 April on Report and on 11 July on Report on the Finance Bill. In every case, the substance of the issue was debated and the House sustained the Government's decision by a large majority. Little new has emerged since then except for something in regard to family credit, to which I shall refer later, but the arguments have moved in favour of the Government. As succinctly as I can, because I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, I shall explain the reasons for the decision that the Government took, to show why I shall urge the House to reject the Lords amendment.
  I imagine that I shall take the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) with me when I say that I shall not spend too much of our limited time on the Lords amendment itself, because I assume that the House will agree that in many ways it is a stalking horse for the same child benefit debate, and I understand that. Essentially, as one of my noble Friends described it, they are seeking to impose a statutory duty based on the exercise of discretion. For example, if this year we follow the provisions of the Lords amendment, and for the under-11s we were able to secure an increase of 20·7 per cent., extended across the whole of the child benefit range that would result in a public expenditure cost of £675 million. In many ways, the remarks of Tony Lynes, who occasionally is drawn to the attention of the House, in the New Statesman and Society this week was interesting. He pointed out the fallacy behind the amendment, which would prevent the Government from helping the poorest.
  I shall remind the House of what I have said many times, first about what child benefit was supposed to be. I am not talking about what, perfectly honourably, many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like child benefit to be or about what many people think that it should have been when it was first introduced. I am talking about what child benefit was when it was created in the 1975 statute and what Governments of both political persuasions have sought to enact since. Therefore, I shall go back to the quotation that I have given many times

  437
  from the debate on 13 May 1975 when the late Alec Jones, when discussing why he did not think it appropriate to have an annual index of the review of child benefit, said:
  "We do not propose that there should be anything similar to child benefit because it is a totally different kind of benefit, fulfilling a different purpose.
  In the first place it is a new kind of benefit—a hybrid, which amalgamates a social security benefit with a tax allowance. In the second place, most of the people receiving it will be people at work, and the benefit will simply form a tax-free addition to their earned income. In this it is totally unlike benefits such as pensions which form the main source of income of those who receive them … It will be raised from time to time in the light of inflation and other developments. But just as neither family allowances nor child tax allowances are subject to the rigid pattern of upratings that has been evolved for social security benefits nor will their successor benefit be."—[Official Report, 13 May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 400–1.]
  On a later date, the then Mrs. Castle said:
  "There is a difference between routine national insurance benefits and this new benefit. Indexation of the child benefit is inappropriate. National insurance benefits are major means of support when earning capacity is interrupted, but the child benefit is a tax-free supplement to families whose major source of income is earnings. Clearly maintenance benefits must be capable of moving automatically in line with changes in the cost of living. The child benefit is in a different category. … A statutory duty is placed on the Secretary of State to examine the rate in the light of the overall social and economic policies."—[Official Report, 7 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 238.]
  I shall not labour the point as I have made it many times in previous debates.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I shall not labour the point either. It is all very well quoting 1975, but that was before the House, during the Report stage of the Finance Bill 1977, accepted statutory indexation of personal tax allowances. Those speeches in 1975 would not have been made and those briefs would not have been written in the light of the change of policy agreed by the House in 1977.
  Mr. Moore: I disagree with the hon. Member but——
  Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State knows that.
  Mr. Moore: If the hon. Gentleman would be as courteous as he used to be and allow me to answer his point, rather than constantly interrupt me, I should be happy to do so. I was trying to illustrate the distinction that was clearly drawn between child benefit as introduced and other forms of then indexed benefit. There was a substantive debate then. I will be happy to go on, to illustrate why I think that is the case.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I hope that my right hon. Friend can reassure me and many of my colleagues. Does he agree that families with children have obviously got greater family commitments than those without children and that this should be taken account of within the tax and benefits system? All families, at whatever level of income, have got greater commitments. My right hon. Friend has said, and he has read out, that when this benefit was introduced, it was stated at the time that it should be, as a result of inflation, increased from time to time. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House that he agrees that child benefit should be increased from time to time?
  Mr. Moore: I have said that the nature of the statutory duty is clear. One of the confusions that has entered the debate is that people seem to assume that child benefit is
  438
  a substitute for family credit. It is not. Child benefit, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security has said on many occasions, and precisely, is still part and parcel of the overall help that is given to families with children. That parcel includes child benefit, which is not means tested, and other forms of benefit. It is a package. I shall illustrate the character of the package and the way that the combination works.
  Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for reminding us of what Labour Ministers said about child benefit. Will he also remind the House that he is quoting the same people who tried to rat on the benefit, and that had there not been a leak of child benefit papers from the Cabinet, the child benefit scheme would not now exist. Would it not be appropriate to draw on sources other than that group of people to support his case?
  Mr. Moore: I recognise in many instances the role of the hon. Gentleman outside the House as well as inside it. I was doing what I thought was my duty, which was to remind the House of the background to the nature of my statutory duty, which is the duty of all Governments.
  I shall move on because I wish to be relatively brief.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Moore: No. I have given way excessively—and courteously, I trust.
  I shall move on from the nature of the history of child benefit and the statutory duty upon the Secretary of State to remind the House that in an earlier debate on these matters I drew attention to what child benefit had replaced. I shall take up the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). It replaced family and child tax allowances, neither of which were expected to, or did, rise each year.
  To ensure that the record is correct for the hon. Member for Birkenhead, in the article that he wrote, he took the period 1946 to 1970, but then added to that the period from 1970 to 1972, which actually changed the data. During that period, for two thirds of children in the basic category for all those under the age of 11, the real value declined. I shall send the hon. Gentleman the details because, being a serious person, he would no doubt wish to see them. The two allowances that child benefit replaced had different characteristics, but the one that they shared with child benefit was that they were not expected automatically to be indexed.
  What was at the back of my statutory duty that made me take the decisions I did this year? I had to recognise the nature of the whole character of the economy, what happens to families in other parts of the social security and benefits system, as well as the overall pattern of earnings. It would be improper for me to ignore the radical reductions in taxation, under which 80 per cent. of families with children benefit. It would be improper for me to ignore the fact that for the year in question when I made my judgment, when I considered whether to increase child benefit by 45p, families on typical male average earnings had had a £20 per week gain in income after tax during the previous year. I have to put all those into the balance in addition to the other improvements in living standards.
  The Opposition and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have argued their case from different angles. I respect many of their arguments. I pick out the eloquent

  439
  speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) during Report on the Finance Bill recently. He put his points extremely well and very quietly, as he always does. Hon. Members argue about horizontal equity, but I think that they tend to be over-conscious of—I dare not say obsessed with—child benefit to the exclusion of the overall pattern of the Government's help and support for families with children.
  I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Birkenhead; I found his piece in The Guardian today fascinating. For those who do not have The Guardian as their daily read, I shall quote what he said:
  "The Opposition and the poverty lobby will need to get their facts together."
  I shall not remind the House what the hon. Gentleman said about the Leader of the Opposition, although it was no doubt flattering—
  "Gesture politics here is the litany so often heard that child benefit is the only way of increasing family income."
  It is in that context that it is essential that the Opposition and my right hon. and hon. Friends understand the pattern of improvement over the last decade—rightly in my judgment—in help for families with children. We have secured a massive increase in the overall pattern of support—the horizontal equity mentioned by my hon. Friends—of about 27·3 per cent. As a society, we are spending £9 billion-plus in that area.
  I do not think that my hon. Friends need to be reminded of this, but the Opposition do. If they are obsessed with just one part of support for families with children——
  Mr. Frank Field: I am not.
  Mr. Moore: I do not mean the hon. Gentleman, I mean the Opposition generally. We should recall their appalling record when they were last in office. I specifically remind them about the relative position of child tax and of family allowances and child benefit, the process of which was changed during their time in office.
  The last time that I stood at this Dispatch Box, I reminded the House that their real value for young children has been higher throughout the term of this Government's period in office that at any time during the last Labour Administration, except when Labour uprated benefits in its last month in office. I shall place the figures on the record. They reveal that spending in real terms on family allowance and child tax allowance in 1974–75 totalled £5,758 million. In 1978–79, the figure fell in real terms by 14 per cent. to £4,875 million, which is not a record of which Labour can be proud.
  10 pm
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: My right hon. Friend says that child benefit should not be looked upon as the only means of helping those with children and of achieving horizontal equity. What help other than child benefit is given to people with children who have medium or high levels of income?
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  Social Security Bill

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill and the Transport (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

  Social Security Bill
  Lords amendments again considered.
  Mr. Moore: I commented that it was a judicious mix, and I go on to remind my hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members of the way that we manage that mix. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it is a combination of child benefit. Sometimes, the media and certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, behave as though child benefit is under threat. We are looking at a combination of benefits that matches the attempt to target additional help at poorer families with the universal benefit that is child benefit. Sometimes, it seems as though the only topic of debate is child benefit, but that is only part of the mixture.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: My right hon. Friend referred, rightly, to Labour's appalling record when in government. One of the most powerful arguments for the automatic uprating of child benefits is that if Labour were ever returned to power, it would be unable to perpetuate its appalling record.
  Mr. Moore: My right hon. Friend has made that point before, and it is reasonable that he should make it again.
  We are trying to help families with children in a balanced and sensible way against the backcloth of a massive increase in real terms in 10 years. We are combining targeted help with help on a universal basis. My right hon. and hon. Friends should remember more than some of them do that we are dealing with an entirely new structure of benefit support for families with children. The structure of income support and family credit means that there is no immediate gain to such families from a simple increase in child benefit. However, families with children under 11 have, under family credit, enjoyed a real improvement this year of 20·7 per cent.
  As to the debate on targeting, I find it extraordinary that the Opposition act as though means-tested benefits, as opposed to universal benefits, are somehow a new invention and that an attempt to help people who are poorer than others is a new feature of Government policy. Anyone with knowledge of the subject will know that it has been a feature of our social security system for many years. The question is always how effective one can make such benefits. Most targeted benefits succeed very well, with £9 out of £10 of them reaching the people for whom they are intended. Most of the analysis that we have undertaken reveals that targeted benefits are not seen as demeaning by those who receive them. Certainly they are not seen as demeaning by lone-parent families, where the take-up of benefits is a successful 97 per cent.-plus.
  I shall concentrate briefly on family credit. After two years, we have grown accustomed to the hon. Member for Livingston delighting us all, in advance of any debate on the Floor of the House, with the leaked proceedings of a conference or by distributing a piece of paper—if I may so describe the latest Walworth road press release, though I understand that that particular document was released at 00·01 hours.
  That illustrates the essential dilemma faced by the hon. Member for Livingston. Looking at this piece of paper, it is clear that the first thing that we must do is try to work out what precisely are the Opposition's policies. In articles written outside the House, the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he does not consider family credit a good
  442
  benefit; as a good Socialist, he would prefer a minimum income—I think that that was the phrase that he used in an interview about poverty last year.
  In public and in the House, however, the hon. Gentleman argues that, if family credit is to be provided, it should be taken up. I would have hoped, therefore—I am being as courteous and fair as I can—that he would address the matter a little more accurately than he did in that press release, which is a classic illustration of how to distort the facts by putting out incomplete information.
  Let me take the hon. Gentleman's main points one by one, as they are central to the argument—especially that of my hon. Friends, whose frequent criticism is that, while they do not disagree with family credit, it should he made more effective and should reach more people. The hon. Gentleman's first point was elaborated on the radio this morning: "The Secretary of State cannot parade family credit as a substitute for child benefit." I have never done that, and shall never try to.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point related to numbers: he quoted figures from the end of February and the end of June. Let me acquaint him with the precise position, which I could have done earlier had he asked me. At the end of March—at the beginning of the campaign—253,528 people were in receipt of family credit. The latest figure—again, the hon. Gentleman would have been welcome to it had he asked—is 268,984, an increase of 15,456, as opposed to the 9,400 that he suggested. More important, the underlying live load—those who might be expected to be full recipients of family credit—is now running at 315,000. There was an enormous surge in take-up, and 78,673 applications have not yet been considered.
  The third point is interrelated. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the success rate was much higher before the campaign began, and gave a figure that did not conform to the facts. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the success rate before the campaign began was an impressive 70 per cent. When it began, a large number of people wrote in who were clearly not entitled to the money—people with no children, for example. I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman would have liked us to help them. That, of course, meant that the initial disallowance rate was higher than it is now.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman would like the campaign to succeed. He will be happy to know that since it began the success rate has risen to 55 per cent., and is improving: the figure for the current week is 60 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should be delighted at that. Some 315,000 people—which could be up to about 63 per cent. of the underlying potential beneficiaries—are now able to receive family credit. That represents something approaching 75 to 80 per cent. of the expenditure potential. Surely everyone wants us to succeed in helping poorer families at work.
  In his attempt to decry aspects of the campaign, the hon. Gentleman was utterly mistaken in trying to illustrate—with figures that I have shown to be wrong—costs per person. Again he must be aware, as must the audience outside—I know that the hon. Member for Birkenhead is aware of this—that the potential claimant population is constantly changing. As is shown by research that I have placed in the House, the key is a lack of awareness of family credit: ignorance caused the main difficulty in targeting additional help effectively.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Moore: No. Perhaps I could explain, because this is information that the House will find important.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead will be delighted to know that the latest research suggests that following the campaign, which ended during the last two weeks, 93 per cent. are now aware of family credit, 90 per cent. were aware of the campaign and 83 per cent. know that it is a benefit for working families. I thought that it would be useful to get that on the record. I should like the take-up to be even higher and more people on low incomes in work to benefit from family credit, but that shows that, happily, it is building up into a success story.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Moore: No. I want to bring my remarks to an end, because I have already been on my feet for some time.
  I remind the House that I said that we are not talking about family credit as a substitute for child benefit. We are talking about a judicious admixture of child benefit—£4·5 billion—of family credit, where expenditure is well over £400 million, which is a very good increase on the £180 million for family income supplement, and of income support, which goes to 1·1 million families with 3 million children, when one adds up the income support and family credit beneficiaries.
  I urge the House to reject the Lords amendment. It would take away the flexibility that has contributed to the Government's outstanding record of support for families, achieved by a combination of economic success and a judicious admixture of universal child benefit and targeted help through income support and family credit. It is clearly in the interests of families that we should retain the flexibility of the present statutes.
  Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State began his speech by referring to the number of times that we have debated the matter recently. I see from the speech that I made the last time we debated the matter in April that I said that the advantage of regular debates was that they reminded Ministers and the Treasury that this issue will not go away until child benefit is uprated. I did not, I must confess, appreciate that the issue would return to harass them quite as quickly as it has done. Nevertheless, the debate is timely because, at the end of October, the House will receive from the right hon. Gentleman, or his successor, an uprating statement for next April. In terms of sitting weeks, the end of October is only a fortnight away. This is the last chance to influence that statement before it is drawn up.
  The Secretary of State referred to my former colleague, Alec Jones, whom I remember well as a close and valued friend. The Secretary of State quoted him as arguing why it would not be appropriate annually to uprate child benefit. The Secretary of State gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) at that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr was seeking to put to the Secretary of State the point that child benefit replaced, in part, the child tax allowance, a point to which the Secretary of State referred later.
  The annual indexation of tax allowances was introduced in 1977, by which time child tax allowances were being phased out because they were being replaced by child benefit. If child benefit had not then already been coming into place, and if child tax allowances had had a stable future, there is no doubt whatsoever that child tax allowances would have been included in the statutory
  444
  indexation. I think that I can say that with some authority. Although the Secretary of State disputed the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, I think that my hon. Friend is in a better position to be an authority on this matter since he drafted the amendment that gave effect to the tax allowance indexation.
  The Secretary of State was good enough not to waste the time of the House by debating the amendment as such, and I shall follow his precedent, but the nub of the debate on this issue of principle is not whether child benefit should be annually uprated but why child benefit should be annually frozen. I noticed the interesting omission from the Secretary of State's speech of an answer to a question that he was asked from below the Gangway by one of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), which was: accepting that child benefit may not require annual uprating, did the right hon. Gentleman accept that child benefit was appropriate for uprating from time to time? The House received no reply to that question. It is precisely because that question is unanswered that many of us believe that it is not only reasonable but prudent to conclude that child benefit is under threat.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Moore: I did not and cannot answer, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman knows precisely. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) points out, there are clear arrangements in the public expenditure White Paper to allow annual indexation, but the Secretary of State is beholden to make a judgment each year. It would be improper for me to pre-empt that judgment.
  Mr. Cook: I shall turn in a moment to what judgment the Secretary of State should exercise on the coming year. I shall willingly give way a second time if he wishes to clarify this point. Leaving aside what individual judgment he may reach next year, and leaving aside the individual judgment that he reached last year, does he or does he not accept that, perhaps not annually, but from time to time, it would be appropriate and correct to uprate child benefit? I shall give way to the Secretary of State again if he wishes to answer that question, which he has now ducked twice. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State has certainly not given me or the House the answer.
  Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is playing the usual games.
  Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State says that I am playing the usual games. I am generously giving him an opportunity to clarify what is in his mind.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I want to give way to the Secretary of State. Only he can answer this question. I am not interested in whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is appropriate from time to time to increase child benefit. I want to know whether the Secretary of State thinks that that is appropriate. The fact that he will not answer that question must leave hanging in the air the possibility, if not the certainty, that this Secretary of State does not believe that it is appropriate to increase child benefit.
  The Secretary of State said that he must apply his mind to that judgment in an agonising, painful reflection every year. I invite the House to apply its mind to the judgment

  445
  that the Secretary of State might exercise for the coming year. We are talking about April 1990. The Lords amendment proceeds from the starting point that this year and last year are water under the bridge. We are debating what happens to uprating in April next year. That will be the third year of a freeze in child benefit if it is not uprated. Every additional year of freeze must make the judgment in uprating child benefit in the subsequent year that bit more compelling.
  Child benefit has now been frozen for two years. In those two years, it has lost over 10 per cent. in value—£39 in a full year. That is a significant sum, especially to a mother on a tight budget. Some hon. Members will have noticed that during the Euro-elections I went shopping for clothes for an imaginary five-year-old. I was able with that sum to kit him out completely, with a track suit, shirt, vest, trainers and three pairs of socks and still have enough change left over to buy a milk shake to thank him for keeping quiet. It is important that those of us who do not feel the pinch of a weekly budget should recognise that it is that kind of shopping expedition that we make more difficult, if not impossible, for mothers by not uprating child benefit. It is against that background that the Secretary of State must exercise his judgment as to whether it would be appropriate to uprate child benefit next April.
  Even if the Treasury is correct and inflation has peaked and from now will gently glide down in the same way that it bumped up, by next April the RPI will have notched up 17 percentage points since April 1987, when child benefit was last increased. In short, over those three years, child benefit will have lost a sixth of its purchasing power. In those circumstances, I find it impossible to conceive what may weigh in the balance when the Secretary of State comes to exercise his judgment to tell against uprating child benefit in that third year. The only reason why child benefit may be kept frozen for a third year is that those who freeze it hope that, if they leave it long enough in the deep freeze, it will be found frozen to death.
  If that were to happen, we would lose a very important benefit. I have three grounds of principle for that belief which I will rehearse briefly. First, child benefit puts money in the hands of the mother. The mother is overwhelmingly the parent who feeds and clothes the children and she gets the cash from child benefit. Secondly, it is reliable. It is often the only stable point of reference in the budget. Low-income families, especially under this Government, are prone to get stuck in the revolving door of alternative bouts of employment and unemployment. When in employment, their wage packet may unnervingly go through bumpy rides of seasonal fluctuations in overtime. Through all that, child benefit may be the only reliable, predictable payment in the hands of the mother. It is the one income on which she can budget with confidence for her children.
  Thirdly, child benefit provides a ladder out of the poverty trap. Its greatest strength is precisely the point that the Secretary of State keeps perceiving as its greatest weakness—that it does not go down if the family income goes up. It provides the family, therefore, with an incentive to find a job or do overtime without being penalised by the benefit being clawed back. It is worth recalling that a family on family credit and housing benefit can now face a clawback of over 90p in benefit for every extra pound earned. That is a penal rate of marginal taxation—double the rate of marginal taxation now experienced by the wealthiest in our community. The difficulty for the
  446
  Secretary of State is that the better he and his colleagues succeed in targeting benefits, the more difficult they make it for such households to climb out of the poverty trap.
  I want to refer here to what the Secretary of State said in relation to family credit. It would be churlish of me not to welcome the marked difference of tone in the description by the Secretary of State of family credit and the way in which he related it to child benefit. I am bound to say that it was not only a different tone but a somewhat chastened tone, for a reason that I shall come to in a moment.
  I entirely accept that any comprehensive system of benefits for families will be a mix of means-tested benefits and universal benefits. The Opposition have never had any doubt about that. We accept that means-tested benefits will have a role to play. The doubt that has existed in previous debates is whether the Secretary of State accepted that universal benefits, in the shape of child benefit, had any future role in that mix. I accept from what he said tonight that there appeared to be a new note of caution in his assessment and that there appeared to be a willingness to recognise that means-tested benefits require to be supported by universal benefits such as child benefit.
  The reason for that is not far to seek. Since the last debate, to which the Secretary of State was good enough to refer, we have had the relaunch of family credit. As the Secretary of State will recall, family credit was forecast to achieve an uptake of 470,000. We must measure the subsequent numbers who claim against that forecast.
  Mr. Moore indicated dissent.
  Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State shakes his head. That figure was in the public expenditure White Paper that was printed for last year, and if a figure that was included in the public expenditure White Paper does not constitute a Government forecast, we are moving into an era of rubbery statistics to an extent that I had not previously expected even of this Government.
  Mr. Moore: Does the hon. Gentleman assume that if new data appear they are ignored by the Government and that if the old data are wrong we just ignore that? If he argues on the basis of the only clear knowledge we have, he knows the audience we believe to exist, as opposed to the 1985–86 figures, is a potential audience of 500,000 in 1988–89. He knows that that is the potential beneficiary audience for family credit, so what on earth is he talking about?
  Mr. Cook: I am not talking about the 1985–86 figures, and I am rather surprised that the Secretary of State should think that the forecast of 470,000 was for 1985–86. The figure appeared in the White Paper for 1987–88, for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible. It was the figure that he himself chose. I entirely agree with him that it turned out to be completely wrong, but it was his figure and his forecast. [Interruption.] I am using it to point out to the Secretary of State the margin of error in his forecast. His forecast was 470,000, and I agree with him, in the light of history, that it was a risible figure.
  The take-up for family credit has since settled down at around the 250,000 mark. The Secretary of State taxed me with using figures in error in my press release. I have to confess that he may be right that the figures are erroneous; after all, they are entirely drawn from figures supplied by

  447
  him in parliamentary answers. [Interruption.] To the end of June. It was the figure that he quoted at social security questions only 10 days ago.
  The figure of 263,000 is, as I said in my press release, precisely 9,400 more than the figure for the end of February. I could have made the figure even smaller. I could have taken the figure for the end of November. The figure for the end of November last year was 260,000—at least, that was the figure given by the Secretary of State, although perhaps he will wish to correct it now. That means that the figure is 9,400 higher than in March and only 3,400 higher than at the end of November.
  Suppose that I take the point made by the Secretary of State and accept his latest revision of the figures, which would give us an additional 15,000 since the end of February—although only 9,000 since the end of November. I agree that that will change my calculations. In my press release I calculated that we were paying £510 in advertising costs for every additional new claimant of family credit. I concede that that was based on the figure of 9,400 claimants, which I had taken from the earlier figures given by the Secretary of State.
  Suppose that I take the figure that the Secretary of State has given the House tonight—15,000 additional new claimants. That means that the advertising fee per additional claimant is working out at £320. Even at £320 in extra expenditure for every new claimant, we must be looking at what must bid fair for the prize for the least efficient benefit in Europe. Not only that, but we are left with barely a quarter of a million claimants and a refusal rate that has increased. In my press release I cited a refusal rate of 44 per cent. The Secretary of State corrected that by saying that the success rate is 55 per cent. If he reflects for a moment, he will notice that the two figures add up to 100 per cent. and are entirely reconcilable. The chief result of all the publicity—[Interruption.] If I did not, I cheerfully accept the correction. The figure is 44 per cent., although I am mystified as to why the Secretary of State should think that we believed any other figure as we are trusting, simple souls using information that he gives in parliamentary answers.
  The Secretary of State has carried out a hold experiment, and I suppose that we should be grateful to him for it. He has tested means-tested benefits as a means of targeting families with children. So far it has been an expensive experiment. It has cost his Department and the taxpayer £5 million. The more he has persisted with the experiment in family credit, the more he has underlined the attractions of child benefit.
  Child benefit is cost-effective. There is no need to advertise child benefit on every passing bus. It is cheap to administer. It costs only 2p per pound delivered to the claimant. Secondly, it achieves near complete take-up. Unlike family credit, it hits nearly all its targets. It gets through to many more mothers in poor families than family credit. In particular, it gets through to the quarter of a million families poor enough to qualify for family credit whom the Secretary of State cannot find or cannot persuade to apply for family credit.
  10.30 pm
  I began by mentioning how often we have debated this issue. I want to end by asking a question to which I have sought an answer on each of the past three occasions when
  448
  we have debated the issue. It is a question which the Secretary of State, perhaps wisely, has never attempted to answer. As he fairly said, child benefit in part replaced child tax allowance. Had it remained a tax allowance I have not the slightest doubt, and I question whether any Conservative right hon. of hon. Member doubts, that the Government would have uprated it annually. They would have come to the House with pride and asked us to admire them for having done so.
  There is, however, a clear and pertinent contrast. Under the Government, the married man's tax allowance has gone up by 22 per cent. in real terms. In the same period, child benefit has gone down by 13 per cent. If the amendment is rejected, and if the Secretary of State subsequently fails to uprate child benefit for next April, child benefit will have declined under the Government, not by 13 per cent., but by between 19 and 20 per cent., depending on what the rate of inflation is next April.
  I ask the Secretary of State, or any hon. Member who can think of a convincing answer, by what feat of mental gymnastics can it be said that the cost of maintaining a wife has gone up one fifth while the cost of bringing up a child has gone down one fifth? Those who can find an honest answer to that question to their own satisfaction are welcome to vote with the Secretary of State; plainly they are beyond the bounds of reason. I invite into our Lobby tonight those who find that question difficult and troubling to answer and who recognise that it exposes the double standards of an Administration willing to cut benefits in order to cut taxation. We shall vote tonight against those double standards.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), this is well-trodden ground, so I will not detain the House for long.
  I want to examine the two arguments that my right hon. Friend advanced tonight and in our debate on 24 April for not uprating child benefit. The first argument was to rely on what Lady Castle and Mr. Alec Jones said in 1975. I find that argument extraordinary. Apart from anything else, the dates are wrong. What Lady Castle might have said in 1977 had she been Secretary of State would have been more relevant, but that my right hon. Friend should use Lady Castle at all is most odd. Twice a week for many years my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has excoriated the Opposition for the appalling mess they made in government in the late 1970s. Why does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State now take what they did in the 1970s as an example of what he should do now? To shelter behind Lady Castle is extraordinary, particularly as the Government now say—I hope that they are right, although I have no way of knowing—that the economy has been transformed under their aegis. Why should we seek to follow what the Labour Government, in their benighted days and their hopelessly incompetent ways, did in 1975?
  That is as specious an argument as one could possibly find, except perhaps the next one advanced by my right hon. Friend when he talked about "the overall pattern" and his statutory duty. On 24 April he said:
  "I do not have the choice of looking at child benefit in isolation. I must rightly consider the relationship between child benefit and the economic and social patterns of our country."—[Official Report, 24 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 722.]

  449
  During the past two years, what change has there been in the economic and social patterns of our country? Does he believe that too many children have been born? Does he wish to discourage that by cutting child benefit? It is important to know what social and economic patterns have changed. In the past two years substantial tax cuts have been showered around. Income tax allowance and every other allowance have been raised. The one thing that has not been raised is child benefit.
  Mr. Moore: If my right hon. Friend looks at Hansard for 24 April, he will see that I illustrated for the two years in question precisely what had happened to families who were in receipt of substantial, net after-tax increases and the way in which in those years those families who did not so benefit benefited more than they would have done otherwise because of the precise policies that I had introduced.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was just the intervention that I wanted. The Government have done nothing like enough for the really poor, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the simple point that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins): that people with children have greater expense than people without children. That applies at all levels of income. By refusing to uprate child benefit two years running, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is treating people with children worse than people without children.
  I want to know what changes in the social and economic patterns of the country justify that. I cannot think of one. It is clear to all hon. Members that people at all levels of income have greater expense if they have children than if they have not. That is why we had child tax and family allowances before and why we have child benefit now.
  It is not good enough for my right hon. Friend to refer to the very poor, on which the Government's record is not all that good. That is why my right hon. Friend did not answer my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North and for High Peak. However, I am talking not about the really poor but about people with families above the level of family credit and income support. When tax cuts and income tax allowance are being showered all around, why should people with children benefit less than anybody else?
  That is why, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, I cannot take him seriously when he talks about his review. If he reviewed things properly, he could not possibly come to that conclusion. It is not within the bounds of reason. It has only happened—to some extent this lets out my right hon. Friend—because the Government have an insensate desire to cut public expenditure. They think that child tax allowance is not expenditure but that child benefit is, so they cut it. That is not the decision of my right hon. Friend, but of the Government, and they are to blame.
  At some stage the Government will have to deal with the problem of horizontal equity. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary singularly failed to do that the other night, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has singularly failed to do so today. Until they do, they will be discriminating against people with children.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I want to follow on from the last point made by the right
  450
  hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). There is no doubt that the central problem that has emerged in debate after debate on this issue—this is the third that we have had in the House this year; one in January, one in April and again tonight—is the Secretary of State's inherently weak position in the Government.
  In January, the right hon. Gentleman attempted to swathe himself in legislative complexity about how tied his hands were. He followed that with further arguments to which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) alluded in his speech in April. Tonight, he has, in a sense, ignored the core of the debate, which is that the Government were defeated in the other place after the arguments had been comprehensively trailed. Rebellious Conservative Back Benchers, Cross Benchers and the various Opposition groupings prevented them from mustering a persuasive argument to justify the attitudes that they have taken over the past two years on child benefit.
  The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham is right to remind us that this has been a two-year process. When the decision not to uprate was first made, there was some allusion to the fact that it should be viewed only in the context of the financial constraints and the economic decisions of the Government in that year. Then it was repeated, and now the Government are attempting to knock out a Lords amendment. If left further unchecked, it is clearly the Government's intention to allow child benefit to wither on the vine and die. It is as simple as that, and that is why it would be a good idea to fire a shot across the bows not just of the Department of Social Security, but of the Treasury. A substantial rebellion by Conservative Members would constitute such a shot.
  The Secretary of State treated us to a trip down memory lane when he spoke about the mid-1970s. In that context, I quote from an editorial in the Financial Times. It appeared at the end of last year, and in a sense it puts the historical context of the debate in much fairer and fuller relief than did the Secretary of State. The editorial says:
  "Much of the opposition to child benefit … reflects a misunderstanding of what it is meant to achieve. It is said to be poorly targeted because it is received by rich as well as poor mothers. Yet it was a replacement for child tax allowances. Nobody argues that personal allowances are poorly targeted because both high and low earners receive them."
  The Financial Times put the case with considerable cogency. However, only three years earlier, in June 1985, the Green Paper, entitled "Reform of Social Security", put it with even greater cogency and more persuasiveness:
  "The Government accept the case for continuing the system of child benefit. It is right that families with children at all income levels should receive some recognition for the additional costs of bringing up children and that the tax benefit system should allow for some general redistribution of resources from those without children to those who have responsibility for caring for them."
  There we have the Government's own words.
  The Prime Minister is continually alluding to the previous Labour Government. The Secretary of State is willing to go all the way back to 1975 and cite the actions of the Labour Government to justify being forced to carry out actions. Why does he not go back to 1985 and to the words of his Department's Green Paper on the reform of social security? If he and his Department no longer subscribe to what they said three years ago, as opposed to what Labour Ministers said 13 years ago, that further underscores the need to answer the question posed by the

  451
  hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The hon. Gentleman asked the Minister whether, if he no longer accepts that argument, he therefore accepts any continuing and viable future role for child benefit.
  The Minister is asking the House to reject an amendment passed in another place. That is consistent, if his argument has any force—I do not think that it has much—with the longer-term thinking of the Minister and his Department. He has manifestly failed to tell us clearly about his long-term thinking, and from his demeanour at the Dispatch Box it is clear that he has no intention of telling us. That is as strong and powerful an argument as any that could be advanced for upholding the decision made in another place.
  The House may have been treated to one swansong earlier in respect of the poll tax and the Secretary of State for the Environment. This shabby exercise for the third time this year by the Secretary of State for Social Security would be a fitting epitaph on his ministerial tombstone.
  Mr. John Maples: The hon. Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Livingstone (Mr. Cook) spoke about the old system of child tax allowances. Such allowances were valuable to the Labour Government because under that Government tax rates were incredibly high. If we still had a system of child tax allowances and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security had indexed them for the last 10 years, the Opposition would criticise us for reducing their real value by cutting the rate of income tax. Therefore, they should be careful about how they use that argument.
  This debate used to be something of an annual event, but this is the fourth time in the last four months—three times here and once in another place—that the subject has been debated. Two things characterised those debates. The first is that the arguments on both sides do not change very much and the second, and perhaps more pertinent, is that those who continually argue for the annual uprating of child benefit fail to take into account the way that the world has moved on in the last 10 years. That has happened in two respects. First, we have seen the ability and willingness of people to shoulder more responsibility when they can afford to do so. Secondly, we have seen the quite extraordinary degree to which real take-home pay has increased at all levels of income.
  I simply cannot believe that anyone who favours this Lords amendment, or any of its predecessors, if given £650 million by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend on trying to help families with children, who are in some financial difficulty, would choose to spread it around at a rate of £1·10 a week and not concentrate it on those who need the help. Most of the people who receive child benefit do not need the help.
  Mr. Hawkins: If my hon. Friend would like to target child benefit only at the lower paid, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly would, why do we not abolish the married man's allowance and target that at the lower paid as well? Why do we not do the same with mortgage interest tax relief?
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Maples: Often, when I used to speak in debates on the economy and taxation, I used to argue strongly for the elimination of all personal allowances and a reduction in the rate of income tax as a compensation. Mortgage interest tax relief has been frozen and we have recently introduced restrictions on deductions for pensions. My hon. Friend had better be a little careful about that argument.
  The main piece of reality that the proponents of the Lords amendment fail to take into account is the enormous increase in real take-home pay during the past 10 years. During that period, the real take-home pay of someone on average earnings has increased by 31 per cent., or £52 a week. The pay of someone on three quarters of average earnings has increased by 28 per cent., or £38 a week. At all levels of earnings, people are substantially better off. People can and should devote part of that increased wealth to taking more responsibility for their own affairs.
  In the context of such increased earnings, the failure to index child benefit, which would mean £1·10 per child per week, must be insignificant. The policy that I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has followed for the past two years, and which I hope he will continue to pursue, is that child benefit should be frozen and that we should give generous help to people on low incomes with children through the family credit and income support systems. For the others, we should, by the control that that exercises on public spending, reduce their liability to income tax.
  Mr. Frank Field: We keep hearing figures about take-home pay and what has happened to it during the past two years. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there were similar increases in take-home pay in the two years prior to that which he is quoting, and that is why the Conservative party won the general election? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government were wrong to increase child benefit in those two years?
  Mr. Maples: I do not have the figures for the previous two years. If it was so, I suppose the same argument applies.
  There is one misconception about uprating child benefit. It is that in some way it helps poor families with children. That is the one group of people who are not helped at all. Any increase in child benefit is automatically corrected by a reduction in income support or family credit. As people can now receive family credit on an income of up to £10,000 a year if they have two teenage children, it follows that anyone who earns less than that will gain no benefit by an annual or other uprating of child benefit. Moreover, almost everyone above that level will pay more in income tax than they get in child benefit. The way to help them is not to increase child benefit but to reduce their liability to tax.
  This is the old argument of universal against means-tested benefits, which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was rehearsing on the radio this morning. What he did not tell the public then or earlier in this debate is that the natural and inevitable corollary of a universal social security benefit is high taxation to pay for it. I think that we should move away from that, give generous help to people in need and leave others to take care of themselves. It is no business of the state to have one

  453
  of its agencies take money out of the pockets of husbands so that another agency of the state, after the expenses of both, can put it back in the pockets of their wives.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maples: No, I am coming to a conclusion so that others may have an opportunity to speak. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have his.
  Nor is it any business of the state to put up everyone's tax so that we can raise everyone's benefits. We have a crazy system. We take £4·5 billion a year in tax out of the pockets of husbands and give rather less than that back to their wives through the social security system. We have a system in which low earners with no children subsidise high earners with children. We have a system by which increases in those benefits are of no use whatever to the families on lowest incomes and in the greatest need.
  I cannot believe that anyone would reinvent a system of child benefit to try to help families in financial difficulties. It is a holdover from days of penal taxation and the idea that the Government know best how to run people's lives. It fails to take account of how real incomes have risen and it fails to leave people alone to run their own lives. We have now had this debate four times this year and several times over the past few years. I hope that this will be the end of them because out of the four debates this year, the Government may have won only three of the votes, but they have won four of the arguments.
  Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for two things: first, that he accepted that this debate is about the principle of regular uprating of child benefit, and that is the course that the debate has taken; and, secondly, for his confirmation of what we all know—that money is provided in the public expenditure White Paper for the uprating of child benefit. There is no question of our asking for something that was not planned for. The plan allows for uprating, and we should adopt it.
  My right hon. Friend talked about support for children as a judicious admixture of child benefit, family credit and income support. I accept that, and it is right that it should be such a mixture. Surely the essence of the case is that if child benefit is not uprated it will lose its meaning and we shall have only the means-tested benefits of income support and family credit to rely on, and we shall lose something that is of enormous benefit to large numbers of people who do not find the business of having children something that is easily borne. That is the heart of the matter.
  It is vital that child benefit should be looked at in the context of the tax and social security systems as a whole. It is no good separating one from the other. The Government seem to be favouring targeting, but we already give indiscriminate, untargeted tax relief to occupational pensioners, to mortgage holders, to single persons, to married couples and now to people who take up private health insurance. The only targeting about all that is that those who get the most by and large get the largest tax relief. It is not possible to give all those forms of financial support to those groups and then, for those with children, who clearly are bearing extra cost, gradually phase out the form of support that helps them—child benefit. It must be accepted that the erosion of child benefit, which is what we are talking about, will do enormous damage to children.
  454
  We debated the other day a different approach—a return to child tax allowances. That is not a good approach, and I do not support it. Over the years, child benefit has proved to be the right answer. I shall not go into the reasons at length, but we know that there are several powerful advantages. First, as has been said, it does not create disincentives or the poverty trap. Secondly, it does not have the problems of take-up which persist with family credit. Thirdly, it does not require an elaborate system of means testing, nor does it induce the dependency that goes with that. Fourthly, it helps non-taxpayers and taxpayers alike, particularly the not-quite-poor—those just above the level at which they will receive means-tested benefit.
  Fifthly, child benefit goes to the mother, which is something that the Conservative party has always stressed. In a world of family breakdown, mounting divorce and far too many one-parent families, the certainty of child benefit—the fact that it comes without means testing—is one of the most powerful arguments for its being maintained, and maintaining it must mean uprating it. It represents a commitment for which the Conservative party has stood for a long time.
  I shall conclude by quoting some words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister which support that contention. In a written answer, she stated:
  "It has for long been the view of all parties that our tax and benefit systems should recognise the needs of families with children, and should differentiate between such families and those without responsibilities for children. Child tax allowances achieved this but gave no help to families below the tax threshold. Family allowances did not recognise the first child. Child benefit, which replaced both allowances, was introduced in 1977 with the support of all parties. I am glad that, even in the very difficult circumstances of this year. we have been able to increase child benefit by about 10½ per cent. and so honour the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on 28 July last year."—[Official Report, 17 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 55.]
  That quotation illustrates clearly the principle that there is a difference between those who have children and those who have not. It is the job of our tax and benefit systems to have regard to that. That is why I hope that the House will support the proposal of my right hon. Friend Lady Faith full.
  Mr. John Marshall: Much of the debate so far has revolved round the principle of whether child benefit should be uprated next year, but the amendment goes much wider than that. The amendment says, in effect, that there should be no discrimination in favour of the poorest children in the community. It provides that family credit and child benefit must be uprated at the same level. Surely we want to concentrate our assistance on the poorest within the community. The amendment prevents us from doing that. For those drawing family credit, the amendment will be of no benefit. We want a system that helps the poorest and ensures that future increases do not necessarily go to those at the top.
  We know that half those receiving child benefit are earning above-average wages. About 500,000 of those receiving child benefit are paying tax at the rate of 40 per cent. It seems wrong that we should be encouraged by the other place to say that those people should receive the same increase as people in receipt of family credit. It is much better that the poorest in the community should receive the extra assistance that they need. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir. I.

  455
  Gilmour) quoted statements from the past. Over the past two years, family credit has been introduced to help a greater number of children in need. That is one of the Government's greatest achievements, and I welcome it. We should concentrate our assistance upon those in greatest need rather than scatter it around like confetti, giving money to many of those who do not need it.
  Mr. Marlow: Very briefly, I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because he is trapped within the system of Government expenditure. I am talking to my right hon. Frind so I am sure that he is listening even though he is offering me the back of his head. Not for the first—no, I will not say that. I put it—[Interruption.] I have been told to behave myself. I put it to my right hon. Friend that I have some sympathy with him because he is trapped by the system of Government expenditure. My right hon. Friend is given a budget and he is told, "Here are all your priorities, here are your needs and here are your problems. This is the amount of money that you have got. How are you going to deal with it?" As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) said, quite rightly, my right hon. Friend has concentrated the resources available to him on the poorest, the most needy in the land. That is what he has done. But where my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West is wrong is on this score. If my hon. Friend needs that money—if he has to have it—he should not take it from other people's children. He should get it from somewhere else. What he ought to do is to look at Government expenditure overall, not just on the basis of my right hon. Friend's Department. If he did that, we would come to a different conclusion and have a different answer.
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) posed a question to us. He said that, if we believe that the cost of looking after a wife or catering for a wife has gone up by a fifth, and that the cost of catering for a child has gone down by a fifth, we should support the Government. But it is more vivid than that. The Government, this Government, our Government, are committed to reducing taxes in future. If they reduce, as we hope that they will do, taxes in future, they reduce taxes for everybody. But they have got to get that money from somewhere. They might get part of that money from increased revenue, but they will possibly get some of that money from reductions in Government expenditure in other areas.
  If child benefit is not being increased in line with inflation, the reality is—as the hon. Gentleman and the whole House know—that it is being reduced. So to reduce taxes, which we want, money is to be taken from families with children and given to those without children. That is manifest nonsense. However hard-line a Tory one may be, and I am looked on as being a hard-line Tory—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Withdraw."] All right, I am not a hard-line Tory, I am a soft-line Tory. I am a wet.
  11 pm
  If Sherlock Holmes were a member of the parliamentary Lobby and a sketch writer and he was sat up in the Gallery looking down on us, he would refer to tonight as being the night of the unanswered question. My right hon. Friend, in his remarks, said that when child benefit was introduced there was a commitment from time to time to increase child benefit. I have asked my right hon. Friend,
  456
  but I am afraid that I was not dignified with a reply. The hon. Gentleman—far more important than me—on the Opposition Front Bench asked the same question. Many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House want to know, need to know, are required to know the answer to that question tonight before we vote.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 234.

  Division No.310]

  [11.01 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

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

  Alexander, Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Allason, Rupert

  Devlin, Tim

  Amess, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Amos, Alan

  Dover, Den

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Durant, Tony

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Eggar, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Favell, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baldry, Tony

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Forth, Eric

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Body, Sir Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gardiner, George

  Bottomley, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gorst, John

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gow, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Graham

  Gregory, Conal

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

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hague, William

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hayward, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heddle, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

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

  Couchman, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Curry, David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  457

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, John

  Irvine, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Irving, Charles

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jackson, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Key, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lightbown, David

  Speed, Keith

  Lilley, Peter

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stevens, Lewis

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stokes, Sir John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Sumberg, David

  Maples, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Mellor, David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thorne, Neil

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Trippier, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Needham, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walker, Bill (T'slde North)

  Norris, Steve

  Waller, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Ward, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Wheeler, John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wilkinson, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Price, Sir David

  Wood, Timothy

  458

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Foster, Derek

  Alton, David

  Fraser, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Fyfe, Maria

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Galbraith, Sam

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Galloway, George

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Ashton, Joe

  George, Bruce

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Barron, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Battle, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Beckett, Margaret

  Gordon, Mildred

  Beggs, Roy

  Gould, Bryan

  Beith, A. J.

  Graham, Thomas

  Bell, Stuart

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hardy, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boateng, Paul

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Boyes, Roland

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Home Robertson, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Caborn, Richard

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Howells, Geraint

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cartwright, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clay, Bob

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cohen, Harry

  Kennedy, Charles

  Coleman, Donald

  Kilfedder, James

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cousins, Jim

  Knox, David

  Crowther, Stan

  Lambie, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Lamond, James

  Cummings, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Terry

  Darling, Alistair

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Livsey, Richard

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Doran, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Douglas, Dick

  McCrindle, Robert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McFall, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McKelvey, William

  Dykes, Hugh

  McLeish, Henry

  Eadie, Alexander

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Madden, Max

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Flannery, Martin

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Flynn, Paul

  Maxton, John

  459

  Meacher, Michael

  Prescott, John

  Meale, Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Michael, Alun

  Radice, Giles

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Randall, Stuart

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Redmond, Martin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Richardson, Jo

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Robertson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Nellist, Dave

  Rogers, Allan

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Rooker, Jeff

  O'Brien, William

  Rowlands, Ted

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ruddock, Joan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Salmond, Alex

  Parry, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Patchett, Terry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Pendry, Tom

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Pike, Peter L.

  Short, Clare

  Powell. Rav (Ogmore)

  Sillars. Jim

  460

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walley, Joan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

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

  Wareing, Robert N.

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

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Snape, Peter

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Squire, Robin

  Wilson, Brian

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Winnick, David

  Stott, Roger

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Straw, Jack

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Turner, Dennis

  Vaz, Keith

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wall, Pat

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.

  Wallace, James

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment No.2 disagreed to.

  Social Security Bill
    Clause 8

      MOBILITY ALLOWANCE: INCREASE OF AGE LIMIT TO 80 YEARS
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 8, line 42, at beginning insert—
      "( ) In section 37A of the principal Act (mobility allowance) at the end of subsection (1) insert 'or is deaf and blind or is suffering from severe mental handicap such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so without physical control by another person'.
      ( ) In subsection (2) of that section leave out 'physical'."
      The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      May I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to the Opposition Front Bench. He gave us a tough time in Committee. I imagine that he will do the same in his new position. Nevertheless, we warmly welcome him.
      I am conscious of the fact that there will be some disappointment not only on the Opposition Benches but on the Conservative side that the Government disagree with the Lords amendment. Some of my hon. Friends have taken a keen interest in the question of a mobility allowance for the two groups who are covered by the Lords amendment. Potential beneficiaries outside the House have been watching the proceedings carefully. Campaigning organisations, not least Sense, the National Deaf Blind Helpers League and Mencap, have also been watching them with great care.
      11.15 pm
      In what I hope will be a brief opening of the debate I hope to do three things—first, to say something about the background to the mobility allowance, secondly, to say why I believe that it would not be appropriate for the House to agree to the Lords amendment and, thirdly, to consider the way ahead.
      The mobility allowance has been a conspicious success since it was introduced by the Opposition in 1975. It replaced the old trike scheme but, unlike the trike scheme, it was made available for the first time to severely disabled people with mobility difficulties, whether or not they were able to drive. They were given a cash allowance that they could spend as they wished, either on a motor car or on other ways of broadening their horizons or enhancing their lives.
      When the scheme was introduced the criteria were largely those that governed the trike scheme. The same criteria apply now, although case law has to a certain extent modified them. I repeat that the mobility allowance has been a great success. The growth in the number of recipients of this benefit has been impressive. Since the Government came to office, the number in receipt of mobility allowance has increased from 95,000 to 580,000. That number is steadily rising.
      The increase is due to three separate factors. First, the age limit has been changed. When the scheme was first introduced the age limit was 65, then it was increased to 75, and it will rise to 80 when the Bill receives Royal Assent. That has increased the number of beneficiaries by 140,000.
      Mr. Kennedy: The increase in the age threshold from 75 to 80 is to he welcomed. However, a postman in the Isle of Skye who came to see me revealed a general problem with the mobility allowance. All too often people do not realise
      462
      that such an allowance exists and that they are eligible. By the age of 65 they cannot apply for the allowance. This constituent reached the age of 65 and then realised that the allowance would be of assistance to him in a remote rural area. However, because of his age he found that he could not receive the allowance. Is the Department trying to heighten awareness of the existence of the allowance, in particular of the age after which people will be unable to apply for it, even though the age of eligibility for the award is now as high as 80?
      Mr. Scott: My second point was going to be about awareness of mobility allowance, which has increased, dramatically. The more people who get it, the more other people know about it and are therefore encouraged to come forward. That is an important factor in the more than fivefold increase in take-up of this benefit over the past 10 years. In practice, people can apply up to the age of 66, as long as the condition existed before their 65th birthday. There is a 12-month period during which applications for the benefit can be made.
      The third factor is the development of case law over the years since the mobility allowance was introduced. Anyone who has followed it knows that case law has sometimes taken three steps forward and two back in terms of being generous or more restrictive over the intervening period. The overall move has been in a more generous direction.
      A combination of three decisions has made an important and constructive move forward. The first was the Edmunds decision and the subsequent regulations introduced by the then Labour Government following the 1978 decision about the criteria to be applied to those who were virtually unable to walk. Then, in 1986, the tribunal of commissioners, following the Lees case, made a decision on the way in which involuntary interruptions in the ability to walk could, dependent on their frequency, amount to a virtual inability to walk. There was also a series of unreported cases, which nevertheless form the body of case law, about the extent to which people who are deaf-blind and suffer from balance difficulties which lead to their needing physical support can also be entitled to the allowance. In three significant respects there has been some easement in the original conditions because of the development of case law.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend assess the number of people who fit into the two categories referred to in the amendment?
      Mr. Scott: I could not do so without a much more careful analysis. Cases are decided and then the appeal tribunals and the decision-making process—in practice, independent adjudicating authorities—make decisions about the eligibility of individuals which would not necessarily be recorded as flowing from a particular case that had been decided. It is clear that each of those aspects has had a not insignificant impact on decision making.
      The House may say, "We have made all those improvements, so why not accept the Lords amendment?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I shall explain why I feel that at this time it is not appropriate to accept the amendment which their Lordships have sent back to us. I am aware of, and have been impressed by, the case that has been made by Sense, the National Deaf Blind Helpers

      463
      League and Mencap. A number of my predecessors have met deputations from those organisations and have been sympathetic to their suggestions.
      This is not an easy problem to solve. Anyone who has studied the debates in another place will realise how difficult it all is. One of the most important features of the debate in another place was the gulf between the estimates by the Government and by the disability organisations of the numbers that might benefit from the amendment. I should explain why and how the Government came to their estimate, which they derived from the data of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. It should be made clear that the relevant data are not separately set out in any of the published OPCS reports. They were derived from a computer analysis by the Department of the data tapes, which are a part of the OPCS survey.
      The survey data are divided between 13 different broad areas of disability—such as locomotion, personal care, continence, seeing and hearing. Within each of those areas the OPCS reseachers have constructed a scale of severity. All that is explained in the first of the OPCS reports with which all those who study these matters will be familiar.
      The aim of the Department's computer analysis of the data was to see how many people had disabilities of the type and severity such that there would be a strong presumption that they would need to be accompanied outdoors and in public, even to the extent of physical control.
      Perhaps I could at this stage to interpret "physical control" as used in the amendment. It is the extent to which any parent would go in holding firmly on to a child that he or she was controlling.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: It would cost the Government money, and they do not want to pay it.
      Mr. Scott: Therefore, the computer analysis counted the number of people who were at the top of the severity scale for behavioural disability, for disability of intellectual functioning and for communication disability and at the top of a scale which measured liability to and severity of fits causing loss of consciousness.
      Mr. Ewing: A load of rubbish.
      Mr. Scott: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, however well he has dined, will listen carefully to the argument. It is a serious matter, which causes great anxiety to the individuals concerned and all those who care for them—I count myself in that company.
      What it means in practice is that people who scored at the top of those various scales were liable to behavioural disturbance to such a degree that they might hit other people or injure themselves, were intellectually incapable of most of the very simple tasks that we take for granted in everyday life, were liable to frequent unpredictable fits and could neither understand nor be understood in communication even with people who knew them well.
      The computer analysis was designed to eliminate double counting of people who might suffer from more than one of those disabilities. It also eliminated those whose multiple disability extended also to locomotion to an extent that they might in any case qualify for a mobility
      464
      allowance. The result is an estimate of 125,000 people in the age range 16 to 65 who would need to be accompanied in public and outdoors to the extent of physical control.
      The proposers of the amendments say—of course I believe them, and I have met them and discussed their analysis—that they are not aiming at anything like such a large group. I understand that their estimate is derived from studies of the incidence of mental handicap reported in the 1971 White Paper, "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped". The overall incidence of severe mental handicap—which was then broadly defined as an IQ of less than 50—was reported there as about 120,000, people in total, although with an increasing rate of survival.
      Within the total of 120,000, however, the proposers of the amendment say that they are aiming at a smaller group—those with behavioural difficulties requiring constant supervision. However, that is not what the amendment actually says. It says something quite different. The proposers estimate that group to consist of 4,400 people. I am not sure whether that number includes people in hospitals and residential homes, who are, of course, entitled to a mobility allowance without any time limit.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Leaving aside the difference in the figures—I accept his point—the Minister has just told the House that 125,000 people are affected. If the House does not approve the amendment, what help will be offered to those 125,000 people?
      Mr. Scott: I shall come to that in what I want to say, because I want to deal seriously with the matter. They may, of course, be entitled to disability benefits other than the mobility allowance as a result of their incapacity. The attendance allowance and various other allowances could be available to them. However, we are now talking specifically about the mobility allowance, which was—I remind the House—introduced quite specifically as a replacement for the trike scheme, which was for people who were unable or virtually unable to walk. The question must be whether mobility allowance is the appropriate benefit for that particular group of people who suffer from those disabilities, or only for some of them. That is the question we must address in due course and which it would be inappropriate to address in the context of the Lords amendment.
      I am saying in essence that I do not believe that with the best will in the world any statutory formula based on the Lords amendment could be limited to the numbers that those who support the amendment quote. The data of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show, by contrast, a large number who might qualify not for other disability allowances, but specifically for mobility allowance, if we were to pass the amendment. I emphasise the word "might". I am not saying that 125,000 would necessarily benefit if we were to pass the amendment. I am saying that there is a huge disparity between the estimate we have genuinely tried to make about the possible beneficiaries and the other figure. We arrived at a figure of 125,000, whereas those who urge the amendment have put forward a figure of about 8,000. That is a huge discrepancy. Even if our computer analysis is 100 per cent. out, we are still talking about 60,000 gainers rather than 8,000.
      Mr. Rooker: So what?
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Scott: It matters in terms of money. [Interruption.] Yes. It matters in terms of ensuring that mobility allowance is targeted on those who have real mobility disability and not disability across the spectrum, in which case other benefits may be more appropriate.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful to the Minister. I have resisted asking him to give way for a few minutes because I simply could not make tip my mind whether his insult to me about however well I had dined was deliberate and in character for him. I am prepared to be generous to him and say that it was not in character. I have known the Minister for a long time, and I regard that remark as being very insulting.
      When the Minister talks about the measurement of whether someone qualifies for mobility allowance, he seems to ignore the stringent tests through which an applicant for mobility allowance is put. I will mention the case of one constituent, who will forgive me for mentioning him. He is Mr. Charles MacKay of Slamannan who, to prove his need for mobility allowance—which he was refused—was made to walk on Renfield street in Glasgow in the view of hundreds of people. I was going to say thousands of people, but I will be moderate and say hundreds. He had to suffer the shame of being made to walk in front of so many people and then he was refused mobility allowance. It is an insult to the 125,000 people about whom the Minister is talking to suggest that somehow they can get mobility allowance easily. It is not easy and the Minister should understand that. I do not ask him to withdraw his insulting remark about me personally, because that is a matter for him, but he should think carefully about those who are entitled to mobility allowance and do not get it.
      Mr. Scott: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that I reacted in that way. It was so uncharacteristic of him to harangue me from a sedentary position that I am afraid that I over-reacted. I withdraw my remark.
      The hon. Gentleman's comment about the difficulty of qualifying for mobility allowance is hardly borne out by the fact that we have moved from about 100,000 to nearly 600,000 during the 10 years of this Government. Many more people are qualifying. I do not believe that the number of those who are qualified has increased sixfold in that time, but the number of those receiving the benefit has done so, as a result of the factors I announced at the beginning. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me particularly about the case of his constituent, I will, of course, ensure that it is drawn to the attention of those responsible for these matters, who make the independent decisions.
      I am not necessarily saying that our figures are accurate; I am merely saying that there is a clear body of evidence to suggest that the figures advanced by those who persuaded their Lordships to vote for the amendment represent a gross underestimate of those who would qualify if the amendment were passed. I hope that they will look carefully at the analysis of the OPCS data that I have described. The information is now lodged in the archives of the Economic and Social Research Council in Essex. It is available to bona fide researchers and if those who promoted the amendment would like to send people to look at the information on that basis, I am happy to make it available. Alternatively, I am prepared to make a
      466
      suitably qualified member of staff of the Department available to discuss with them the basis of our findings and to see whether we can reconcile the two positions. I repeat that at the moment there is a profound disparity in the calculations of those who tabled the amendment in the other place and the Government's serious attempt to calculate the numbers who might be entitled.
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Surely the entitlement of people to mobility allowance should not rest on the numbers involved and the fact that it will cost more money. The Minister seems to be saying that there is an alternative to mobility allowance for those thousands of people whose numbers were underestimated in another place. Will the Minister kindly tell the House what he has in mind that might relieve the difficulties and in some cases the real poverty of people who are blind and deaf and who, having had their expectations raised, are now faced with the Government throttling attempts to give them the very aid that they were expecting?
      Mr. Scott: I say with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly admire, that I do not need lessons in concern for those who are deaf-blind. Since I assumed my responsibilities, the Government have spent rather more than £1 million specifically to help the deaf-blind and to improve the provision that we make for them. I am most conscious of their needs and I am anxious to ensure that their concerns are met.
      Having said that, I am trying to resist an attempt to use mobility allowance for a purpose other than that for which it was introduced, as other benefits may be more appropriate for some of those who would be included were the benefit increased.
      Setting aside the deaf-blind, there may be people who have suffered from mental handicap and who may have behavioural difficulties that may need constant supervision. It is going a bit far, however, to say that a person who can walk but who needs some sort of physical control—such as having to have his hand held—because of some other problem necessarily falls into the category of qualifying for mobility allowance. That was not the reason for introducing mobility allowance. I shall not quote from former holders of my office who are now in opposition and who took a firm view before we had a change of Government in 1979.
      I hope that I can convince the House that we face a real dilemma. I know that a number of my hon. Friends feel very keenly about the matter—as, indeed, do I—and I want to talk a bit about the way ahead as I see it. On Monday, the last of the OPCS reports was published and all the supporting data tapes are now in the ESRC archives. They are available to those who want to inspect and analyse them.
      In due course I shall explain how we shall proceed on a wider front. I have already invited comments on each of the reports as they have been published, and I shall seek to balance the conflicting claims of listening carefully to the representations made to me about the reports and the future of benefits for disabled people and of the need not unduly to delay action. Meanwhile, I hope that I can persuade the House that change in mobility allowance ahead of the wider consideration and of the magnitude that I have suggested might be involved——
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In Committee the Minister prayed in aid the fact that the OPCS reports

      467
      were not complete. He said that once they were complete and published he would make a statement on a number of the representations that we put to him in Committee. One such representation related to the payment of the attendance allowance to the parents of severely disabled children under the age of two. We have heard nothing from the Minister and I wonder whether it would be appropriate for him now to give us some suggestion about when he hopes to make an announcement on that matter.
      Mr. Scott: I cannot, not least because I want to decide on the way forward in the round. As I said in Committee and previously, that may depend on the rate of progress that we are able to make overall. Some matters might be decided against a faster track than the generality.
      Mr. Corbyn: What about the Star Chamber?
      Mr. Scott: This is a serious matter. We are talking about the largest survey ever conducted in this country, possibly in the world, of the extent and nature of disability and the financial circumstances of disabled people. We must look at that survey carefully and make a serious attempt to frame a pattern of disability benefits that will endure for a considerable time. We must do that in a serious and considered way. I recognise that we might have to address some urgent matters more quickly, but until we decide how quickly we shall deal with the whole disability package, it is difficult to say what we shall do with the other cases. I cannot go further than that.
      Mrs. Audrey Wise: It will be done in time for the general election, no doubt.
      Mr. Scott: The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) supported a Government who conducted a much more limited survey of the disabled which excluded children and large numbers of other disabled people from it. That survey did not approach the situation with the seriousness that we have done.
      Mr. Corbyn rose——
      Mr. Scott: No, I shall not give way.
      The largest survey of the disabled in this country has just been conducted. In the light of all the results we must assess what changes might be necessary in the pattern of benefit and what priority should be accorded to those changes. No doubt some changes may have to be postponed, but, in those circumstances, it would be little short of folly to rush through a potentially major change without properly considering all the issues and their implications for the system.
      In those circumstances, it would be wrong to accept the amendment made in the other place and I ask for it to be reversed.
      Mr. John Battle: It is worth reminding ourselves that it was not until the Amendment Paper was printed that we learnt of the Government's intention to reverse the Lords amendment.
      In the House of Lords there have been other rebuffs to the Government over the Water Bill, the Electricity Bill and the Companies Bill. The Government have reversed some of those amendments, but at least they publicly declared their intention to do so. Perhaps there has been no notice from the Government today because the
      468
      Minister is too embarrassed to attract attention to the Government's reversal of the Lords amendment on access to mobility allowance.
      I understand that, yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke to Conservative peers. Perhaps she humoured them and said that it did not matter what happened in the other place as she could always reverse anything with her supportive vote in this House. That should not be the Government's attitude tonight.
      The amendment deals with the existing regulations covering entitlement to mobility allowance and its purpose is to ensure that the regulations cover people with a severe mental handicap and those who may be deaf and blind.
      From my experience as a Member of Parliament, I know that the people who are caused the greatest difficulty and heartache are those who go through the processes for applying for mobility allowance. They genuinely believe that they are entitled to it—on the face of it, that may be correct—but they must go through a series of medical appeals and tribunals. The judgments of those tribunals are based on many inconsistent legal rulings stretching back in 10 years of case law. Many of us know of people with profound mental handicap who lack the necessary co-ordination and who need continuous assistance with their walking. Those people must go through the process of medical appeals and tribunals before they have access to the weekly mobility payments. As the Minister reminded us, the primary legislation was set out in 1975. Since that time there has been a bewildering jungle of case law as social security commissioners have considered the need for assistance for people virtually unable to walk.
      The Minister referred to this being a case of three steps forward and one back. There has clearly been a lack of consistency in the decisions that have been made and Ministers should have ended any confusion about whether applications could be made in the first place. People have felt a deep sense of injustice when their claims have failed and have seemed to depend solely upon the decision of the commissioner. If the commission decisions were favour-able at the time they put in their applications, their cases might have been more favourably assessed than if they had submitted them when commission decisions were unfavourable.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Scott: When Lord Ennals and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) introduced the mobility allowance, they were at great pains to make it clear that the decisions should be made by independent authorities. That was the basis upon which the mobility allowance was introduced and it has been maintained on that basis. In the intervening period, case law has provided a more sensible framework within which those adjudicating authorities could make their decisions. I cannot stand behind every decision that they make, but the case law now gives them a much clearer framework than they had when the mobility allowance was introduced.
      Mr. Battle: I do not want the Minister to get the impression that I am challenging the independence of the commissioners, but the framework is in a bit of a shambles. In 1983 some people who needed support made successful claims, but shortly afterwards another commissioner argued that under the mobility allowance regulations the inability to walk was restricted to the

      469
      physical inability to move the legs and that any other problems were irrelevant. That decision was upheld in the other place in 1985. The Minister referred to the tribunal decision that followed the Lees case in 1986. The complexity of case law has reached the point at which, to say the least, it is extremely difficult for ordinary claimants or those looking after them to know whether they meet the requirements of mobility allowance regulations. They have become a difficult maze of benefit provision. People need legal advice and representation to stand any chance of receiving mobility allowance.
      I accept that, as the Minister said in Committee, the Government are in principle committed to ending the legal wrangling and to codify case law by amending primary legislation. We are suggesting that the Minister takes the opportunity to do that by withdrawing the Government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment which will ensure access to mobility allowance to a specific group of blind, deaf and severely mentally handicapped people.
      In the debate in the other place, Lord Skelmersdale said:
      On the matter of mobility allowance for the deaf/blind and the mentally handicapped I cannot stress too strongly"——
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote directly from the other place. He should paraphrase.
      Mr. Battle: I was under the impression that I could quote the Under-Secretary of State, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Lord Skelmersdale emphasised that he could not stress too strongly that the Government wanted to act and were willing to act, yet were waiting for still further analysis to explore the data in more detail. Now the Government argue that the computer data tapes are available.
      The Minister's figures were interesting because he suggested that 125,000 people might be included by the amendment. The number seems to go up by the week because the figure in the other place a week ago was 100,000. An increase of 25,000 in a week certainly points to a discrepancy in the figures.
      The Government seem to have given what could be described as a gross overestimate of the figures and have done that deliberately to undermine the amendment. We should seriously question the Minister's statement about the figures. There is surely not a huge discrepancy with the figures presented by the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association. It estimates that 3,200 deaf-blind people are entitled to the benefit. Before the debate started, I understood that that figure was not in question.
      The careful Mencap analysis suggested that, at most, 4,404 people with severe mental handicap would be entitled to the benefit. That gives a total of 7,604. Even in the Mencap figure there was an acknowledgement that not everyone in that group would fulfil the age criteria. The answer to the question about discrepancy that the Minister put to the House lies not in the accuracy of the analysis of Mencap and the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association. It lies in the Government's rather crude use of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys data.
      The OPCS data fail to define the very target group that we are talking about—people with a mental handicap to whom the amendment specifically refers. The figures in the OPCS data include people suffering from mental illness, but any of us dealing with social policy are well aware of a crucial distinction between people who are mentally
      470
      handicapped and those who suffer from mental illness. That distinction is built into the wording of the amendment.
      The Government seem to have gone for rather simplistic arithmetic. They have indiscriminately and insensitively added together a few of the OPCS categories. The Government account seems to have taken the most severe categories of disability from volume 1 using the two top scoring grades with communication difficulties, the two top scoring grades for behaviour, the top scoring grade for intellectual functioning and the top scoring grade for consciousness. However, there has been absolutely no cross-referencing in that analysis of diagnosis or of the cause of disability. The Government have simply made a judgment and I am tempted to say that in practice the computer analysis is really a guesstimate of the number of people who would need to be included. The 13 categories of people with locomotion disability in the OPCS survey do not include those who
      "cannot walk without continuous physical control by another person"
      There is no method of extraction from the OPCS tables or the data tapes that would enable the Government to distinguish between people who suffer from autism, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease or epilepsy. They must all be included in the 125,000 that the Minister has mentioned in an attempt to mislead us.
      I suggest that the OPCS survey-questionnaire was not even designed to collect the specific information about the severely handicapped people referred to in the amendment. It is impossible to know from the OPCS data how many people have a mental handicap and require continuous physical assistance with walking. The target group in the amendment cannot possibly be disaggregated from the four categories. The data are not specific to the target group in the amendment which does not include all those who have a mental handicap. The Government have simply added together the four broad categories. They have then subtracted people over the age of 65 and have arrived at a rough guesstimate in an attempt to undermine the amendment. Grossing up the figures in that way simply adds up to a gross argument—an attempt to unleash floodgate fears and to suggest that there will be a great financial burden if the House accepts the Lords amendment. It seems that the Government are addicted to calculation by averages. How many times do we hear of the average wage? The figures are rarely worked through in detail.
      During the debate on child benefit, the Secretary of State, who is not with us now, claimed that 70 per cent. of recipients of child benefit are on above-average earnings. I took the trouble to check that assertion with the statisticians in the Library. They could not substantiate it. The figure was corrected when I tabled another parliamentary question. Three times recently I have received follow-up replies that correct the original. It seems that the real figures are hard to get from the Government, and not least the Department of Social Security. The Government seem unable to face up to the real figures. They want to hazard a guess and correct it when press interest has moved on. The Department of Social Security is rapidly becoming the most questionable in regard to basic arithmetic.
      The Minister in another place said that the Government are wanting, willing and waiting. We are entitled to ask, "Waiting for what and for how long?" The OPCS work

      471
      has been done and published. The data tapes have been available for some time. When the Minister last spoke on this issue, he had to say, as he said tonight, that they cannot do it now. In Committee, on 19 January, he told us:
      "there are not many months to go until July."
      We are now at the end of July and we are entitled to see some sign of action. He continued:
      "We shall then have an unprecedented wealth of information."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 19 January 1989; c. 67.]
      We are becoming involved in the absurdity of waiting for Godot on this issue. We have been waiting six months. Lord Skelmersdale said that the Government were embarking on a voyage of discovery. In March 1987, the Minister promised a survey on the matter. We have already had a major revamping of the social security system known as the Fowler review. It was promised then that work to tackle disability would be set in train.
      If the Government are suggesting, yet again, that we should set out on uncharted waters, 7,600 people who we estimate should have mobility allowance will be literally left waiting. Unlike the Government on their voyage of discovery, they will go nowhere. How long will they wait? Will they have to wait for a full Bill on disability? There is no sign of one next Session. Will we have to await inclusion of the necessary resources in the Budget? That would push the issue at least two years into the future.
      The blind-deaf and the severely mentally handicapped who cannot get about without assistance do not deserve the Government's deliberate dallying and their playing of the crude numbers game. All that is needed is a straightening out of existing social security law.
      Why do we not use the Lords amendment as an opportunity to fine-tune primary legislation, and to clarify entitlement to mobility allowance for a specific group of people who really are in need? I am tempted to invite any Tory Members who are still thinking of voting against the Lords amendments to close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and try not to cross the road outside, but to find their way into the Lobby to vote against the motion. I urge the House not to vote against the Lords amendment.
      12 midnight
      Mr. John Hannam: I regret the Government's rejection of this much-needed Lords amendment, which would provide financial support to help some 3,200 blind-deaf people and 4,400 severely mentally handicapped people. The amendment does not introduce a new concept, nor extend the mobility allowance to a large group of people. The numbers that I have quoted are the real numbers, based on a careful analysis of the White Paper of 1971. Some deaf-blind and mentally handicapped people with severe mobility or behavioural difficulties receive the mobility allowance, but only after making several appeals, and others have had the allowance refused on reapplication when there has been no basic change in their circumstances. The guidelines are operated differently by different panels of professionals.
      Let me quote a case as an illustration, and one that the DSS knows all about. It involves a woman aged 33 with poor dexterity who cannot be left alone for a minute because of danger to herself and those around her. She cannot have a relationship with anyone other than her mother. She cannot walk about without continuous
      472
      physical assistance and control, has an awkward gait, and cannot get up or down stairs. She cannot communicate verbally, and only grunts, and she understands only food, toys and simple commands, such as no and yes. She is a typical example of someone with a severe mental handicap, who, even on the Department's assessment, was proved to be eligible for the mobility allowance. However, she has been refused by two medical appeal tribunals, despite a successful appeal on a point of law to the social security commissioners.
      My right hon. Friend and the Minister in the other place have recently spoken of the figure of 100,000 who would benefit by this amendment, and said that it is based on an analysis of data from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The figure is so much at variance with all the previously agreed figures, which were all around the 8,000 to 10,000 level, and which were discussed at the various meetings between the all-party disablement group and various successor Ministers responsible for disablement matters that we have been in touch with the Department to find out the basis for the new vast total. The Department had carried out what it called a secondary analysis of the OPCS data tapes, but was not able to give any figures, or even a reliable method of calculating the people in the group defined clearly in the amendment. The person should suffer
      "from severe mental handicap such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so without physical control by another person".
      The OPCS survey, which has been used by my right hon. Friend and the Department of Social Security, has included the general term "mental illness", Alzheimer's disease, brain tumour and other behaviour disturbances. It has also used scales for consciousness, which include epilepsy, Parkinson's disease and other conditions. The data did not include the need to be accompanied. Curiously, the 13 categories of locomotion disability in the OPCS's first report do not include the definition
      "unable to walk without physical control by another person."
      The researchers in the OPCS and the ESRC data archives at Essex university were unable to produce figures or even a reliable method of calculating the people in our target group. I have to challenge the convenient guesstimate figures which have appeared from the Department. I prefer the unchallengeable analysis of Mencap and of the 1971 White Paper, "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped", which revealed that there would be about 4,400 possible claimants under the proposed amendment. We are talking of those with severe mental illness and behavioural difficulties requiring constant supervision.
      Mr. Scott: We are discussing an amendment which includes the term
      "physical control by another person"
      That could amount to the need to hold a hand. The amendment does not refer to constant supervision or physical support, which were the previous criteria. We have to judge the number of people who might be eligible against the exact wording of the amendment, and not that of the 1971 concept which their Lordships now ignore.
      Mr. Hannam: The Lords amendment has been tightly drawn to ensure that it catches fully the deaf-blind and the mentally handicapped as defined in the 1971 White Paper.
      Mr. Rooker: If the will had been there and there was doubt about the definition in the amendment, it was open to the Government to table an amendment to the

      473
      amendment to clarify the definition, to remove any doubt, to introduce precision, to improve targeting and to reduce cost. Why did not the Government do that? Does the hon. Gentleman have an answer to that?
      Mr. Hannam: This is not an issue that has suddenly descended upon us. It is one that has been discussed over many years. There is no dispute about the number of deaf-blind. Everyone is agreed about that category. We know that there are 3,200, and some of them are already in receipt of the mobility allowance. The fact that they are is the luck of the draw—the accident of living in an area where there is a helpful panel.
      This is not a flash-in-the-pan attempt to get some more money out of the Treasury. The all-party group and representatives of the various disablement organisations have had meetings with three Ministers who have been responsible for the disabled since 1985. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster first proposed the allowance for the deaf-blind in a ten-minute Bill 10 years ago. He agreed in 1986, after a meeting, to discuss the matter with his officials to ascertain how a solution could be found at the margin.
      In March 1987, the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, when the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, undertook to carry out a survey of both deaf-blind and mentally-handicapped claimants with a view to wording legislation specifically to identify the groups that needed to be covered. At that time there was never any doubt about the merits of the case. There was merely a practical difficulty in finding the appropriate wording. There was never any doubt about the small numbers involved. Equally, there was an acceptance that case law was confusing rather than clarifying the position and that something needed to be done promptly to relieve the frustration and anguish that many claimants were experiencing.
      The argument that we should await the OPCS report, which we now have, and the review of disability benefits before taking action is spurious in that it delays still further the necessary action that we need to take.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I know that the hon. Gentleman will want to join me and the entire House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on a succinct, balanced and well judged speech in favour of the amendment. Will he join me in advising the Minister that the cost of extending the allowance would be about a quarter of the expenditure on the mobility allowance, and that that expenditure is less than 1·5 per cent. of the general expenditure on social security benefits?
      Mr. Hannam: I hope to conclude my remarks in a few minutes by pointing out that the expenditure is far less than that.
      This is not a fundamental change; it is fine tuning designed to clarify a long-standing problem. That has happened with other provisions in the Bill relating to mobility allowance, such as the raising of the age limit from 75 to 80. That was a piece of fine tuning or tinkering with the system. That is what the House of Lords wishes to achieve with this amendment.
      We are talking not about 100.000 or 125,000 people but about the 7,600 who suffer from dreadful mobility problems through being deaf-blind or having severe mental handicaps. The cost, at the current rate, would be
      474
      less than £10 million. It would not represent a breach of the Treasury dam—or, as some might say, the damned Treasury. If the amendment is rejected, it will be a severe blow to all those who have worked so hard to help the severely handicapped. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give a positive assurance and, to use his words during a recent meeting with our group, put the necessary provisions on the fast track in the mobility disability benefits review.
      I shall vote for the Lords amendment, and I hope that all other hon. Members will do the same.
      Mr. Jack Ashley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), who does such valuable work for the disabled.
      The Minister said that he wanted no lessons in conscience, and I do not propose to offer him any. However, the other place followed the example of Lord Carter and have offered a clear and practical lesson. The amendment is specifically designed to give practical and valuable help to a small group. I remind the Minister that soft words and general principles are of no value to the severely disabled who desperately need the mobility allowance.
      The crux of the debate is numbers. The Opposition and some Conservative Members believe the number to be tiny—fewer than 8,000. The disability organisations also believe that. The Minister came up with a figure of 100,000 people who may be affected by the amendment. I ask Conservative Members to bear in mind the methods that he used to come up with that figure. He simply extrapolated certain figures from the OPCS survey and said that 100,000 people would benefit from the amendment. There can be no justification for that conclusion, and the Minister knows that.
      I can only tell the Minister—and I am being kind to him—that it is disgraceful to assume that the number of people who would be affected by the amendment is anything like 100,000. He knows that it will affect fewer than 8,000 people, a strictly limited number. He is in statistically dangerous waters in presuming that so many people will be affected; they will not.
      We are trying to help people who are both deaf and blind or who are mentally handicapped. If we cannot cast our votes to obtain a few million pounds to help those people, we will never pass the stage of saying, "Not tonight." Perhaps tonight Conservative Members will lake hold of their courage and their conscience and join us in the Lobby to vote to help those in desperate need.
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: In Committee, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) put the case for such an amendment well enough to graduate to the Opposition Front Bench tonight. However, I take exception to some of his points. He argues that the worst cases are of people who fail to obtain mobility allowance, but the worst cases are those who received mobility allowance in the past but who are unable to continue doing so.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, West wants an end to confusion, but it will only add to confusion if the House agrees to Lords amendment No. 2, because the number of persons affected by it is not accurately known. The hon. Gentleman claims that the Mencap analysis is tightly figured, whereas the Government's estimate is crude.

      475
      However, we know that Mencap's figures are only based on extrapolations of 1971 statistics—and the OPCS survey reveals that earlier estimates were very inaccurate.
      12.15 am
      The best estimate of the number of handicapped children in institutional care available before the OPCS survey was published was only half the OPCS figure of 5,500. We must conclude that the OPCS estimate is far more accurate than any earlier figures. The figure of 3,200 deaf-blind is not in question, but that of 4,000 mentally handicapped suggested by Mencap is. Although Mencap attempted to ensure the accuracy of its figures, they must be called into question when compared with the OPCS estimates.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister was unsure whether Mencap's figures include people in institutional care. On the basis of Mencap's statistics, clearly they do. But the numbers are so small that they should be checked. Mencap's figures show no children at all aged 0 to 14 in residential care, and only five aged 15-plus in hospital or residential care. However, we know from OPCS surveys that more than 100,000 people are in category 10, in institutional care. I appreciate that category 10 cannot be considered in isolation, but that single statistic illustrates the difference in magnitude between the OPCS figure of 100,000 in care and Mencap's figure of a mere five.
      If the House agrees to the Lords amendment, it will add to the confusion that the hon. Member for Leeds, West seeks to reduce. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House want to help the people who are the subject of the amendment, but they will be helped by a reduction in confusion, not an increase. I ask the Government to get a move on, undertake the review, and then make their proposals. The figures are available, so let the Government run the computer tape and present their proposals by the autumn. The Opposition argue that it will be five years before the Government make up their mind. I do not believe that that is true. The Government could make proper proposals at an early date.
      I urge the House to reject the Lords amendment, but to press the Government to make clear suggestions to reduce confusion among the very people we want to help.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: In welcoming Lords amendment No. 2, I speak, as the House knows, as the basic author of the mobility allowance and also, as the originator soon afterwards, of the proposal to set up the motability scheme. I could not, as Minister, apply the mobility allowance at once to all the eligible groups. They had to be phased into the scheme over a period of time. I readily concede that its benefits have been extended to more people since then. From the inception, as the Minister will know, that was always the plan.
      The Lords amendment is of the first importance to thousands of the most severely disabled people in Britain today. It would give much needed help to disabled people with the dual handicap of deafness and blindness, and to those in need of constant supervision due to severe mental handicap and behavioural difficulties.
      To be both deaf and blind is a devastating handicap whose effects on mobility are extremely serious. The Lords amendment has been called the Helen Keller amendment, but in fact some of the people it seeks to help are even more
      476
      severely disabled than Helen Keller in that, unlike her. prelingual deafness has left them without speech in addition to being both deaf and blind.
      The mentally handicapped people, including many children, who would be helped by the amendment are also, by common consent, very severely disabled. To help both groups, at a cost of £10 million—which is an increase of less than 2 per cent. in spending on the mobility allowance—is a modest proposal that the Government ought to be able to accept in advance of their disability benefits review. It is an urgent proposal of help that merits the same measure of all-party support that it was given in another place.
      The Government's position is hard to follow, even for the most well-informed people in this policy area. In fact, Ministers have been flatly contradicting each other. When the Bill was in Committee in the Commons, the Minister for the Disabled said that he felt that case law was dealing already—to a considerable extent—with the aim of the amendment. He reiterated this at a meeting of the all-party disablement group in January 1989, when he said—I quote from the group's minutes—
      "Case law is beginning to move in the right direction and define the law on this issue."
      So the Minister's position has been that the law as it stands can deal with the aim of the amendment.
      By contrast—as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) recalled—Lord Skelmersdale, speaking on the amendment, said:
      "On this matter of mobility allowance for the deaf-blind and the mentally handicapped I cannot stress too strongly that they were wanting to act, willing to act, but waiting to act."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 1989; Vol. 510, c.268.]
      Thus the position of Lord Skelmersdale—also speaking for the Government—is that the aim of the amendment cannot be dealt with by the law as it stands, and that the Government are willing to act, but waiting to act to change the law.
      Even if the Minister for the Disabled had been correct in Committee and when addressing the all-party disablement group, he could not gainsay the truth of what my noble Friend Lord Carter has said about the preventable suffering inflicted on the relatives and other carers of severely disabled people by the "harrowing and lengthy" task of going through the appeal procedure. Lord Allen of Abbeydale said that the changes proposed by the amendment would do much to ease despair and frustration. They would save many appeals and much expense; they would simplify the task of the adjudicators, and would show that Parliament cared.
      Let me give brief details of the cases of two disabled people who would be helped by the amendment. The first is that of a young woman who is totally deaf, totally blind and has a mental handicap that causes behavioural problems. All her disabilities are due to rubella. It took four years to secure the mobility allowance for her. She cannot walk alone; indeed, she will not take even a single step alone.
      The allowance was first claimed in 1984. It was initially refused, but then awarded on appeal to a medical board. The Secretary of State, clearly unhappy about the award, then referred the board's decision to a medical appeal tribunal, which refused the allowance. That case shows how extremely important it is for this House to make entitlement irrefutably clear.

      477
      The second case is that of a girl of 14. She has severe mental handicap, and also suffers from petit mal epilepsy. She "walks" on her toes with her feet turned inwards, and frequently falls. Mobility allowance was first applied for in 1985 and awarded for three years, but on the renewal claim in 1988 it was refused.
      How is it possible, then, for the Minister to argue that the law as it stands is dealing already with the aim of the amendment? Again, how can he possibly defend the Government's absurd exaggerations about the cost of the amendment? Mencap, Sense and the Disability Alliance have very carefully researched the cost of the amendment and have dismissed the Government's talk of an additional cost of £100 million. The truth seems to be that the right hon. Gentleman has lost a battle with the Treasury to secure a much lower sum.
      The Government stand accused of using a very crude method of "analysis" by simply adding together a few different categories of disabled people covered by reports from the OPCS. The Lords amendment is very tightly drawn to ensure that it includes only the deaf-blind and the mentally handicapped who require physical control by another person. Very few hon. Members will want to question their compelling claims to help, and I hope that we shall indeed show that this House cares by approving the amendment tonight.
      Mr. John Greenway: I think that I speak for many of my hon. Friends when I say that, although I do not take a detailed interest in social security matters, I have considered them in depth after having received deeply moving letters during the last few days from such admirable charities as Mencap and Sense. All hon. Members have experience of cases where appeals appear not to have been dealt with satisfactorily. I do not, however, intend to detain the House by citing examples from my constituency.
      There is considerable doubt about the number of people who would be affected by the Lords amendment. I am less concerned about the cost of the proposed provision. I am much more concerned about ending the confusion and the degrading arrangements that lead to appeal after appeal by these people, many of whom have the duel sensory disability of blindness and deafness as well as being severely mentally handicapped. We must end that confusion.
      The OPCS survey provides a springboard for action. We must ensure, whether the number is 8,000 or 125,000, that we provide the right framework of benefits for these people. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said, none of us knows whether the mobility allowance is the right benefit for some of the folk whom the OPCS survey highlighted as being in need of benefit beyond the level that has already been suggested.
      I come to the House not having made up my mind whether to vote for the Lords amendment or to support the Government. It is largely because of my right hon. Friend's fine record as Minister of State in the Department of Social Security that I trust implicitly his commitment at the Dispatch Box tonight to do whatever he can to ensure that that is put right. It must be done this autumn. My right hon. Friend has a particularly fine record in respect of the deaf and the blind. In addition, the Government have a fine record in respect of the mobility allowance. During the last 10 years they have increased it sixfold. During the debate we have heard about the number of
      478
      people who now receive it. However, we must not let this opportunity pass without saying to the Government and to the Treasury that the matter, along with other matters, must be addressed in next autumn's Social Security Bill.
      Mr. William Ross: I have an interest in the allowance for two reasons. The first is strictly personal. In my own family circle I have a sister who was stricken by polio in 1950. She now spends most of her time in a wheelchair. I also have a nephew who is blind. Therefore, I have personal experience of disability in the home and what it means to those who have to care for the disabled.
      Secondly, I have constituency knowledge of the difficulty of obtaining the allowance for those who, to the layman's eye, appear to qualify for it with ease. I came into the Chamber only to listen to the debate, but, as all too often happened when the Minister held a different ministerial post, I felt that I had to speak because of the Minister's attitude.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said that many of the problems are due to inconsistent legal decisions. I put it to him that many of our constituency problems arise even more from inconsistent medical opinions. We have all heard that doctors differ and patients die. Because that is so, whenever someone says to me that his relation has been refused that benefit, I advise him to do as Robert the Bruce did—"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." Like Robert the Bruce, people succeed. They do so because they get a different doctor to examine them.
      12.30 am
      The medical decisions have created not a fuzzy borderline but a broad fuzzy band. It is difficult to know who will fall on one side or who will fall on the other. Like the rest of the House, I waited in vain for the Minister to say that he would try to clarify the degree of disability that was necessary before people could get the allowance.
      I listened also to the Minister's explanation of how he arrived at the figure of 125,000 people compared with the caring charities' figure of only 8,000. I heard the Minister say plainly that the Government were not prepared to fund 125,000 new people. I failed to hear him say that the Government would not fund 8,000 people. He seemed anxious to avoid getting an accurate figure. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I will support the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: The House is anxious to come to a decision. I have known the Minister in a previous incarnation in the Northern Ireland Office and now in the Department of Social Security. I say, without being patronising, that I respect him. I am grateful to him for his generosity and his profound apology to me for his rather insulting remark against the background of my sedentary intervention. I apologise for that intervention.
      This has been a debate about numbers. In deciding the fate of the Lords amendment, the House will not decide whether it is 125,000, 7,500 or 4,500 people. That will be decided by the tribunals to which the new group of people apply for mobility allowance. The amendment is not about whether it is 125,000, 7,500 or 4,500 people but about opening a door for a new group of people, those who are profoundly disabled and deaf. The Minister went over the

      479
      top a wee bit in talking about those who need constant attention, including holding their hands. That simplified matters to the extent of insulting those people.
      The amendment would enable that new group of people to apply for mobility allowance. The tribunals, or doctors, to whom the applications are made will decide the numbers. The Minister should admit that this is all about money. My position is clear. Until my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said that he was the architect of the scheme, I did not realise that it was his brainchild. I was on the Labour ministerial team that put it together. I do not care whether it is 125,000. If 125,000 people require mobility allowance, so be it—we should accept that responsibility. I believe that the Minister in his heart of hearts would like to concede that, but he has been told by the Treasury that he cannot.
      I am saying to the Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends on the Back Benches that we have a chance tonight—I am not being emotional, but I am appealing to their humanity—through the amendment, to say to the Government, "Look, you open up the avenue for this new group of people to apply for mobility allowance." Whether they get a mobility allowance is a matter not for the House, but for the statutory authorities to which we have delegated the powers to decide those matters. But we must say to the Government that that new group must have the ability to apply for that mobility allowance. I am saying in all sincerity to Conservative Members that everything is to be gained by accepting the amendment from the other place; everything is to be lost by defeating it. I plead with Conservative Members to join us in the Lobby and to support the amendment.
      Mr. Scott: I sense that the House wants to reach a decision, so I shall make just four brief points.
      Of course, in any system that is run by independent authorities, there will be some people who will feel that they are hard done by when they are turned down for an allowance, whether it be attendance or mobility allowance. However, the fact that the numbers have gone up from 95,000 to 580,000 under the Government hardly suggests that we are being unduly restrictive about the criteria that are being applied to the mobility allowance.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), both of whom take a close interest in these matters, urge me to early action. I must say, however, that others outside urge me to have a large-scale, long-term review of the whole nature of disability benefits. I reiterate that I seek to balance careful consideration and listening to the views of people outside with not delaying unduly appropriate action. It was said that we are in statistical deep water in this area. There is no argument about the number of deaf-blind, but I cannot agree that the amendment that their Lordships have sent down to us is sufficiently tightly drawn to limit the numbers to the extent that they calculate. I believe that our figures are likely to be more accurate.
      I shall finish by quoting what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said in an oral answer when he held the post that I hold at present. He said:
      480
      "In reviewing their public expenditure programme, the Government keep constantly in mind all claims for extending the scope of this important new allowance … every claim for improvement in the scheme must be weighed both against other proposals for adding to the Government's present level of help for disabled people and all other proposals for increases in public expenditure."—[Official Report, 11 July 1978; Vol. 953, c. 1226.]
      I ask nothing more than to be allowed the same right, to look at all this in the round and to weigh these priorities. I ask the House to reverse the amendment.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 219.

      Divison No. 311]

      [12.38 am

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Couchman, James

      Alexander, Richard

      Cran, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Allason, Rupert

      Curry, David

      Amess, David

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

      Amos, Alan

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Day, Stephen

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Devlin, Tim

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Ashby, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Atkins, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Dunn, Bob

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Eggar, Tim

      Baldry, Tony

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evennett, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fallon, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Favell, Tony

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Forth, Eric

      Boswell, Tim

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bottom, Peter

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Franks, Cecil

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Freeman, Roger

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      French, Douglas

      Bowis, John

      Gale, Roger

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Gardiner, George

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gill, Christopher

      Brazier, Julian

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Gorst, John

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Gow, Ian

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burt, Alistair

      Gregory, Conal

      Butcher, John

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hague, William

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Chope, Christopher

      Harris, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hayward, Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Conway, Derek

      Heddle, John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      481

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hill, James

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Norris, Steve

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howard, Michael

      Page, Richard

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

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B 'wd)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Pawsey, James

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Raffan, Keith

      Irvine, Michael

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jack, Michael

      Redwood, John

      Jackson, Robert

      Renton, Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Key, Robert

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rost, Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Ryder, Richard

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lang, Ian

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Latham, Michael

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lightbown, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shersby, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lord, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Speed, Keith

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Squire, Robin

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Maclean, David

      Stern, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stevens, Lewis

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mans, Keith

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Maples, John

      Stokes, Sir John

      Marlow, Tony

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sumberg, David

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mellor, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Thorne, Neil

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Tracey, Richard

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Trippier, David

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Trotter, Neville

      Moss, Malcolm

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Neale, Gerrard

      Viggers, Peter

      Needham, Richard

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Neubert, Michael

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Walden, George

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      482

      Waller, Gary

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Ward, John

      Wolfson. Mark

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Wood, Timothy

      Warren, Kenneth

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Watts, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Wheeler, John

      Whitney, Ray

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Wilkinson, John

      Wilshire, David

      NOES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Allen, Graham

      Eadie, Alexander

      Alton, David

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Anderson, Donald

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Fatchett, Derek

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fisher, Mark

      Ashton, Joe

      Flannery, Martin

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Flynn, Paul

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Foster, Derek

      Barron, Kevin

      Fraser, John

      Battle, John

      Fyfe, Maria

      Beckett, Margaret

      Galbraith, Sam

      Beggs, Roy

      Galloway, George

      Beith, A. J.

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Bell, Stuart

      George, Bruce

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Blunkett, David

      Gordon, Mildred

      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)

      Hannam, John

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Hardy, Peter

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Buckley, George J.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Caborn, Richard

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Home Robertson, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hood, Jimmy

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cartwright, John

      Howells, Geraint

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Clay, Bob

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cohen, Harry

      Illsley, Eric

      Coleman, Donald

      Ingram, Adam

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Janner, Greville

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Crowther, Stan

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Cryer, Bob

      Kennedy, Charles

      Cummings, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lambie, David

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Lamond, James

      Dalyell, Tam

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Darling, Alistair

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lewis, Terry

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Litherland, Robert

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

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dewar, Donald

      Livsey, Richard

      Dixon, Don

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dobson, Frank

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Doran, Frank

      Loyden, Eddie

      Douglas, Dick

      McAllion, John

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McFall, John

      483

      McKelvey, William

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      McLeish, Henry

      Rowlands, Ted

      Maclennan, Robert

      Ruddock, Joan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Salmond, Alex

      Madden, Max

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marek, Dr John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Short, Clare

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxton, John

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

      Meacher, Michael

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Meale, Alan

      Snape, Peter

      Michael, Alun

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stott, Roger

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Straw, Jack

      Morley, Elliot

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Turner, Dennis

      Mullin, Chris

      Vaz, Keith

      Nellist, Dave

      Wall, Pat

      O'Brien, William

      Wallace, James

      O'Neill, Martin

      Walley, Joan

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Parry, Robert

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Patchett, Terry

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Pendry, Tom

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Prescott, John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wilson, Brian

      Radice, Giles

      Winnick, David

      Randall, Stuart

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Redmond, Martin

      Worthington, Tony

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Wray, Jimmy

      Richardson, Jo

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Robertson, George

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.

      Rogers, Allan

      Rooker, Jeff

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 2 disagreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1 and 2: Mr. John Battle, Mrs. Margaret Beckett, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. Nicholas Scott. Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to: to be communicated to the Lords.

  Transport (Scotland) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Transport (Scotland) Bill
    Clause 7

      TRANSFER OF SHIPPING COMPANIES
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 4, at end insert—
      "(2A) An order appointing a day under subsection (2) above may make such amendments or repeals of any enactment (including an enactment contained in a local or private Act and any order, regulation or other instrument having effect by virtue of an Act) pertaining to the Group as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the transfer."
      12.51 am
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos 2 to 4.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The main purpose of Lords amendment No. 1 is to ensure that the existing powers vested in the Scottish Transport Group to act as a harbour authority may be vested in Caledonian MacBrayne when it is transferred to the Secretary of State's ownership. At present the STG is the formally appointed harbour authority for a number of ferry terminals, although day-to-day functions are carried out by CalMac. It would be anomalous to leave the STG with harbour powers when it was no longer responsible for shipping services.
      Lords amendment No. 2 relates to parliamentary procedure for an order appointing a day for the transfer of the securities of the shipping companies to the Secretary of State. The amendment is a purely drafting one and its purpose is to bring the wording of the relevant provision into line with normal practice in references in legislation to such parliamentary procedure.
      Lords amendment No. 3 provides that the making of an order to wind up the STG should be made by statutory instrument. That will ensure that such an order is brought to the attention of Parliament and published. The main purpose of Lords amendment No. 4 is to ensure that any remaining powers vested in the STG to act as a harbour authority may be provided for after the group is dissolved. I have already said that it is intended to transfer those powers to CalMac under clause 7 when the company is transferred to the Secretary of State's ownership. Should, however, this not be done for any reason or if there were any other outstanding matters in private or secondary legislation pertaining to the STG for the time of dissolution, the amendment will ensure that appropriate provision may be made.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: This debate will be short and sharp. I need hardly say that we regret that the amendments before the House are so few and so lacking in content. It is worth noting that they are the only amendments that have been made to the Bill during its entire progress through both Houses of Parliament. They do not add up to very much in terms of altering the substance of the legislation.

      485
      It would he appropriate to ask the Minister if he could spell out, in some detail, the timetable that he now envisages in relation to the amendment dealing with the winding up of the STG. When will the bus company sales take place and when will CalMac be handed over to its new auspices, however they turn out to be defined?
      I seek clarification of the amendment dealing with harbour powers. We all know that, in recent months, in the Western Isles the question of who controls harbours has given rise to some controversy. Clearly it is a matter of interest to the House. Is the STG's control over harbours purely a nominal matter or does it maintain the effective operation of some of the harbours in the ports that it serves? If so, are those to be handed over to the new Caledonian MacBrayne board or will they reside with the various local authorities and other bodies that own the piers in the areas served by Caledonian MacBrayne? The Minister's assistance in clearing up those points tonight would be appreciated.
      As we conclude the parliamentary consideration of the Bill, I suggest that its main thrust, the dividing up and selling off of the Scottish Bus Group, is a matter of Scottish Office honour. It has told us that it wants management-worker buy-outs to succeed, but it has written nothing into the Bill that makes it likely that they will succeed. It has insisted that it is opposed to asset-stripping of the huge property wealth which goes with the sales, but it has adamantly refused to include anything in the Bill which would prevent it. It has deplored the prospect of predatory takeover bids within a short time of the sell-offs, but it has declined to legislate for safeguards against them occurring.
      The Opposition will keep close tabs on the course of events following the sell-off of the companies which are at present part of the Scottish Bus Group. If this ends up as a bonanza for private bus companies and property speculators, we shall ensure that the Government are made to pay a political price for double-dealing. If genuine buy-outs succeed, we shall wish them well.
      The city centre bus stations in our major Scottish towns and cities would represent particularly attractive targets for speculators. If they are valued and sold as bus stations and then put on the market for quite different purposes, as happened in many parts of England, the Scottish Office will bear a heavy responsibility.
      Some good could come of the legislation if the buy-outs succeed and if the Scottish Office turns into deeds some of the words spoken by the Minister at various stages of the legislation's progress. In that spirit, we shall not divide the House, but I would be grateful for the Minister's clarification on the points that I have raised.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: Lords amendment No. 3 provides for the order to be made by statutory instrument. Like the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), I hope that the Minister will say when that can be brought forward. What is the timetable for the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group, to which the amendment refers? There is a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety about the future, not least among the bus companies in rural areas which believe, following a report by the National Audit Office, that the Government are considering the withdrawal or the reallocation of fuel duty rebate. That rebate enables some otherwise uneconomic services to be run on a commercial basis. Its withdrawal or
      486
      reduction could mean such routes becoming deregistered, leading to an added burden on regional councils to subsidise them and a probable cut in services.
      The uncertainty about the future is most obvious with Caledonian MacBrayne on the Wemyss Bay-Rothesay ferry service, which faces considerable problems because of the inability to provide a proper service during the peak summer season. Often passengers and cars are left on the piers. Any decision on a much-needed larger or second vessel now faces a long delay until the new board is functioning and can deliberate on the situation. Meanwhile, the business community particularly suffers increasing disruption. I hope that the Minister can say when the board will be able to deliberate on that matter.
      Amendment No. 4 refers to the transfer of powers from the Scottish Transport Group as a harbour authority to Caledonian MacBrayne. As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said, there may be problems about the ownership of piers. I am doubtful about this transfer of the harbour authority to Caledonian MacBrayne.
      1 am
      No doubt the Minister is aware that my party has always been in favour of road equivalent tariffs. Of course, that would make the piers part of the road network and they would be under the jurisdiction of the local regional authority. The piers in my constituency belong either to Strathclyde or Caledonian MacBrayne. That company recently acquired the pier at Colonsay and could have a monopoly on usage. Presumably it would be able to charge pier dues, and they might be unacceptably high. It would be able to deny berthing to fishermen, especially inshore fishermen, and perhaps to cargo boats and yachts.
      The toilet facilities at Colonsay pier are of extreme importance to the people of Colonsay and especially to visitors. Facilities are available only when the ship is in harbour. At Port Ellen on Islay the local community council wants to build a marina, but instead of having to apply to the local authority, it has to go through Caledonian MacBrayne. I am worried about the restrictions that Caledonian MacBrayne may put on other users of the piers. I hope that the Minister can give some direction about that.
      We have reached the final stage of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I hate to see Scotland in brackets. It is unfortunate but inevitable that once again we are debating Scottish business early in the morning. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the questions that I have posed.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: We gather from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) that the Social and Liberal Democrats, or whatever else they are called——
      Mrs. Ray Michie: Liberal Democrats will do.
      Mr. Home Robertson—are returning to community politics with a vengeance by bringing to the House a debate on the lavatory at Colonsay harbour. I appreciate the genuine importance of that, but I am filled with alarm because in a few weeks I am taking my family on holiday to the hon. Lady's constituency and we shall visit some of the islands about which she spoke. I sincerely hope that the hon. Lady was exaggerating.
      I agree with the hon. Lady that it is completely inappropriate for legislation that relates exclusively to

      487
      Scotland to be dealt with in this Chamber, let alone at this hour. Legislation affecting Scotland should be dealt with in a Scottish Parliament, as it will be.
      Amendment No. 3 provides for an order to be made by statutory instrument to wind up the Scottish Transport Group. That is of considerable importance because winding up would follow immediately the privatisation of the Scottish bus companies, including the Lowland Scottish and the Eastern Scottish bus companies which serve my constituency. That is of great concern to the management and employees of those companies who between them are hoping to buy out at least one of those companies. It is also of concern to the passengers and the local authorities that have to subsidise them.
      These are matters which should be given further consideration by the representatives of the people who are affected. Will these statutory instruments be made by the affirmative or the negative procedure? It is important that hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies should have an opportunity to debate these affairs further before the Scottish Transport Group can be wound down.
      Mr. John McAllion: Will the Minister comment on the changed circumstances in Tayside? He will be aware that, since we last debated this matter, the Tayside public transport company has expressed its intention to seek a management-employee buy-out from Tayside regional council. It could succeed before Strathtay has a chance to succeed with its management-employee buy-out as part of the disposal programme that has been organised by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
      I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to give an assurance that, whatever decision is arrived at between Tayside regional council and the transport company, it will in no way prejudice the application by Strathtay's management and employees for a buy-out of their company. It should not make any difference whether the public transport company's application is made before or after Strathtay's. Equal consideration should be given to the merits of each. Strathtay's application should not be prejudiced in any way by the fact that the public transport company is to go into the private sector.
      As the main objective of the disposal programme is to sustain fair competition, the Minister will know that the public transport company in Tayside, Strathtay and Stagecoach carry 80 per cent. of traffic in the region. Will he give an assurance that, when they are all in the private sector, no one of them will be able to take over or merge with either of the other two, and that the Government will ensure that all three will remain separate and independent and provide real choice for consumers in Tayside?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), but he was not correct when he said that we did not accept any Opposition amendments. We accepted a significant amendment on page 2 of the Bill. The word "may" was changed to "shall". The significance of that is that the disposal programme will be published—the preferences to be given to management-employee buy-outs will be spelt out.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked about Tayside transport. It is likely that Tayside
      488
      regional council will shortly seek the Secretary of State's approval, and my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the case on the same basis on which approval was given to the Grampian regional transport buy-out earlier this year—that the price paid should reflect the market value of the assets.
      Mr. McAllion: I understand that the Secretary of State will give the same consideration to Tayside as he gave to Grampian. The assurance that I am seeking is that, if that decision favours the Tayside management-employee buy-out, that will in no way prejudice the Seccretary of State's consideration of Strathtay's bid to have a management-employee buy-out. Tayside's winning a successful management-employee buy-out should not in any way tell against the workers in Strathtay who are seeking the same type of solution.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It could not possibly tell against them. The hon. Gentleman may be reassured on that point.
      I was asked about the timetable. The earliest possible start to the sales, assuming that the Bill completes its parliamentary stages before the summer recess, will be later this year. The legislation will come into force two months after it is passed. Although some work has begun, further work will be needed to prepare and publish the disposal programme. The earliest that companies could be advertised for sale is about November or December, the first sale being completed in early 1990. It is expected that a series of sales will take place over a period of time and that the programme will take about one year to complete.
      In due course, information, including memorandums and financial and other information about companies, will be made available to prospective purchasers when the companies are being offered for sale.
      I was asked, in regard to CalMac, when the Scottish Transport Group would be dissolved, and about the setting up of the CalMac board. The time-scale for this cannot be determined precisely at this stage, but the board will be appointed in due course, perhaps before very long.
      The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was particularly interested in the CalMac harbour powers. These are exercised by the STG and they relate to the piers owned by the STG and operated by CalMac. It is appropriate that these powers should be transferred to Caledonian MacBrayne and they relate to the ferry terminals of Castlebay in Barra, Scalasaig in Colonsay, east Loch Tarbert in Harris, Oban, Port Ellen in Islay, Gourock, Wemyss bay and Largs.
      I was asked about the monopoly on the usage of piers, and this is an important point. Competition law provides safeguards against monopoly and anti-competitive practices, and it is open to anyone concerned about a potential anti-competitive practice to make a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading.
      I was also asked about the Wemyss bay and Rothesay services. There is no doubt that the present situation on the Gourock-Dunoon crossing is anomalous. There is an unsubsidised private sector crossing competing with a subsidised public sector crossing on similar routes. The vessels which provide this crossing are shared with the Wemyss bay-Rothesay crossing and are interchangeable. There, therefore, seems a good case for the private sector to take on these crossings. These are operated by Western Ferries in Gourock and Dunoon. We shall be asking the

      489
      new board to investigate with the private sector the possibility of transferring these routes to that sector. Obviously these discussions would have to cover the basis on which the routes would continue to be provided, and the Government's commitment to island services must be fulfilled.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: The Minister may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was talking not about the transfer of the route to the private sector but about how, because of the delay, no decision will be made on the need for a second ship or a larger vessel. That has been discussed for a number of years as a requirement for that route.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The only requirement is for setting up the Cal M ac hoard without undue delay, and we shall take note of what the hon. Lady says.
      Mr. Wilson: I want to be clear about the transfer of the harbour powers. Will exactly the same powers relating to exactly the same harbours he transferred from the STG to the new board of Caledonian MacBrayne?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is nothing more complex than that. The hon. Gentleman raised the significant matter of asset stripping. I shall not spell out id great detail all the points that I made in Committee about the four options, but I shall say this. We shall consider all those options carefully so as to avoid asset stripping, in the light of the advice from the Scottish Transport Group, which it will also be getting from its property advisers. We shall be taking that seriously into account.
      The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) spoke about the procedure for making a dissolution order under clause 14. Clause 14 as amended by Lords amendment No. 3 provides that the order dissolving the STG shall be made by statutory instrument. The clause does not specify any parliamentary procedure for the order. This means that it is not subject to the parliamentary control, but it will be published and brought to the attention of Parliament. It is not considered necessary to lay down a parliamentary procedure for the order as it will essentially be a consequential measure needed to dissolve the STG once its operating subsidiaries have been disposed of.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister confirm that this will not be a statutory instrument as we normally understand it, but simply yet another Scottish Office edict?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It will be published and put in the Library, but is a consequential measure.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

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

      CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
      That the Customs duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 4) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989. No. 1088), dated 29th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Question agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Motions 19 to 27 deal with urban development, and with the leave of the House I shall put them together.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

      URBAN DEVELOPMENT
      That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of London Authority and London Borough of Newham) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
      That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Walsall) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
      That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
      That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Thames Water Authority) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
      That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
      That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Transport Land) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
      That the Sheffield Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
      That the Black Country Developmnt Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989. dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
      That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Central Electricity Generating Board) Order 1989, dated 21st June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Question agreed to.

  Petition

    Concessionary Television Licences
    1.14 am
    Mr. Elliot Morley: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition which was organised by Mrs. Joan Davies of 25, Stow road, Scunthorpe on concessionary television licences. Mrs. Davies has attracted considerable support in Scunthorpe and the surrounding area for her idea of extending concessionary television licences to all pensioners irrespective of whether they live in sheltered accommodation.
    The present position, of which you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, is that pensioners who live in certain forms of sheltered accommodation have concessionary licences. When they leave that accommodation, the new tenants do not enjoy those licences. This has led to unfairness. For example, one sheltered housing tenant, who lived in an upstairs flat, moved to a downstairs flat when she became increasingly frail. She was told that she no longer qualified for a concessionary television licence and she lost it.

    491
    It is argued by Mrs. Davies—I wholeheartedly agree with her—that many pensioners receive benefits such as concessionary travel as of right when they reach pensionable age. There seems no reason why the right to a concessionary licence should not be extended to all pensioners. After all, all pensioners have contributed throughout their lives, whether working or not, to the good of our country. The least that we can give them is a concessionary licence.
    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read the petition:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble Petition of the people of Scunthorpe showeth that there is a need to change the rules concerning concessionary TV licences.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will agree to grant a concessionary TV licence to all people of pensionable age as of right.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Swansea (Submarine Base)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  1.16 am
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The Ministry of Defence has decided to make the port of Swansea a Z-base for berthing and servicing nuclear submarines—or has it? It has never officially admitted this. It has never officially told any of the local councils—the county council or Swansea city council—although we understand that a committee of experts has given the green light to the scheme. The members of the committee are faceless people with no interest in or commitment to the port of Swansea. Local people have no confidence in the decision of the committee of experts.
  I suspect that the Ministry of Defence is saying that this is a tiresome debate raised by local Members on the basis of "not in my back yard". There is an element of that approach. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and I represent the strongly held views of the people of Swansea in this respect, but I believe that there are strong objective factors for rejecting the Ministry's proposal, if it be a proposal. I shall try to smoke out the truth from the Minister with a series of questions and set out why the designation should not take place.
  In my judgment. there is a real danger of blighting Swansea at a time when it is seeking to shed the vestiges of pollution and industrialisation. With vision and imagination, it is seeking to upgrade the city. It is appropriate that the debate takes place in a week when yet again there has been an accident in a submarine, albeit a Soviet one. It has happened several times in the past couple of years.
  I shall invite the Minister to visit the port of Swansea to see the position for himself. My constituency is to the east of the docks entrance and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West, who represents the constituency on the other side of the river, has an equal interest in the possibility of a nuclear base being established. St. Thomas is a highly populated and self-contained community, and the port is on the doorstep of the proposed development. I was there on Friday and I heard the anger and frustration of local people. My family has close links with the docks and with St. Thomas. My great-grandfather worked in the docks, my grandfather worked on the railways in the docks and my father worked as a fitter on the Graigola wharf—the very wharf where the berth is likely to be established.
  If the Minister came to Swansea he would see on the west hank of the Tawe, in my right hon. Friend's constituency, the imaginative development of the marina, where derelict port and railway areas have been transformed into a leisure, recreation and residential complex. A similar scheme was proposed by Associated British Ports for the east bank, which is on my side of the river, but the proposed Ministry of Defence designation can have only a negative effect on that proposal.
  There are great fears about safety if the designation goes ahead. The relevant Navy personnel in Wales have given bland assurances, but they would, wouldn't they? If there was an accident there would be a substantial risk to local people. Whatever may be in such a designation for the Ministry, there is nothing in it for the port of Swansea. It is negative—there is no new employment or investment. All that faces the port of Swansea is a possible blight.

  493
  There has been no consultation with the local authority. It is all very undemocratic. Did the experts who made this informed decision—I understand that they are mostly people linked with the Ministry—visit the port of Swansea? Were they there with the group on 11 July? Are there any Welsh people on that committee? Have any members of the committee ever been elected to anything? To my knowledge, there has been no contact with the county council since November last year. Can the Minister confirm that? The local Associated British Ports management has not been party to any decision.
  Is it right that the Ministry of Defence has decided to relocate from Cardiff on the basis that the Cardiff bay development makes the designation there inappropriate? Has it considered the fact that there are similar, imaginative developments in Swansea? Swansea will not be a soft touch for the defence bureaucrats. What is the proposed timetable for the development and the safety plan that will be linked with it? Has the Ministry considered as relevant the fact that because of shallow water the submarines cannot submerge until they are several miles out in the channel?
  The Ministry's only argument in favour of designating the port of Swansea as a Z-berth is that it wants more civilian ports for the nuclear submarines to visit. We understand that they might visit Swansea only once or twice a year—and at what cost? Potentially the cost is great, with no compensating factors for the citizens of Swansea. Public opinion is mightily against the proposal, as I witnessed when I visited St. Thomas.
  An editorial in the local paper said:
  "Only an unusual sort of person would welcome nuclear submarines to Swansea … But history shows that accidents do happen and it is difficult to feel any happier about this development than we would if it was decided to build a small nuclear power station here.
  Why Swansea has been nominated to replace Cardiff as a Z-Berth is not entirely clear. Perhaps it is simply that Swansea is also in South Wales.
  If that is so, there would he more sense in selecting Milford Haven, which is a far less densely populated area and which, unlike tidal Swansea, has a deep water harbour. It also has the merit of being closer to the open sea."
  There is total opposition within the port of Swansea.
  Swansea has always given a traditional, warm welcome to visiting naval ships and personnel—but there will he no welcome for those nuclear submarines. if the Ministry of Defence has any regard for its own public relations, it will go elsewhere, away from the centres of population, where the risk, and the blight, will he less.
  1.25 am
  Mr. Alan Williams: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) in everything that he said. We are perturbed by the difficulty that we have encountered in obtaining information—particularly about the committee that apparently made the decision. I tabled a question to the Minister on whether the local council has been officially informed of the decision—and if so, when. I thought that it would be the simplest of questions to answer, but I received from the Minister only a holding reply.
  The argument goes beyond nuclear submarines, to questions of accountability, answerability and whether local democracy is to be recognised. The Ministry's decision can only be described as arbitrary. It was taken by an anonymous quango. The Minister himself refuses even
  494
  to name the committee's members. The committee is unaccountable, faceless and, I suggest, rigged—as I hope to prove.
  The district and county councils and the two local Members of Parliament are all bitterly opposed to the proposal. Theirs is not just a quirkish attitude, because they are all equally opposed to the development of the Hinkley point nuclear power station further along the Bristol channel. In the midst of fighting that campaign, we discover that the Ministry of Defence is, without any consultation, imposing a mobile nuclear reactor at the centre of our community.
  Despite the existence of the nuclear warships safety committee, there is no debate, discussion or explanation. The committee owes no one an argument. No attempt is made to explain in detail the factors that led to the committee's decision to pick on Swansea for the berth. Nor has there been any voting on the matter. I repeat that the decision was made arbitrarily—yet the Minister states that the committee is independent.
  The committee enjoys a very strange form of independence. The Ministry of Defence pays its costs which, at the very least, places in some doubt the degree of its independence. We know also that of the committee's 23 permanent members, five are serving Ministry of Defence officials and another five are former Ministry officials. Almost half the committee's membership is accounted for by former or serving members of the Ministry's own staff, who can hardly he expected to be open-minded about such an issue.
  In addition, the Ministry has the power to appoint an additional seven members when issues relevant to the Ministry are discussed. Therefore, the Minister can pack the committee with officials to ensure the result that he wants.
  I trust that the Minister accepts that I mean in no way to impugn his honour, because he is a fair-minded man. Nevertheless, we have not been given the explanations that we want locally. In a parliamentary answer, the Minister states that the Ministry of Defence
  "has always followed its"—
  the committee's—
  "advice."—[Official Report, 3 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 29]
  That is not surprising: it is the Ministry of Defence advising the Ministry of Defence. It would he astonishing if it did not accept the findings and recommendations.
  Are there any representatives of environmental interests? Is the Welsh Office the Department involved, or the Scottish Office, or the Northern Ireland Office? What we know is that of the 23 permanent members who are not ex-officials, eight—as the Minister has said in another answer—are full-time employees of public bodies. I assume that they are organisations such as the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. They are hardly free-minded individuals. The Minister may tell me that completely different organisations are involved; tip to now, we have been given no information.
  We would also like to know whether the council has any power to refuse, on behalf of residents, the establishment of this berth. None of us wants to scaremonger, but this is an unnecessary risk. As my hon. Friend said, in the space of about six weeks three Soviet submarines have been involved in fires. I am glad to learn of the good record that the Minister claims for British submarines in the detailed reply that he provided—I am grateful for that detail. But we must bear it in mind that Chernobyl and Three Mile

  495
  Island "could never happen", and that the soldiers exposed to radiation in Australia were so exposed on the best scientific advice of that time, because it was believed that they would be safe. The assessment of safety is mobile and flexible.
  The Minister says that submarines want to visit civil ports, and that such ports are very important to good relations between the Royal Navy and the community. In fact, they are counterproductive in that respect: far from creating good relations, they are creating animosity.
  We would like some clarification on the 550-metre safety area, which seems ludicrously inadequate. When Welsh sheep have been irradiated by the Chernobyl incident, it is very difficult for us to convince our constituents that the military radiation risk is limited to 550 metres. If anything went wrong, who would meet the cost? Would it be the Ministry of Defence? Would our constituents have any rights? Would they be entitled to any compensation and, if so, from whom? What are the procedures? None of that is clear to us at present, and we want the answers for our constituents.
  1.32 am
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on his success in securing the Adjournment debate. I must confess that I cannot congratulate him on much else. I do not think that I have heard two more whingeing, scaremongering speeches in all my life, and I think it very unfortunate that the constituents of Swansea must have such representatives. The reality is that the safety record of the Royal Navy is second to none.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I think that the Minister should accept that Adjournment debates arc normally not times for indulging in personal attacks of the sort in which he has just indulged, because time is so limited. If that is the way in which he wants to conduct the campaign, however, I promise him that we can conduct it in the same manner. We tried to avoid personal acrimony; we went out of our way to pay personal tribute to him, whatever our real feelings may have been, and I bitterly resent his comments.
  Mr. Hamilton: We have heard very misleading information tonight, and it is a pity that such misleading information has been put about. The Labour defence policy review, which has just been produced, has changed attitudes on nuclear weapons slightly, but in practice we have, I think, seen one unilateral policy replaced by another.
  The Labour party claims that it is committed to conventional defence. It is extraordinary that it should adopt such an attitude towards nuclear-powered submarines. They are an essential part of our conventional capability. The capacity of the Royal Navy to fight wars would be seriously damaged if it did not have nuclear-powered submarines.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, East said that he had never been told officially about the decision. A regional naval officer will be approaching the chief executive of the local county council. He would not be doing so if a decision had not been taken by the nuclear powered warships safety committee.
  Mr. Anderson: When is that to be?
  Mr. Hamilton: It will happen shortly.
  Swansea is not replacing Cardiff. Visits to Cardiff will continue to take place. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East said, there have been a number of visits by Royal Navy ships to Swansea. They have been extremely popular. I see absolutely no reason why visits by a nuclear-powered submarine should not be extremely popular, too.
  I welcome the opportunity to put the record straight on the safety of Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines and to dispel some of the understandable but unfounded fears that have been expressed about the proposal that they should visit Swansea for rest and recreation. As I said earlier, the Royal Navy's safety record in operating nuclear submarines is second to none and is the result of meticulous care and planning in every aspect of the design and operation of nuclear reactors. For comparisons to he made with Soviet submarines is deeply insulting to the Royal Navy.
  I should like to explain the vital role that nuclear submarines play in the defence of this country and the West and why visits to civil ports are so essential. In wartime, the Royal Navy would have a number of tasks, including the defence of shipping, the interception and containment of Soviet forces in the North sea and the provision of anti-submarine protection for NATO's Atlantic fleet.
  The particular capability of the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered submarines would be critical to the United Kingdom's and NATO's ability to carry out those tasks. Nuclear-powered submarines are especially potent weapons in anti-submarine warfare. They have played an increasingly important role in the Royal Navy since the early 1960s. They will continue to be an essential part of any future fleet. The continued high morale of crews is a vital factor in the effective operation of all naval vessels, but that is particularly true of submarines whose crews have to spend long periods in a confined environment. Visits to civil ports for rest and recreation have an important part to play in maintaining morale. They also help to foster good relations between the Royal Navy and the community that it serves, which is of benefit to both.
  Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister claim that there is any advantage at all to the citizens of Swansea from visits on perhaps two occasions a year?
  Mr. Hamilton: In the past, Royal Navy visits to Swansea have been extremely popular. That is why I do not think that what we have heard from the hon. Member for Swansea, East and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is representative of the views of the people of Swansea at large. They enjoy having Royal Navy personnel ashore. Their visits have gone down extremely well. I do not believe that their attitude will change just because we are talking about a nuclear-powered submarine rather than a surface ship.
  It is important not to forget the economic benefits that such visits bring. Crew members who are not on duty will stay in local hotels and will, of course, make use of local entertainment facilities. There have been many successful visits in the past by Royal Navy nuclear submarines to commercial ports such as Liverpool, Cardiff, Barry and Southampton. In the past 12 months there have been '13 such visits.

  497
  At present, there are only a small number of civil ports with berths that have been cleared to receive nuclear-powered submarines, and there are obvious advantages in having a wider variety. Moreover, as the number of submarines in service has increased, so has the need for port visits. Added to this has been our reluctant decision to discontinue vists to Hull because of navigational problems and, for the time being, to Barry, because we anticipated difficulties in maintaining the water level there at low tide. Swansea has been visited for many years by conventionally powered vessels and has always been very popular with the Royal Navy. For all these reasons, we decided to examine the possibility of nuclear-powered submarine visits to Swansea.
  After preliminary discussions with port and local authorities, the Royal Navy carried out a feasibility study, which was approved by the nuclear-powered warships safety committee. The results of that study showed that the berth would be suitable for visits of nuclear-powered warships, and my officials will soon approach the chief executive of West Glamorgan county council to begin further discussion which will concentrate on safety matters.
  I must stress that the visits will be only for the purposes of rest and recreation for the crews. There is no question of nuclear-powered submarines undergoing any kind of servicing or refuelling during their visits to Swansea. The submarines will be prohibited from discharging any radioactive material into the environment during the visits, and the fears tht submarines will pollute the environment around Swansea are entirely groundless.
  The Royal Navy has placed the greatest emphasis on ensuring that we have never had an accident involving the reactor of a nuclear-powered submarine. Our safety standards for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear reactors and their associated systems are extremely rigorous, and we are continually seeking to improve them still further. All processes arc carefully monitored and recorded, and there is a thorough system of checks at every stage, from initial design through to operation.
  In addition to the several Ministry of Defence organisations that oversee nuclear safety matters, an independent committee—I emphasise that it is independent—known as the nuclear-powered warships safety committee advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers on all public safety measures concerned with the construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear-powered warships.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Who appoints them?
  Mr. Hamilton: Although the committee has no executive powers, in practice this Ministry has always followed its advice on matters which fall within its terms of reference. Eighteen of the 23 permanent members of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee are from outside the Ministry of Defence. They include experts from the National Radiological Protection Board, the Department of Health, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as well as academic experts in the nuclear field.
  It is not right to describe these people as faceless. I do not name them, for security reasons. They have expertise
  498
  in nuclear matters. It is not good casting aspersions on their integrity. They act independently. We take heed of their advice.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a simple question: who has decided the composition of the committee? The hon. Gentleman has said in an answer that his Department meets the committee's costs. Who has decided whence the membership should be drawn and who are the appropriate people to be represented on that committee?
  Mr. Hamilton: I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes that decision. These people know about nuclear matters. It is important that people with that skill and understanding of nuclear matters are put on the committee. It makes no sense to go miles outside the nuclear world. These are complicated and difficult matters and it is important that people who understand nuclear matters are on the committee. The committee has carefully examined the public safety aspects of the proposed Z-berth at Swansea, and has decided that the berth is suitable for use by nuclear-powered submarines.
  The best testament to the Royal Navy's safety precautions is its excellent record. During the period of almost 30 years for which we have been operating nuclear-powered submarines, there has not been a single incident which has endangered a reactor, or caused a radiological hazard to service men, base personnel or members of the public. It would be useful if the right hon. Member for Swansea, West and the hon. Member for Swansea, East made these points to their constituents. The Royal Navy's concentration on safety measures has been responsible for this record, which is second to none.
  Clearly, though, we must not be complacent. The probability of accidents and their possible consequences have been examined in great detail and the accuracy of the calculations checked by independent assessors. We maintain comprehensive plans to react to any accident involving the reactor of a Royal Navy submarine, and test them regularly in exercises. Every civil port where Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines are allowed to berth is covered by a special safety scheme, prepared in full consultation with all the relevant county, city and local councils and local emergency services.
  Those are constantly reviewed and revised when necessary. The purpose of the schemes is to co-ordinate the various agencies involved in protecting public safety in the unlikely event of a nuclear accident.
  Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister saying that the decision has in effect been taken without asking local safety experts about it?
  Mr. Hamilton: We are saying that the recommendation from the nuclear safety committee is that we should use Swansea. We will now consult with the county council, and a decision will probably be made after that.
  Mr. Alan Williams: What will the consultation cover?
  Mr. Hamilton: The consultation will cover the tying in of the whole business of safety precautions and exercises that will be done with the local authorities. They are, of course complimentary to the Royal Navy plans that deal with the reactor itself. A special safety scheme will be

  499
  prepared for the berth at Swansea and copies will be available in public libraries. My officials intend to raise the subject with the local authorities as soon as possible.
  Special safety schemes contain predictions of the probability and consequences of accidents which are based on our best and most up-to-date technical advice and are carried out in line with the recommendations laid down by the International Commission for Radiological Protection. Those predictions, which are scrutinised by external consultants, show not only that the possibility of an accident involving the reactor of a Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarine is remote, but that, even if such an accident did occur while a submarine was in port,
  500
  the chances of any significant radiological hazard to the local population are still slim. That is partly because of the strong containment provided by the hull of a submarine, and partly because we choose the location of berths carefully to ensure that they are as far away as possible from homes and schools.
  Local authorities are informed three weeks in advance of all nuclear-powered warship visits, and for the duration of each visit a naval emergency monitoring team, a MOD health physicist and a naval incident commander are located at the port concerned as a precautionary measure.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fourteen minutes to Two o'clock.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Power, East Midlands
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussion on nuclear power took place between Ministers or officials from his Department and John Harris, chairman of the East Midlands electricity board, on Wednesday 12 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Discussions between my right hon. Friend and the area board chairmen are confidential.

  Safe Integral Reactor
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what encouragement he is giving to the development or purchase of the safe integral reactor; and if he will make a statement.

  Items allocated

  To whom allocated

  Conditions/wishes expressed

  "The Artist's Studio" by Peter Tillemans

  Castle Museum, Norwich

  Conditional

  Bryant letters

  Imperial War Museum

  Unconditional

  Two busts by Roubiliac

  National Museums of Scotland

  Conditional upon remaining in situ at Mellerstain House

  Two portraits by Angelica Kauffman

  National Galleries of Scotland

  Conditional upon allocation to the Scottish National Portrait Gallery

  "Fabula" by El Greco

  National Galleries of Scotland

  Conditional

  Rubens Cameo

  Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

  Conditional

  Nine portraits

  National Galleries of Scotland

  Conditional upon remaining in situ at Cawdor Castle

  Naum Gabo Sculpture

  Leeds City Art Gallery

  Unconditional

  Flower painting by Jacob Marrel

  Bowes Museum, County Durham

  Unconditional

  "A Tartar Huntsman" by Rubens

  Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge

  Wish expressed that it be allocated to Fitzwilliam

  Items accepted but not yet allocated

  Date of acceptance

  "Allée à Chantilly" by Cezanne A press notice is being issued.

  23 March 1989

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the deficit in manufactured trade for 1989–90.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 21 June at column 138.
  180
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 17 July 1989 at column 52.

THE ARTS

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will specify the allocations made to public institutions in the United Kingdom during the half-year ended 30 June of individual works of art and museum objects pre-eminent for national, scientific, historical or artistic interests which have been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax or capital transfer tax, together with information, where applicable, as to conditions or wishes expressed by testators or executors in the matter of allocation; whether he will list the works of art and museum objects which are still awaiting allocation, with the respective dates of their acceptance in satisfaction of inheritance tax or capital transfer tax; and whether the customary press notice will be issued from the Office of Arts and Libraries covering the information given in his reply.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 12 July 1989]: The information the hon. Member requests is as follows:

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest estimate of Britain's end of year trade deficit in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on 6 July at columns 217–18.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in deciding what treatments will be permitted under private medical insurance contracts which will be eligible for tax relief from 6 April 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I am pleased to be able to announce the Government's decisions.

  Our intention is that a comprehensive range of treatments will be permitted under private medical insurance contracts which attract tax relief. Contracts will therefore be permitted to cover charges for medical and surgical procedures (including diagnosis), the purpose of which is the relief of illness or injury, given or personally controlled by a registered medical or dental practitioner in the United Kingdom. Contracts may cover charges or fees, consequent on such procedures, for nursing (including home nursing), physiotherapy, speech therapy, chiropody, equipment, drugs, dressings, prostheses, hospital accommodation, other hospital services, transport, and convalescence in the United Kingdom for up to 14 days after an operation. Specialist fees and theatre fees will also be covered.

  In addition, contracts will be permitted to cover GP operations, including associated drugs, dressings and so on, but not subsequent prescriptions.

  The following will not, however, be permitted: "alternative medicine", dental procedures carried out in a general dental practice, general ophthalmic procedures not carried out in hospital, any medical or surgical procedures (other than GP operations) not carried out on an in-patient, outpatient or day patient basis, and cash benefits (except sums of up to £5 per night during private in-patient treatment).

  Regulations giving effect to these provisions will be laid before the House in the autumn.

  Pre-tax Income
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report, the amount and share of pre-tax income accruing to (a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the top 5 per cent., (c) the top 10 per cent., (d) the top 25 per cent., (e) the bottom 70 per cent., (f) the bottom 5 per cent. and (g) all taxpayers in the year 1989–90 and the amount and share of tax liability for each of these groups.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: Information is given in the table. Estimates are based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and are provisional; they include estimates of occupational pension contributions and investment income not reported to tax offices.

  I regret that information on the bottom 5 per cent. of taxpayers is not available.

  Gross incomes before tax and share of income tax liabilities 1989–90

  Group of taxpayers

  Gross income before tax

  Income tax liabilities

  Top 1 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  21·0

  6·7

  Share per cent.

  7·0

  13·0

  Top 5 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  56·7

  15·1

  182

  Group of taxpayers

  Gross income before tax

  Income tax liabilities

  Share per cent.

  18·0

  30·0

  Top 10 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  87·7

  20·8

  Share per cent.

  28·0

  41·0

  Top 25 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  154·6

  31·9

  Share per cent.

  49·0

  62·0

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  141·8

  16·5

  Share per cent.

  45·0

  32·0

  All taxpayers

  Amount £ billion

  313·7

  51·2

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the sterling component of the net public sector debt outstanding at(a) the end of December 1988; and (b) the end of the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Lilley
  Figures for public sector financial assets and liabilities at the end of December 1988 will be published in "Financial Statistics" for September as part of a breakdown of financial assets and liabilities for each main sector in the economy. These data do not identify the sterling component explicitly. The net public sector debt at the end of March 1989 will be published in the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin for November. From these data it will be possible to make an estimate of the sterling component.

  VAT
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the procedures concerning value added tax within free ports; whether he will apply existing customs rules within free ports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lilley
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 17 December 1987 at columns 651–52.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Licensed Teachers (Australasia)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any proposals to apply the licensing scheme to teachers from Australasia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  As my right hon. Friend announced yesterday, he proposes that overseas-trained teachers, including those from Australasia, should be eligible to be licensed teachers, and in certain cases should obtain qualified teacher status after only one term's service.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of pupils between the ages of five years and 16 years in 1979; and what is the latest figure.
  183
  Mr. Butcher
  The numbers of pupils aged1 5 to 15 inclusive in January 1979 and January 1988 in all schools in England were as follows:

  Pupils (thousands)

  January 1979

  8,085·2

  January 1988

  6,462·3

  1 aged at previous 31 August.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received recent representations from the Napier polytechnic students association, Edinburgh, about student loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has forwarded to me a letter from Napier polytechnic students' association. I shall reply in due course.

  Departmental Establishment
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by how many the establishment of civil servants in his Department has changed as a consequence of the increased responsibilities of and expenditure on the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Universities Funding Council.

  Mr. Jackson
  Setting aside the implications of the UFC's employing its own staff, the effect on the Department's staffing of the increased responsibilities of the two funding councils has been offset by the change to funding from the Department's votes for the polytechnics and colleges sector and by the need for transitional arrangements for that transfer.

  Inner London Education
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further plans the Government have to help the inner London boroughs with the cost of assuming responsibility for education.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Government have decided to make available a transitional grant totalling £100 million in 1990–91 to assist the inner London boroughs and the City as they take on responsibility for education. We plan that the grant will be phased out over a five-year period. The precise profile of the grant and the method of distributing it will be announced in the autumn.

  Teachers (Vacancies)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing teacher vacancies by region in January 1989, distinguishing between vacancies in(a) nursery and primary schools and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 June 1989, c. 81–82]: Information on the number of teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England is now available for all regions. The figures are:
  184

  Nursery and Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  North

  92

  62

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  200

  155

  North West

  307

  219

  East Midlands

  145

  145

  West Midlands

  222

  262

  East Anglia

  47

  59

  Greater London

  1,305

  819

  Other South East

  617

  542

  South West

  181

  161

  England

  3,116

  2,424

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Children Bill
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to enact for Northern Ireland the provisions of the Children Bill, currently being enacted for Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Preparation of legislation is already in hand to replace the Children and Young Persons A ct (Northern Ireland) 1968 and to revise enactments dealing with family law matters and, in the light of changes to be introduced by the Children Bill, a working party of officials is to give careful consideration to the implications for Northern Ireland. It is hoped that a consultation paper will be issued shortly inviting views.

  Care in the Community
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what conclusions he has reached about the recommendations in the Griffiths report on care in the community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health last week announced the Government's conclusions on the recommendations in the Griffiths report. On the same day, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced corresponding changes in the benefit system. Full details of the new arrangements, as they will apply to Great Britain, will be published in a White Paper later this year.

  The Griffiths report did not extend to Northern Ireland, where we already have an integrated administration structure for the health and personal social services. I have asked the health and social services boards in carrying out the current review of their management structures to ensure that their proposals meet the management needs of the personal social services as well as those of the health services, and facilitate the co-ordinated provision of health and social care. I have also kept in close touch with the Government's detailed consideration of the Griffiths recommendations, whose emphasis on the development of care in the community is very much in keeping with our own regional strategy for the health and personal social services.

  In particular, we are already committed to enabling people who need care to stay in or return to their own homes and neighbourhoods and live there with as much dignity and independence as their disabilities allow. This means making available improved and better co-ordinated services in the community. It means ensuring that

  185
  members of the public have access to the information and objective professional advice they need to make sensible choices about the way they run their lives. It means ensuring that an extensive range of services is available, including support for the dedicated relatives, friends, neighbours and volunteers who will continue to provide so much care so unselfishly. And it means ensuring that public money is used as effectively and efficiently as possible to meet the needs of clients of the health and personal social services and their informal carers.

  Substantial resources have been devoted in recent years to improving community care services in Northern Ireland. I will give some concrete examples of the progress that has been made between 1979–80 and 1986–87. Expenditure on community health services rose by 32 per cent. in real terms, and on personal social services by 29 per cent. Attendances by mentally ill people at day hospitals arose by 26 per cent. and at out-patient clinics by 40 per cent. Training centre places for mentally handicapped adults have almost doubled. Day care places for various groups rose by 28 per cent. The number of community psychiatric nurses more than trebled. In addition, Northern Ireland has shared in the rising national expenditure on social security benefits to support individuals in residential and nursing homes and other accommodation.

  Earlier this month I announced an additional injection of resources amounting to £6 million over the next three years, to be used as bridging finance to support patients discharged from long-stay hospitals. This brought the total bridging funds available to health and social services boards over the five-year period from 1987 to £18 million, all of it specifically targeted towards enabling mentally ill and mentally handicapped people to move out of long-stay institutions and into the community. There remains much more to be done, and I am confident that our health and social services boards will rise to the challenge.

  At present people who are unable to support themselves and need social care can look to two separate sources of help: to social security offices for payments towards the cost of places in residential and nursing homes and to health and social services boards for home care, day care and residential care services. This arrangement is not consistent with the priority which we wish to give to supporting people at home where that is otherwise possible and desirable. Social security payments for residential and nursing home care are not subject to any assessment of individual need for care.

  The same changes to the social security system will be introduced in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom, and funds will be transferred on the same basis to the boards. In the longer term, they will become fully responsible for funding the care element of public support for people in private and voluntary residential and nursing homes and for ensuring that services are developed and funds allocated in accordance with their assessment of individuals' care needs.

  As in Great Britain, residents of private or voluntary residential and nursing homes will from April 1991 be given access to help from the normal income support system and from housing benefit on a similar basis to the help they would receive in their own home.

  Existing residents of private or voluntary homes who are already in receipt of income support or who may
  186
  become eligible for such support at any point after that date will continue to be covered by the present arrangements.

  To derive maximum benefit from establishing boards as a unified source of public funding for community care, priority will be given to the development of assessment procedures so that services can be planned on the basis of full and accurate information about each individual's need and a better balance achieved between residential care and support for people living in their own homes. Close attention will be paid to devising arrangements which will provide members of the public with easily understood access to information about services and help suited to their individual needs. People who are thinking of entering a residential or nursing home, whether on a private basis or with public funding, are particularly likely to benefit from objective advice about any other options available to them.

  Boards will continue to meet the full cost of accommodating people in statutory homes, subject to their existing powers to charge according to resident's ability to pay. There will be no change in the benefit rules applying to residents in these homes.

  The new arrangements will clearly have expenditure implications for boards and my Department will take these into account when determining their financial allocations.

  I will be giving careful consideration to the development of suitable planning and monitoring arrangements to allow me to assess the implementation of the new policy.

  My Department issued a consultative document last November on the registration and inspection of private and voluntary residential and nursing homes, and is now considering the responses, totalling over 100, which have been received. Proposals for a Registered Homes Order will be brought forward later this year, to consolidate and update existing legislation.

  In Northern Ireland, the current strategy for the health and personal social services is to reduce the number of occupied beds in mental illness and mental handicap hospitals rather than to promote a programme of hospital closures. The substantial bridging funds to which I have already referred are being allocated against specific schemes identified by the four boards to develop and expand community facilities and services in advance of patients being discharged from hospital. Discharges of long-stay patients, who will have the greatest adjustments to make to life in the community, are already the subject of careful planning. They take place only after the patients concerned have taken part in a programme of rehabilitation and proper services and facilities are in place to support them in the community. Earlier this year, my Department invited tenders for a monitoring and evaluation project which will track all long stay patients discharged into the community over a three-year period; evaluate the care they receive; and focus on their quality of life and that of their informal carers. A paper will be published in the autumn which will spell out in greater detail the implications of these changes for Northern Ireland, and explain how they will fit in with the new arrangements to be introduced on foot of the current review of boards' management structures.

  I am confident that the Government's proposals, and in particular the establishment of a single source of funding for community care, will enable a higher priority than ever before to be given to the co-ordinated development of

  187
  services aimed at supporting people in their own homes, at providing more help for families and other informal carers and at developing the part played by voluntary and other interests in achieving these objectives.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister when the conference on European monetary union agreed at Madrid will take place; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 29 June on the outcome of the European Council in Madrid.

  Junk Bonds
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes in the policies of Her Majesty's Government are envisaged arising from the increased use of junk bonds in relation to British companies; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assurances about the future regulatory framework for media ownership of satellite services broadcasting to the United Kingdom were given by the Government to satellite broadcasting companies prior to the launch of Sky Television.

  Mr. Renton
  Our proposals for regulating ownership in the independent television sector were published in paragraphs 6·48 to 6·53 of the White Paper "Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality" (Cm 517), which was presented to Parliament on 7 November 1988. These proposals were amplified in a written answer on 19 May at column 317.

  Mrs. Fatma Bassau
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the appeal of Mrs. Fatma Bassau whose date of birth is 1 December 1964 reference B 253061, is scheduled for consideration.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter to him of 2 June. The Home Office explanatory statement will be prepared in its turn as soon as practicable.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to shorten the time taken to deal with applications for British citizenship; and what is the current average time taken to process applications.

  Mr. Renton
  The average time taken to process applications completed during June 1989 was 18 months for registrations and 23 months for naturalisations.

  Despite the provision of a considerable number of additional staff to process citizenship applications, the
  188
  number of applications received at the end of 1987 was so great that there is no prospect of average processing times being reduced in the immediate future. However, we expect there to be an improvement during 1990–91 when the backlog of registrations has been cleared.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now received the report of the scrutiny of the magistrates courts service which he announced on 17 January; and what action he proposes to take on it.

  Mr. Hurd
  I am today publishing the report of the scrutiny, which was completed on 4 July. The report includes wide-ranging proposals for the reconstruction of the magistrates courts service as an executive agency with a number of specific proposals directed towards improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the service while maintaining public confidence in the impartial administration of local justice. The major proposals would require legislation. The report, rightly, accepts as a fundamental principle that judicial decisions in the magistrates courts must be wholly independent of Government direction.

  I welcome the report's thorough and perceptive analysis of the problems facing the magistrates courts service. I welcome also its recognition of the considerable efforts now being made by the members of the magistrates courts service to improve its performance within the limits imposed by the present system.

  The proposals raise issues of considerable importance. Before reaching decisions on the scrutiny I should like the interested parties, including the bodies representing the magistracy, justices' clerks and their staff and local authorities, to let me have their considered views, and to provide an opportunity for public comment more generally. Consultations will begin shortly, and it would be helpful if initial comments could be sent to the Home Office (Room 418, Queen Anne's Gate) by 30 September.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted of drink-driving offences in(a) England and (b) Bedfordshire since 1 January 1985.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information relates to findings of guilt for driving, etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs and is published annually by police force area in table 16 of "Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales, Supplementary tables"; copies are in the Library. The latest issue relates to 1987; figures for 1988 will be published in the autumn.

  Breath Tests
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many roadside breath tests have been conducted by police officers in(a) England and (b) Bedfordshire since 1 January 1985.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is published annually in a Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of breath tests, England and Wales"; copies are in the Library. Table 5 of issue 8/89 gives the figures for 1987; figures for 1988 will be published in August.

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the progress of the investigation into the alleged racial attack involving murder upon an Asian family in their home in Flower and Dean walk, Stepney, on Sunday 9 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The conduct of the investigation is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I understand that the police are conducting a major investigation into what appears at present to have been an attempted robbery which ended in murder.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the speed of police response to emergency calls alleging racial attack; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No record of the number of such representations is kept centrally. The report of the interdepartmental racial attacks group published in May 1989 recommends that, where there is public concern about the police response in cases alleging racial attacks, the police should monitor their response times carefully.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will request the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to publish an addendum to the latest edition of his annual report for 1988 on the force order on racial harassment issued in June 1987 which set out guidelines for the police investigating racial harassment and monitoring investigations of racial harassment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  While it is not the general policy of the Commissioner to make public force orders, an exception has been made to the extract from police orders of 26 June 1987 which dealt with racial attacks and harassment. This has been published as annex H of the report of the interdepartmental racial attacks group published in May 1989. Copies of this report are available in the Library of the House. The Government fully support the many initiatives taken by the Metropolitan police to combat racial attacks and harassment.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation there has been of the effectiveness of the force order on racial harassment; whether it will be made public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  An internal management review of force instructions on racial attacks and harassment was carried out in 1988. This showed that all divisions within the Metropolitan police have adopted the minimum requirements set down, with most providing additional services in consultation with their local communities. The review is not being made public, but is being used to spread good practice throughout the force.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was allocated to the Commission for Racial Equality in 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Commission was allocated grant-in-aid of £10,845,000 in 1987–88 and £11,256,000 (provisional) in 1988–89.

  Crimes by Children
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to bring forward proposals to make parents accept responsibility for failing to prevent crimes by their children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The debate about the proposals put forward earlier this year for increasing parents' responsibility for their children's offending is continuing. Views have been received from a number of interested parties covering matters including parental attendance at juvenile court hearings; parental liability for fines and compensation orders imposed upon their children; and the wider use of existing penalties. We shall decide how to proceed in the light of those and other responses.

  UKIAS
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of requests for advice or assistance with the preparation of immigration appeals made to the UKIAS in Glasgow in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service is an independent organisation and the Home Office keeps no central records of the number of people assisted by the service at its Glasgow office. UKIAS does, however, publish an annual report which gives information on its workload on a regional basis. Copies are available in the Library.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the appellate authority about delays in presenting immigration appeals in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]None. Delays in the hearing of appeals are essentially a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor who has responsibility for the immigration appeals system.

  Deaf Drivers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received from the European Commissioner for Transport regarding European Economic Community proposals to prevent the deaf and hard of hearing from driving minibuses, light goods vehicles and heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Commission proposals are unlikely to lead to any change in the existing domestic arrangements for licensing the drivers of heavy goods vehicles, which exclude the deaf.

  In our negotiations with the Commission we are seeking to preserve our existing licensing arrangements as far as possible. These allow the deaf to drive minibuses and light goods vehicles. There have been no detailed negotiations about the draft directive as a whole so far.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Taiwan
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from the Anglo-Taiwan trade committee about the opening in Taipei of the British visa-handling office; how many visas were processed on each of the first seven days after it opened for business; how many Taiwan Chinese are expected to apply for and to receive British visas via this office in 1989 and at what approximate annual rate as far as can be estimated; how much is charged in NT dollars for each visa that is issued; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the charges made by the United States and by other EEC member countries which issue, or have been issued on their behalf, visas in Taipei.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Anglo-Taiwan trade committee has given us the following information about the operation of its visa-handling unit:

  (i) Visas processed on each of the first seven days after opening

  Date

  Number

  Thursday 1 June

  21

  Friday 2 June

  65

  Monday 5 June

  129

  Tuesday 6 June

  73

  Wednesday 7 June

  71

  Thursday 8 June

  1Nil

  Friday 9 June

  188

  1National Holiday.

  (ii) The Anglo-Taiwan trade committee anticipates that approximately 26,000–27,000 Taiwan Chinese will apply for and receive United Kingdom visas via their office in 1989. It estimates that it will process around 40,000 applications in 1990 and forecasts an upward trend thereafter.

  (iii) The Anglo-Taiwan trade committee currently charges NT $1,250 for a single entry visa and NT $2,450 for a multiple entry visa.

  (iv) Visa charges levied in Taiwan by United States and other EC member countries

  Country

  NT$ charge

  United States

  250

  Belgium

  900–4,000

  Denmark

  1,500

  France

  205–410

  FRG

  660

  Greece

  1,700

  Ireland

  3,250

  Italy

  1,000

  Luxembourg

  900–4,000

  Netherlands

  1,000–4,000

  Portugal

  1,900–3,000

  Spain

  1,700

  Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the current year's meeting of the committee on the peaceful uses of outer space; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The committee on the peaceful uses of outer space, which met from 5 to 15 June 1989, gave priority consideration to the ways and means of 192
  maintaining outer space for peaceful purposes. The Committee recommended that the general assembly endorse the initiative of the international scientific organisations to designate 1992 as international space year. In considering the report of its scientific and technical sub-committee, the committee debated the techniques of remote sensing of the earth from outer space, the uses of nuclear power sources in outer space, space transportation systems and the technical attributes of the geostationary orbit. The elaboration of draft principles relevant to the use of nuclear power sources in outer space was the main item considered by the committee in the debate on the report of its legal sub-committee. We attach considerable importance to the United Nations committee on the peaceful uses of outer space since its inception in 1959 and welcome its role as a focal point for international co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give a breakdown by country of the names of those individuals who are the victims of human rights abuses and upon whose behalf he has made representations to the authorities in the country in question during the last six months; and if he will indicate, where appropriate those cases which have satisfactorily been resolved.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the last six months we have made representations on behalf of many individuals who are the victims of human rights abuse. Those representations have been made to the authorities in a wide range of countries and, in some instances, have helped to bring about a satisfactory resolution of the cases involved.

  It would not be in the interests of current or future victims of abuse if we were to make public the details of our representations about individual cases.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 17 July.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The first Foreign Affairs Council of the new French presidency took place in Brussels on 17 July. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, and I attended for the United Kingdom.

  The Council had a procedural discussion on the handling of further work on the economic and monetary issues considered at the European Council in Madrid. It also exchanged views inconclusively on the broadcasting directive.

  In the light of the discussion of western support for reform in Poland and Hungary at the Paris economic summit, the Council considered appropriate action and noted that the Commission will urgently submit a proposal for the supply of surplus food stocks to Poland, and will convene a meeting of a wider group of interested countries.

  The Council considered the Community's trade relations with the United States and asked the Commission to continue its efforts to resolve the dispute over hormones in meat.
  193
  The Council discussed further the Community's position for the renegotiation of the Lomé convention. Final agreement was not possible: the Council will consider the matter further in October.

  In their capacity as representatives of the Governments of member states, Ministers appointed the President and members of the new Court of First Instance, which will begin work in the autumn.

  In the margins of the Council, the Austrian Foreign Minister formally handed over to the presidency Austria's application for membership of the Community.

  Office

  Loans

  Grants

  90–100 per cent.

  Over 100 per cent.

  90–100 per cent.

  Over 100 per cent.

  April

  May

  June

  April

  May

  June

  April

  May

  June

  April

  May

  June

  Barnsley East

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  Barnsley West

  X

  X

  X

  Doncaster East

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  Doncaster West

  X

  X

  X

  Rotherham North

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  Rotherham South

  X

  X

  X

  X

  Sheffield North East

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  Sheffield North West

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  Sheffield South East

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  Sheffield South West

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  Wath on Dearne

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has accepted the findings of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's recent report on chlamydiosis and Q fever; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report on chlamydiosis and Q fever is published today and a copy has been placed in the Library. The Council concludes that there is sufficient evidence to prescribe Q fever and chlamydiosis as industrial diseases under the terms of section 76(2) of the Social Security Act 1975 and recommends that both be added to the schedule of prescribed diseases. We have accepted these recommendations and regulations have been laid today which will bring them into operation on 9 August 1989.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on the number of families entitled to family credit if all wives in paid work stopped working.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Standards of Living
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the average increase in living standards of couples with children whose main source of income is social security benefit since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: The latest available information is that from 1979 to 1985, the

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which of his Department's offices in the county of South Yorkshire have spent more than 100 per cent. of their profile allocation for social fund loans and social fund grants for(a) April, (b) May, and (c) June;

  (2) which of his Department's offices in the county of South Yorkshire have spent between 90 per cent. and 100 per cent. of their profile allocation for social fund loans and social fund grants for (a) April, (b) May, and (c) June.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is set out in the table. Details of actual expenditure are available in the Library.

  living standards of supplementary benefit recipient couples with children improved on average by 16 per cent. This estimate uses the methods and assumptions of the "Households Below Average Income" statistics and is based on net income before housing costs ie net income from all sources.

TRANSPORT

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what increases in the capacity of the Docklands light railway are now planned to take place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Regional Transport is planning to double the capacity of the railway between Tower Gateway and the Isle of Dogs early next year with the introduction of two-unit trains. A further increase is planned for early 1991 with the delivery of new trains, bringing the capacity of the railway from Tower Gateway to some 6,500 passengers per hour compared with 1,750 at present. Improvements at Tower Gateway station will be completed early in 1990 to match the increased train capacity and to provide better facilities for passengers.

  The design concept of the Canary Wharf station has been agreed and will be integrated into the construction programme for the railway. The scale of the station development at Canary Wharf and the complexity of construction at Bank station, have caused some delays in the programme.

  Completion of the first tunnel at Bank station is now scheduled for late 1990. The aim is to provide a single-tunnel service as soon as possible, provided that that can

  195
  be done satisfactorily in the light of current forecasts of increased passenger demand. Completion of both tunnels is scheduled by late 1991, with full service provision following normal commissioning procedures. I have asked LRT to do everything it can to advance the opening dates for the new services.

  M11 (Service Area)
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce his decision on the proposal to site a motorway services area on the M11 at Birchanger.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport expect to announce their decision shortly.

  Underground (Safety)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct London Underground Limited to publish the hazard analysis report into Tottenham Court Road station; and if he will place a summary of the report in the Library.

  Mr. Portillo
  The report was commissioned by London Underground Ltd. and publication is for it to consider.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss a date for the completion of the complete study to be made of the movement of passengers through the central underground system to assess properly all risks to staff and passengers to which they may be exposed, and the safe passenger capacity as recommended by the railways inspectorate in its report of an investigation into the management of safety concerning passengers and staff in stations on the London Underground dated 28 April; if he will report the conclusions of these discussions to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that London Underground Ltd. hopes shortly to appoint selected consultants to conduct the study. The work will be completed as soon as possible but it is too soon to say when that will be.

  Warning Lamps
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list any classes of vehicle that have an entitlement to use blue lamps but are not used for police, fire or ambulance purposes;

  (2) if he will list those regulations that are currently in force that control the use of blue lamps on police, fire, ambulance or any other types of vehicle;

  (3) if he will specify what is covered by the terms (a) warning beacon and (b) special warning lamp as used in road traffic regulations; and if he will list those regulations that are currently in force that control where on a vehicle these may be attached.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In addition to ambulances and motor vehicles used for fire brigade and police purposes, the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1984 allow the following categories of emergency vehicle to use blue lamps:Motor vehicles owned by a body formed primarily for the purposes of fire salvage and used for those or similar purposes;
  196
  Motor vehicles owned by the Forestry Commission or a local authority and used from time to time for the purposes of fighting fires;
  Motor vehicles owned by the Secretary of State for Defence and used—

  (i) for the purposes of the disposal of bombs or explosives,

  (ii) by the Naval Emergency Monitoring Organisation for the purposes of a nuclear accident or an incident involving radio-activity,

  (iii) by the Royal Air Force Mountain Rescue Service for the purposes of rescue operations or any other emergencies, or

  (iv) by the Royal Air Force Armament Support Unit; motor vehicles primarily used for the purposes of the Blood Transfusion Service provided under the National Health Service Act 1977 or under the National Health (Scotland) Act 1978;

  motor vehicles used by Her Majesty's Coastguard Auxiliary Service for the purposes of giving aid to persons in danger or vessels in distress on or near the coast;
  motor vehicles owned by the National Coal Board and used for the purposes of rescue operations at mines;
  motor vehicles owned by the Royal National Lifeboat institution and used for the purposes of launching lifeboats; and
  motor vehicles primarily used for the purposes of conveying any human tissue for transplanting or similar purposes.

  Current requirements controlling the use of blue lamps on emergency vehicles are given in regulations 11(2), 13, 15 and 23(6) of the regulations.

  The regulations specify that a warning beacon means a lamp that is capable of emitting a flashing or rotating beam of light throughout 360° in the horizontal plane. A special warning lamp is defined as a lamp fitted to the front or rear of an emergency vehicle, capable of emitting a blue flashing light and not any other kind of light. Schedule 15 to the Regulations sets out the positioning requirements for warning beacons. There are no specific fitting provisions laid down for special warning lamps.

  Public Transport Strike (Publicity)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the newspapers in which the advertisement entitled "If there is a Public Transport Strike Tomorrow" appeared on 11 July; what was the cost of each advertisement; and what was the total cost of the production and displaying of the advertisement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 18 July 1989]: The advertisement appeared on 11 July in southern editions of the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Today, The Star, The Sun, and Daily Mirror; and national editions of The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, Financial Times and in the London Evening Standard.

  The total cost of this advertising including production was £190,733·59. Information about the breakdown of costs by each newspaper, as requested, is commercially confidential.

  Street Lighting
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those programme areas which are eligible for allocations for improved street lighting in residential areas.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  All highway authorities are eligible to apply to the Department of Transport for capital allocations in respect of roads, and these may cover expenditure on street lighting schemes in residential and other areas. The 57 local authorities which are eligible to receive urban

  197
  programme funds are listed in "DOE Inner City Programmes 1987–88", a copy of which is in the Library. The urban programme has supported a number of projects in inner city areas which have included the provision of improved street lighting as part of a package of measures designed to reduce crime and improve the environment. Urban programme resources are not allocated to particular project types. It is for each local authority to decide whether it wishes to include projects involving street lighting improvements in its inner area programme.

SCOTLAND

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of National Health Service eye tests carried out in Scotland in the last three months and the number carried out over the same period in 1988.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information about the number of National Health Service sight tests carried out in Scotland between 1 April 1989 and 30 June 1989 is not yet available. The latest figures available show that 337,069 sight tests were undertaken under general ophthalmic services between 1 January and 31 March 1989. The comparable figure for the same period in 1988 is 309,417.

  Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust (Scotland)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on procedures for the regulation of charities in Scotland in the light of the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust (Scotland) case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement on the regulation of charities in Scotland later this year.

  Housing Defects
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Dorran-type houses investigated by the Building Research Establishment were shown to be(a) suffering from current corrosion of steel enforcing bars, (b) sound, and (c) liable to structural defect within the next 30 years; and if he will give a breakdown of the analysis by district council area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Building Research Establishment visually inspected a sample of about 100 Dorran two-storey houses and 30 Dorran bungalows in Scotland, and of these one house and one bungalow were examined in detail. Corrosion of reinforcement was found in the ring beam of the houses, but all houses and bungalows were found to be structurally sound at the time of inspection. All components tested showed carbonation of the concrete, and this condition could lead to corrosion of the steel reinforcement within the next 30 years.

  Information is not available by district council area.

  Findhorn Bridge
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of erecting a temporary bridge on the A96; and what is the estimated cost of anticipated repairs to the old Findhorn bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The cost of buying, installing and maintaining the temporary bridge is 198
  £235,000. The total cost of the temporary diversion—that is, bridge and approach roads—was £579,000, of which aproximately £120,000 is for re-usable temporary bridging.

  The cost of strengthening and refurbishing the existing Findhorn bridge is estimated to be £706,000.

  EC Projects
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the value of the projects described in the European Commission's publication, "Second Programme of the European Communities to Combat Poverty", and give the reasons for Scotland's exclusion.

  Mr. Lang
  Scotland did not take part in the second EC programme to combat poverty because the size of the programme and the net benefit which Scotland could have expected to gain from it did not justify participation. A complete evaluation of the programme is not yet available.

  Airports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the (i) economic, (ii) technical, (iii) safety and (iv) national and international criteria on which his decision not to grant Glasgow airport a gateway status was based.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The criterion against which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport judged the request of BAA plc for a review of the lowland airports policy was that set out in the 1985 White Paper "Airports Policy"; the absence of a steady improvement by 1989 in Prestwick's financial results. The data provided by BAA plc showed that there had been such an improvement, and my right hon. Friend announced accordingly that a review would not take place.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the national and international airlines flying to and from Scotland which support his decision to keep Prestwick as Scotland's only gateway airport.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Representations have been received on Prestwick's long haul gateway status, but it would be for the airlines concerned to make their views public, if they wished.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the following organisations about his decision to retain Prestwick airport as Scotland's only gateway airport: (i) Confederation of British Industry Scotland, (ii) Glasgow chamber of commerce, (iii) Edinburgh chamber of commerce, (iv) Association of British Travel Agents, (v) Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and (vi) Scottish tourist board; and which supported and which opposed his decision.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Representations to my right hon. and learned Friend about Scottish lowland airports policy have been received from a number of organisations, but it would be for those concerned to make their views public, if they wished.

  School Meals
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the results of the annual census of school meals in Scotland held in January; what were the corresponding 1988 results; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  the information obtained from the census is set out in the table. The 1989 census is the first following the changes in entitlement to free school meals introduced under the Social Security Act 1986 on 11 April 1988. It

  Education Authority Schools (including nursery and special schools)

  1989

  1988

  Number

  As percentage of pupils present

  Number

  As percentage of pupils present

  Pupils present on Census day

  713,034

  —

  729,505

  —

  Pupils taking school meals

  on payment

  223,456

  31·3

  184,780

  25·3

  free

  105,232

  14·8

  145,219

  19·9

  total

  328,688

  46·1

  329,999

  45·2

  Pupils bringing own food on school premises

  104,266

  14·6

  98,488

  13·5

  A detailed statement of the returns from education authorities from which these national figures are derived is being placed in the Library.

  Primary

  Secondary

  1989 Per cent.

  1988 Per cent.

  1989 Per cent.

  1988 Per cent.

  Pupils taking school meals

  51·5

  50·0

  42·1

  41·8

  Pupils bringing own food

  22·2

  20·6

  5·3

  5·3

  All authorities provide the fixed traditional 2 course The figures are as follows; meals and cafeteria style meals, with the latter accounting for 64 per cent. of all meals served.

  1989

  Percent. of pupils present

  1988

  Percent of pupils present

  Paid

  Free

  Total

  Paid

  Free

  Total

  Pupils taking fixed meals

  74,345

  44,327

  118,672

  16·6

  97,635

  109,937

  207,572

  28·5

  Pupils taking cafeteria meals

  149,111

  60,905

  210,016

  29·5

  87,145

  35,282

  122,427

  16·8

  Staffing Review
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to issue the final circular on staffing in Scottish schools following publication of the draft circular arising from the staffing review in June 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 May 1989]: I am considering the precise form of final guidance to authorities, taking account of relevant developments since last June.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Petitions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) if he will institute a review of the wording required of petitions in order to make the submission of petitions less likely to be invalid because of petitioners not using a precise form of words;200
  confirms the Government view that these changes would not have a detrimental effect on the uptake of school meals, and the number of pupils taking meals as a percentage of those present is greater than that at the 1988 census. Under the new arrangements the children's rates of family credit include an element to cover the cost of school meals. The significant increase in the number of children taking paid meals, which corresponds with the drop in free meals, suggests that many families are receiving and using family credit for the purpose intended.

  The following table shows, as percentage of pupils attending their respective sectors, those primary and secondary pupils taking meals or bringing their own food.

  The figures are as follows;

  (2) if he will take action to permit the modernisation of the language required to be used on petitions in order to assist potential petitioners.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no plans to do so. If the hon. Member can demonstrate that the language required to be used on petitions has caused widespread difficulty for petitioners he should bring the matter to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure for its consideration. The growth in the number of public petitions presented over the last decade, from 42 in 1979–80 to 356 in 1987–88, suggests that there is no problem and hon. Members may consult the Clerk of Public Petitions when necessary.

  Planted Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will launch an inquiry into the practice of planting questions.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no plans to do so.

HEALTH

  Self-Governing Hospitals
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of producing the communications pack called "Self-Governing Hospitals—An Initial Guide", a Members' briefing and a video.

  Mr. Mellor
  The estimated cost of the staff communications pack of self-governing hospitals which included "Self-Governing Hospitals—An Initial Guide", "Self-Governing Hospital—Briefing for NHS Managers" and a video, was £300,000.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instigate a study to establish whether extending the range of people who are exempt from eye test charges could reduce hospital referrals.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. We have no reason to believe such a study is necessary. GPs are well aware that only those patients who require diagnosis and treatment of a suspected eye condition should be referred to hospital eye departments.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to(a) a hospital and (b) an ophthalmic medical practitioner to give an eye test; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for any differences.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have centrally information on the average cost of providing sight tests in hospitals. However, the current fee of £8·69 paid to an ophthalmic medical practitioner (OMP) for conducting an NHS sight test includes an expenses element of £2·13 based on the recommendation of the doctors and dentists review body. In framing its recommendation the review body took note of the results of an inquiry, which reported in 1988, into the expenses of OMPs. No comparison between the costs of undertaking sight tests in hospitals and by OMPs has been made.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide for each of the last three available years a breakdown of the number of prescriptions issued by community pharmacists for the following benzodiazepines(a) diazepam, (b) temazepam, (c) lorazepam, (d) nitrazepam and (e) oxazepam.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is as follows:

  Number of prescriptions dispensed

  Millions

  England

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Diazepam

  4·4

  4·2

  4·1

  Temazepam

  5·1

  5·8

  6·2

  Lorazepam

  2·6

  2·6

  2·4

  Nitrazepam

  5·0

  4·7

  4·4

  Oxazepam

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  The above data are estimates based on a sample of approximately one in 200 prescriptions dispensed by retail pharmacists and drug stores.

  Staffing (Gateshead and Newcastle)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the qualified staffing per capita levels in(a) Gateshead district health authority and (b) Newcastle district health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information which I understand the hon. Member requires is set out in the table.

  Gateshead

  Newcastle

  DHA

  DHA

  1. Enrolled nursing and midwifery staff per 100,000 resident population

  146·4

  359·0

  2. Registered nursing and midwifery staff per 100,000 resident population

  273·9

  734·7

  3. In-patients treated in year ending 31 March 1988

  21,729

  92,352

  Items 1 and 2—Source—Department of Health Annual Census of non-medical manpower (September 1987).

  Item 3—Source—Department of Health returns from Health Authorities on number of patient stays year ending 31 March 1988. Form SH3A.

  Cyclotron Machine
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the cyclotron machine for which the Government provided funds will be owned by the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of the operational arrangements for the proposed project have yet to be settled in consultation with those concerned.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses he has received to date on the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received more than 8,500 representations since the White Paper was published on 30 January.

  Patients' Records
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take to improve the transfer of patient medical records from one general practitioner to another.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 22 June at column 216.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of the centre for applied microbiology and research at Porton Down near Salisbury.

  Mr. Freeman
  The centre for applied microbiology and research (CAM R) is a public body managed by the public health laboratory service (PHLS). As with any body spending public funds, reviews are carried out from time to time on how effectively those funds are being used and whether they are being spent on activities which properly
  203
  belong within the public sector. The Department and the PHLS are currently carrying out such a review of the arrangements for the management of CAM R. No decisions have yet been made, but we will ensure that the centre's essential public health work continues.

  HIV
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give such details as can be released without breach of confidentiality of any cases in which National Health Service injury benefits compensation has been paid to a worker who had acquired the HIV infection;

  (2) how many cases of HIV infection alleged to be acquired at work have been, and are currently being investigated to date for National Health Service injury benefit compensation; and how many of these have been accepted.

  Mr. Mellor
  No benefits have been paid under the National Health Service (Injury Benefits) Regulations in respect of HIV infections. There has been only one occasion where a claim has been made under the injury benefit regulations alleging that a HIV infection was attributable to National Health Service employment. That claim was subsequently withdrawn while still under consideration when the source of the infection was traced to a previous employment.

  AIDS Research
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report the amounts of (a) Government and (b) non-Government investment in AIDS research over the latest period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have allocated the following sums for AIDS research since 1984:

  £ million

  1984–85

  0·17

  1985–86

  0·66

  1986–87

  2·46

  1987–88

  10·36

  1988–89

  13·95

  We do not hold information about non-Government investment in AIDS research.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role nurses will have on the new family practitioner committees envisaged in "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  The nurse member will be a full member of the newly constituted family practitioner committee in England, contributing to all its intended functions and activities and will bring to the committee special skills and experience bearing on the increasingly important part which nursing plays in modern general practice.

  Disability
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support Her Majesty's Government are giving to the activities of the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People; and if he will make a statement.
  204
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) on 14 July at columns 657–58.

  Electromagnetic Fields
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legislation he plans to bring forward. in the light of the National Radiological Protection Board's recommendations in their recently published "Guidance to Restrictions on Exposure to Time-varying Electromagnetic Fields," and the 1988 recommendations of the International Non-ionising Radiation Committee.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission is not planning to propose new legislation on non-ionising electromagnetic fields. However, the Health and Safety Executive will take account of the National Radiological Protection Board's recommendations in any further guidance it issues, but does not expect that any major revision of current guidance will be needed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Western Isles on 30 June,Official Report, column 585, how many individual farmers as landowners will receive livestock compensatory allowance payments annually; what information he has in respect of how much is paid out in total and how much to individual farmers and landowners in hill livestock compensatory allowance payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We estimate that about 65,000 producers in the United Kingdom's less-favoured areas will receive hill livestock compensatory allowances this year, and that total expenditure will be of the order of E 120 million. We do not have a breakdown of these figures between landowners and other claimants.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many whole farms have been set aside from agricultural production under the European Community scheme in each county in England and Wales.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following are the numbers of participants who have set aside in the crop year 1988–89 the whole area used in the base year 1987–88 for relevant arable crops. This area is not necessarily the whole of the farm concerned.

  Number of participants

  England

  Avon

  6

  Bedfordshire

  9

  Berkshire

  5

  Buckinghamshire

  20

  Cambridgeshire

  16

  Cheshire

  5

  Cleveland

  1

  Cornwall

  13

  Cumbria

  1

  205

  Number of participants

  Derbyshire

  7

  Devon

  20

  Dorset

  5

  Durham

  4

  Essex

  32

  Gloucestershire

  18

  Hampshire

  12

  Hereford and Worcester

  4

  Hertfordshire

  14

  Humberside

  11

  Isle of Wight

  —

  Kent

  22

  Lancashire

  —

  Leicestershire

  8

  Lincolnshire

  4

  Greater London

  2

  Greater Manchester

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  West Midlands

  1

  Norfolk

  23

  Northamptonshire

  14

  Northumberland

  6

  Nottinghamshire

  7

  Oxfordshire

  11

  Shropshire

  —

  Somerset

  10

  Staffordshire

  6

  Suffolk

  36

  Surrey

  13

  East Sussex

  18

  West Sussex

  29

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  Warwickshire

  13

  Wiltshire

  9

  North Yorkshire

  21

  South Yorkshire

  2

  West Yorkshire

  3

  Total

  461

  Wales

  Gwent

  3

  Dyfed

  7

  Total

  10

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate how many full-time and part-time jobs have been lost as a consequence of the set aside scheme for agricultural land in England and Wales; and if he will estimate how many of those job losses are attributable to whole farm set aside.

  Mr. Ryder
  Losses of agricultural jobs are to be expected as farming adjusts to a more rigorous price policy, but alternative non-agricultural activities on farms will generate new jobs. Set-aside is designed both to work with stabilisers to achieve the adjustment of agricultural production and to provide new opportunities for farmers to use their land for non-agricultural purposes. I will be in a position to form a judgment on the employment effects of set-aside when I have the results of the evaluation of the scheme commissioned by my Department.

  White Papers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, for each of the last three White Papers issued by his Department, for which legislation has been started, he will state the time elapsed between their 206
  publication and the First Readings of any Bills connected with them; and if he will do the same for the last three White Papers issued by his Department prior to May 1979.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In recent years it has not been usual practice for my Department to issue White Papers in advance of the publication of bills. Information for the period prior to May 1979 is not readily available.

  Cereals Co-responsibility Levy
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will press for the discontinuation of the cereals co-responsibility levy in future years.

  Mr. Ryder
  Yes. I will continue to press for the levy to be replaced by price cuts, which are a far better way of dealing with a surplus.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report the declared purpose of funds generated by the cereals co-responsibility levy; and how have they actually been spent.

  Mr. Ryder
  When the Commission of the European Communities proposed the introduction of the cereals co-responsibility levy in 1986 it declared that the objective of the levy was to make producers more aware of market realities and to make them contribute to financing the burden placed on the European Community budget by surplus production. Income from the levy has been used to offset expenditure in the cereals sector.

  Imported Eggs
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received over the new arrangements for the testing of imported eggs for salmonella which(a) allege that the safeguards are inadequate or (b) propose that the importer, rather than the taxpayer should pay the cost of testing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received a considerable number of representations about the arrangemens for testing imported eggs for salmonella. However, I am advised that the sampling rate of 60 eggs per lorry load is adequate to enable the risk of infection from imports to be established. There are no powers to charge importers for testing under the Imported Food Regulations 1984.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being carried out by his Department to determine the impact of global warming on British agriculture.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department is planning to commission research in 1990–91 on the impact of climate change in agriculture; on the effects of climatic change on crop responses, pests and diseases; quantification of methane emissions by ruminants on farms and the reduction of such emissions; and desk studies to estimate the possible impact of climatic change on land drainage.

  Free-range Eggs
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has plans to help small free-range egg producers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no such plans.

  Pasties
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will arrange for an EWP licence to export meat products within the European Community to be issued to Trade Routes in Ivybridge, Devon, to enable them to export pasties to Spain.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  An EWP approval number is issued to a plant operator rather than an export agent, such as Trade Routes, for a meat product plant which satisfies the hygiene standards of production required for intra-Community trade.

  Pasties, however, are regarded as meat preparations for intra-Community trade purposes and are the subject of bilateral agreements between member states. Negotiations are in progress with the Spanish authorities intended to secure their agreement to British exports of these preparations.

  National Fruit Collection
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now in a position to make a statement on the future of the national fruit collection at Brogdale.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member as recently as 17 July.

  Meat Tenderisers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to publish the results of recent research into the effects of meat tenderisers administered to cattle.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The results of research into the effects of meat tenderisers administered to cattle were published in Meat Science in 1987. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Quangos (Appointments)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the appointments he has made to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations together with the salary payable since January 1989.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding reply 13 July 1989]: The following list shows appointments and re-appointments that I have made either alone or jointly since 1 January 1989 to the Executive etc, Bodies and Public Corporations set out under my Department in "Public Bodies 1988" of which a copy is in the Library. It also shows current remuneration.
  208

  Appointment

  Remuneration

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  R. W. Mattes

  Deputy Chairman

  £21,293 p.a.

  Mrs. E. Rose

  Independent Member and Chairman of Consumers Committee

  £10,225 p.a.

  J. G. Steer

  Member

  £5,030 p.a.

  C. G. Smith

  Member

  £5,030 p.a.

  R. E. Meuric Rees CBE

  Member

  £5,030 p.a.

  H. G. Marshall

  Member

  £5,030 p.a.

  J. F. Royan OBE

  Member

  £5,030 p.a.

  Agricultural Training Board

  J. E. Smith

  Chairman

  £6,216 p.a.

  M. J. Curtis

  Deputy Chairman

  £5,699 p.a.

  N. J. Mallett

  Member

  Expenses only

  J. S. Burnett

  Member

  Expenses only

  D. H. Roberts

  Member

  Expenses only

  A. Fooks MBE

  Member

  Expenses only

  J. A. Kilgour

  Member

  Expenses only

  I. Monckton

  Member

  Expenses only

  M. D. Pollard

  Member

  Expenses only

  G. J. Baird

  Member

  Expenses only

  Dr. Kathleen Anderson

  Member

  Expenses only

  Apple and Pear Development Council

  B. J. Collingridge

  Member

  £25 per day

  S. F. Hay

  Member

  £25 per day

  C. Graham

  Member

  £25 per day

  N. Longe

  Member

  £25 per day

  P. R. D. Tippett

  Member

  £25 per day

  Mrs. T. Wickham

  Member

  £25 per day

  Covent Garden Market Authority

  R. Smith OBE

  Member

  £4,790 p.a.

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Mrs. A. Lennox-Boyd

  Trustee

  Expenses only

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  G. B. Nelson

  Chairman

  £14,567 p.a.

  Mrs. V. Boakes

  Independent Member

  £2,510 p.a.

  M. Garrod

  Member

  £2,510 p.a.

  D. Walton

  Member

  £2,510 p.a.

  J. Dillon-Robinson

  Member

  £2,510 p.a.

  D. George

  Member

  £2,510 p.a.

  R. Pirie

  Member

  £2,510 p.a.

  K. Hairs

  Member

  £2,510 p.a.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sewage Sludge
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor),Official Report, 28 June, column 955, he will set out the basis for his statement that incineration of sewage sludge may be the worst environmental option.

  Mr. Howard
  Incineration of sewage sludge needs a significant input of energy in the form of oil or gas to achieve the necessary combustion efficiency. The ash which sludge incinerators produce contains relatively high concentrations of heavy metals, up to 50 times the levels in sludges disposed of in liquid form to agricultural land or to sea. Therefore, special protective measures must be taken at the landfill sites where it is deposited to ensure long-term environmental safety. Unlike other sludge treatment processes, incineration carries a risk of
  209
  uncontrolled discharge of contaminants to the atmosphere if operational breakdown causes faulty combustion or inefficient cleansing of exhaust gases.

  For these reasons, incineration is used only where the sludge producer has no practicable alternative available. Only about 10 per cent. of the sludge produced in other EC member states is dealt with by incineration.

  New Town Development Corporations
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue guidance to new town development corporations that they should, when issuing press releases about intended 7(1) submissions, issue them also to hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by such submissions.

  Mr. Trippier
  New town development corporations are being asked to follow this procedure.

  Hazardous Wastes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines and safeguards exist to control the disposal of radioactive wastes together with domestic wastes on local authority landfill sites.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Small amounts of low-level solid radioactive wastes are authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 for disposal with ordinary domestic refuse. Strict limits and conditions are contained in certificates of authorisation issued under the Act to ensure that such disposals present no hazard to the public, to the refuse collectors or at the disposal site.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the availability of anti-static devices containing polonium 210 in the United Kingdom in the light of their withdrawal in the United States of America because of radioactive contamination.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Anti-static devices containing polonium 210 imported from the United States have been withdrawn in the United Kingdom. A United Kingdom manufacturer currently supplies most devices now used in this country. These devices are robust and there is no evidence of radioactive contamination.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total area of areas of outstanding natural beauty in England; and what proportion of this total lies within each of the standard planning regions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is as follows:

  Standard1 region

  Per cent, of total

  North

  12

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2

  East Midlands

  3

  East Anglia

  5

  South East

  34

  South West

  34

  West Midlands

  6

  North West

  4

  England

  100

  18,455 sq km

  210
  1 These coincide with the economic planning regions.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy on housing and homelessness in the light of the resolution of the Assembly of the Baptist Union of Great Britain passed in April on housing and homelessness, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to make all local authorities follow the same criteria for the definition of homelessness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is reviewing the homelessness legislation and hopes to announce conclusions soon.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for the first quarter of 1988 to the first quarter of 1989 and for five years and 10 years, previously, on a yearly basis, for(a) lettings to homeless households, (b) expenditure on homeless households, (c) numbers in bed and breakfast accommodation and other forms of temporary accommodation, (d) the level of homelessness identified, (e) the average cost per family per week in bed and breakfast, (f) the total number of children and total of under-fives in bed and breakfast and (g) the average length of stay in temporary accommodation for each local authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 11 July 1989]: The information requested is not yet available for 1988–89. The available information is listed hereafter.

  Information on lettings to homeless households as reported by local authorities in England in their housing investment programme returns (HIPI) is available in the "HIP I All Items Print" for 1988 (columns E5b, E9b and E10b), for 1984 (columns D5a, D9b and D10a) and for 1979 (column J3b13).

  Information on net expenditure on homeless households by local authorities in England and Wales is given in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy publication "Homelessness Statistics Actuals" for 1987–88 and 1983–84 (column 22) and for 1978–79 (column 20).

  The number of households in temporary accommodation for each local authority in England and Wales at the end of 1988 is available in table 9 of edition No. 89 of "Local Housing Statistics". For the end of 1983 and 1978 the information is in table 12 of editions Nos. 70 and 52 respectively of the same publication.

  Annual figures for the number of households accepted as homeless for each authority are also given in "Local Housing Statistics". The latest available are for 1987 (table 9(b) of edition no. 86). For 1983 the information is given in a table placed in the Library in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), on 15 May 1987. For 1978 the information is available only for half-years and is given in edition 52.

  The latest information on homelessness (Q1 1989 figures) is available in table 7 of "Local authorities' action under the homeless provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the first quarter 1989. Supplementary Tables".
  211
  Total expenditure by local authorities in England and Wales on bed and breakfast accommodation together with the number of household days placed in bed and breakfast as reported to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) are given in "Homelessness Statistics Actuals" for 1987–88 and 1983–84 (columns 14 and 17) and for 1978–79 (columns 12 and 15).

  Information on the total number of children and under-fives in bed and breakfast accommodation and the average length of stay in temporary accommodation is not available centrally.

  Copies of all the documents and publications referred to are in the Library. For further information about Welsh authorities I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Rhododendrons
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the threat to woodlands and wild landscapes which comes from the spread of rhododendrons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has not carried out specific work on this subject, but in 1984 the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology published a report noting that in many areas of Britain there was evidence of significant increases in the spread of rhododendron. The Forestry Commission controls rhododendron on its own land where it is affecting tree growth and gives advice as appropriate to owners of private woodlands. In addition the commission is undertaking research on alternative means of control, including methods of limiting regrowth after cutting.

  House Prices
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the information currently held by local authorities on domestic property price movement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information held on domestic house price movements is a matter for individual local authorities and no record of practice is kept centrally. The Department itself obtains informatiom from building societies and banks; and regional and national analyses of house price movements from these sources are published regularly.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organised dumping sites where asbestos may be dumped in the area covered by Greater London.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has a record of some 32 waste disposal facilities licensed to deposit asbestos waste in the London area. Further details of these sites will be available on the public register of licensed sites maintained by the London waste regulation authority.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what checks are made, and how, by officers of his Department as to the following of rules when asbestos waste is dumped.
  212
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The responsibility for the conditions under which asbestos waste is deposited on licensed sites rests with the relevant waste disposal authorities.

  General guidance on the disposal of asbestos wastes is given in waste management paper No. 18, published by the Department, and in the Institute of Waste Management's code of practice for the disposal of asbestos waste, which was supported by the Department.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of families placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by the London borough of Wandsworth as of 1 July.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is reported quarterly by local authorities and I referred the hon. Member to the latest available figures in the reply that I gave him on 15 June 1989. [Official Report, Vol. 154, column 538].

  Pollution Standards
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to ensure that new factories and workshops conform to European Community standards of environment pollution and noise pollution.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government intend to strengthen the pollution control powers available to local authorities and introduce a system of integrated pollution control for major industrial processes which will be applied by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Taken with the creation of the National Rivers Authority under the Water Act 1989, our proposals will create a powerful pollution control regime which will ensure compliance not only with European Community standards, but in many cases with more stringent standards. There are no European Community standards of environmental noise pollution for new factories and workshops. Controls are exercised through the planning system and the statutory nuisance provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  HAT, Southwark
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) over what period of time any ballot on the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark will be open to those eligible to vote;

  (2) to whom spoilt ballot papers will be referred during the count of votes cast after any ballot on the proposed formation of a housing action trust in Southwark;

  (3) what provisions will be made for those, such as the elderly, infirm and disabled unable to take part in any ballot on the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark;

  (4)what steps will be taken to ensure the maximum participation by residents in any ballot on the creation of a housing action trust in Southwark;

  (5)whether any vote on the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark will take the form of (a) a postal vote, (b) a ballot box vote or (c) both;

  (6) whether he will ask the Electoral Reform Society to encourage residents to vote in any ballot on the proposed formation of a housing action trust in Southwark;
  213
  (7) which individuals are entitled to attend and observe the count of the votes cast after any ballot on the proposed formation of a housing action trust in Southwark;

  (8) who will have the responsibility for conducting the count of the votes cast after any ballot on the proposed formation of a housing action trust in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave her yesterday.

  We shall certainly encourage the Electoral Reform Society to take all reasonable steps to ensure that eligible tenants have an opportunity to vote in a housing action trust ballot.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when the new terms of the tenancy agreement will be finalised in relation to the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark;

  (2) if he will now publish a draft tenancy agreement that would operate in the event of the establishment of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to her questions yesterday.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether tenants leaving the Gloucester Grove and North Peckham estates in Southwark after the compilation of the register of those entitled to vote in any ballot on the creation of a housing action trust will retain voting rights.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave her yesterday.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members of the proposed Southwark housing action trust would be nominated by the council.

  Mr. Trippier
  When I met Southwark council and tenants' representatives on 24 May I said that a trust for Southwark could consist of a chairman and up to 10 other members. Half these other members could be tenants and council representatives. Tenants and the council are welcome to suggest candidates. The Secretary of State is required to consult the local authority before appointing such members.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discretion would be given to the proposed housing action trust in Southwark over individual rent arrears cases.

  Mr. Trippier
  A trust's statutory position as a landlord would be exactly the same as that of a local authority as regards the discretion it could exercise over individual rent arrears cases. Trusts would be sensible managers which would follow the best practices of local authorities in trying to avoid the accumulation of rent arrears. My Department has issued a circular (18/87) on best practice, which trusts would be encouraged to follow.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what powers he would have to intervene in the running of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark;

  (2) what powers he would possess in relation to decisions made by the proposed housing action trust in Southwark.
  214
  Mr. Trippier
  Day-to-day decisions would be for the trust itself. Section 72 of the Housing Act 1988 enables the Secretary of State to give an established trust directions in the exercise of its functions. Other provisions in part III of the Act set out the basis on which the Secretary of State may determine a trust's financial duties; and the circumstances in which he has to authorise, oppose or consent to its actions.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the powers of the proposed housing action trust board in Southwark; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The powers of a trust are set out in part III of the Housing Act 1988. Its objects and general powers are covered in section 63. The Secretary of State may by order under sections 65, 67 and 68 confer various housing, planning and public health functions on the trust. Wherever possible our intention is to leave powers with the local authority.

  Capital Receipts (Ipswich)
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total spending power out of capital receipts of the borough of Ipswich in each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Gummer
  The table shows total spending power from capital receipts for the borough of Ipswich from 1985–86 onwards. This information is not available for earlier years.

  Spending power from capital receipts

  £ million

  1985–86

  6·161

  1986–87

  7·497

  1987–88

  9·610

  1988–89

  16·710

  Mosley Common Colliery
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the total amount of derelict land grant awarded in respect of the reclamation of the site of the former Mosley Common colliery in Wigan.

  Mr. Trippier
  The total estimated cost of this scheme to derelict land grant is £1,239,920, of which £874,240 has already been paid.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the recipients of derelict land grant involved in the reclamation of the former Mosley Common colliery site in Wigan.

  Mr. Trippier
  The sole applicant and grant recipient is Whelmar Homes Limited.

  Environmental Affairs
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what efforts he is making to promote his Department's role in environmental affairs.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department issues many publications which give information and guidance to the public on specific environmental issues. In addition, it
  215
  publishes annually a digest of environmental protection and water statistics which provides authoritative data on most aspects of environmental protection. Copies are in the Library. It has published "Protecting Your Environment—A Guide" which provides a summary of current environmental issues and policies across the board, describes the principles which underlie the Government's actions in this field, and provides a "who does what" guide to environmental protection. A copy is in the Library. It has published "Environment in Trust"—a series of leaflets which give in-depth accounts of environmental issues and current policies. Copies are in the Library.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish illustrative figures for 1989–90 showing for each area(a) community charges, (b) differences between general rates and the national non-domestic rate and (c) domestic bills with a combined system of capital value rates and local income tax, so that a comparison can be made with current local government taxes.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today placed in the Library illustrative community charge figures for English authorities which are consistent with 1989–90 rate levels and show what the community charge might have been if the new local government finance system were in operation now. The figures have been calculated on the basis of the safety net and other transitional proposals which I announced earlier today.

  The figures are subject to the same qualification as those for earlier years. In particular they are not a prediction of the community charges which will apply in 1990–91. Those will depend largely on the spending decisions of individual local authorities.

  These figures are based on: estimated 1989–90 income from rates and Government grants for individual authorities; the new revenue support grant arrangements (but using the 1989–90 distribution of grant-related expenditure between individual authorities); the 1989–90 equivalent to aggregate external finance (grant and business rates); the business rate distribution which will come into effect from April 1990; and a safety net calculated on the principles for 1990–91 which I announced today.

  These figures illustrate the community charge levels associated with current levels of spending. The new local government finance system would have allowed all authorities to finance expenditure sufficient to provide a standard level of service while levying a community charge of £240 in 1989–90.

  The extent to which the full, unsafety-netted, community charge in any area exceeds £240 is simply a measure of the overspending by local authorities in the area. Likewise a full community charge of less than £240 is a measure of the efficiency of the authorities concerned.

  In this way the level of the full community charge in each area will provide a ready reckoner enabling chargepayers to compare the amount which their councils spend with the cost of providing a standard level of service and with the performance of other authorities. The message is clear. High spending leads to high community charges.

  In 1989–90 the level of local authority spending is likely to be 6·8 per cent. higher than allowed for in these
  216
  settlement. This leads to an average illustrative community charge of £274 before the safety net, the same as the average rate bill per adult.

  The published figures also include the latest estimates of the effect of moving to a uniform business rate. The latest figures suggest that about 60 per cent. of non-domestic hereditaments would have benefited from the uniform business rate on its own.

  The move to a uniform poundage will be of particular benefit to businesses in the north and the inner cities. For example, poundages would reduce by 35 per cent. in Sheffield, 31 per cent. in Manchester and over 28 per cent. in Liverpool. The uniform business rate is particularly good news for areas of above-average unemployment where high rates have slowed economic regeneration. And businesses generally will benefit from the linkage of business rates to the RPI.

  Although the move to the national business rate could mean significant changes in rate bills when combined with the revaluation of non-domestic properties, there will be transitional arrangements to limit the year-on-year changes.

  I have also placed in the Library estimates of the impact of the combination of a local income tax and capital value rates.

  As the basis for calculating community charges has been changed since 1988–89 figures were placed in the Library on 23 June 1988, I have also provided a comparative table showing 1988–89 and 1989–90 community charges calculated on a consistent basis. In 1990–91 actual charges will be determined by the amount that local authorities need to raise from their chargepayers. The nearest equivalent in 1989–90 is the amount they raise in rates. Illustrative charges in previous years were based on total expenditure which determined an authority's block grant but which is no longer relevant.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the G7 countries that have a higher level of manufacturing productivity than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the G7 countries that have a higher level of manufacturing productivity than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  No reliable comparisons exist for absolute levels of manufacturing productivity between different countries. But available figures do show that in the 1980s the United Kingdom has had the fastest rate of growth of manufacturing productivity of the seven major industrial countries.

  GATT
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made in securing the inclusion of clauses concerning workers' rights in the negotiations in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Uruguay round; and if he will make a statement.
  217
  Mr. Forth
  Consultations are continuing over a United States proposal for a GATT working party, separate from the Uruguay round, on the relationship between trade and workers' rights.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent monthly figure for consumer credit.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent monthly figure for consumer credit.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent monthly figure for consumer credit.

  Mr. Maude
  The amount outstanding at the end of May was £28·4 billion excluding lending by banks and insurance companies.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the level of personal consumer credit.

  Mr. Maude
  The latest available figures for consumer credit are as follows. At the end of March 1989 that amount of consumer credit outstanding on the broad definition, which includes bank lending, was £43·4 billion. On the narrower definition, at the end of May it was £28·4 billion. The vast majority of household borrowing is accounted for by mortgages.

  Beer
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to conclude his consideration of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when he expects to be able to respond fully to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer.

  Mr. Maude
  I announced our response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer in the House on 10 July.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on which statistical measures of competitiveness Britain's competitiveness has(a) improved and (b) declined over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on which statistical measures of competitiveness Britain's competitiveness has(a) improved and (b) declined over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on which statistical measures of competitiveness Britain's competitiveness has(a) improved and (b) declined over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Newton
  While United Kingdom relative unit labour costs have increased recently, they are little 218
  changed by comparision with ten years ago and our share of world trade in manufactures has been stable over the last seven years after decades of decline. Other measures such as relative export prices and import price competitiveness have fluctuated over the period. However, competitiveness also depends on non-price factors such as quality, reliability and delivery performance.

  Investment
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the net flow of investment in and out of Britain for the last year that is available; and what were the comparable figures 10 years earlier.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the net flow of investment in and out of Britain for the last year that is available; and what were the comparable figures 10 years earlier.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the net flow of investment in and out of Britain for the last year that is available; and what were the comparable figures 10 years earlier.

  Mr. Atkins
  Net direct and portfolio investment in the United Kingdom from abroad in 1988 is provisionally estimated to have been £11·4 billion whilst net direct and portfolio investment abroad was £25·4 billion. The corresponding figures for 1978 were £1·8 billion and £4·6 billion respectively.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of investment in manufacturing industries in the north-west in actual and constant value terms in 1987 and 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  Net capital expenditure in manufacturing industry1 in the north-west is estimated to amount to £971 million in 1979 and £1,204 million in 1987. At constant 1985 prices the figures are £1,510 million and £1,108 million respectively.

  1 Divisions 2–4 Standard Industrial Classification, Revised 1980.

  Japan
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current visible trade balance between the United Kingdom and Japan.

  Mr. Newton
  In the 12 months to May 1989, United Kingdom visible trade with Japan was in deficit by £4·8 billion.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the comparable figures for exports per head of population in(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Japan.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In 1988 exports per head of population amounted to US $2,500 and the comparable figure for Japan was US $2,200.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received regarding the new and improved access for British exporters to the Japanese market.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government continue to attach great importance to Britain's trade with Japan. Where
  219
  appropriate, we take up representations on market access with the Japanese authorities, both directly and through the European Commission. Such action has brought improved access to the market, most recently in respect of Scotch whisky. At the same time, through the Opportunity Japan campaign, my Department is encouraging British exporters to take advantage of the great potential of the Japanese market. Over the last five years our exports to Japan have doubled in value and are presently running at nearly £2 billion per annum.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the latest value of United Kingdom exports to Japan; and what was the comparable figure five years ago.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the 12 months to May 1989 United Kingdom exports to Japan were £2·0 billion compared with £1·0 billion five years ago.

  Mergers and Takeovers
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent annual figure for spending on mergers and takeovers.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent annual figure for spending on mergers and takeovers.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent annual figure for spending on mergers and takeovers.

  Mr. Maude
  Expenditure in 1988 on acquisitions and mergers within the United Kingdom by industrial and commercial companies is estimated to be about £22 billion. Expenditure in 1988 on acquisitions overseas by United Kingdom companies is estimated to be about £17 billion.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the take-up to date of information on 1992 in each of Britain's regions.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the take-up to date of information on 1992 in each of Britain's regions.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the take-up to date of information on 1992 in each of Britain's regions.

  Mr. Maude
  The number of centrally recorded requests for published information, by region, since the "Europe Open for Business" campaign began, is as follows:

  Region

  Number

  Scotland

  8,300

  Wales

  4,600

  Northern Ireland

  3,300

  North

  4,500

  North west

  16,500

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12,300

  East midlands

  10,800

  West midlands

  15,300

  East Anglia

  6,100

  South east

  95,300

  South west

  13,600

  Total

  190,600

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and what was the figure for the same month in 1973.

  Mr. Atkins
  In May 1989 manufacturing output was at a level of 119·0, based on 1985 equal to 100. This is 9 per cent. more than the level of 109·1 for May 1973. But my hon. Friend will appreciate that monthly data can be erratic. A firmer based comparison would be in the three months to May 1989 manufacturing output was 8 per cent. higher than in the same period in 1973.

  Origin Marking
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any further plans to bring in regulations about the origin marking of goods.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no plans to do so. The Trade Descriptions (Place of Production) (Marking) Order 1988 which requires corrective origin marking in cases where the consumer might otherwise be misled as to where goods were produced, represents the most that is possible on a national basis within the confines of our European Community obligations.

  Trade Statistics
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which European Community countries the balance of trade has improved over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which European Council countries the balance of trade has improved over the last 10 years.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which European Community countries the balance of trade has improved over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our exports to France, Italy and Spain have gown faster over this period than our imports from them. And our trade with Spain is now in surplus.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries the United Kingdom is running a trade surplus.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the 12 months to May, United Kingdom visible trade was in surplus with Australia, Spain, Ireland, Greece and Canada.

  Estate Agents
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on his plans to regulate estate agents.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on his plans to regulate estate agents.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on his plans to regulate estate agents.
  221
  Mr. Forth
  My Department has received views from the Consumers Association and from my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on the plans for improving standards in estate agency which I announced on 21 June.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the reform of company accounts.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the reform of company accounts.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the reform of company accounts.

  Mr. Maude
  We receive many representations about possible changes in the law on company accounts and a number of them have been reflected in the Companies Bill.

  Environment-friendly Products
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will introduce a Government-sponsored labelling scheme for environment-friendly products.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will introduce a Government-sponsored labelling scheme for environment-friendly products.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have discussed with consumers, producers, retailers and environmentalists, the question of labelling environmentally friendly products, and is keeping the issue under review. The DTI and the Department of the Environment intend shortly to issue a discussion document.

  Brewers Society
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the Brewers Society; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the Brewers Society; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the Brewers Society; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Maude
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I met representatives of the six national brewers on 6 July. A representative of the Brewers Society was also present. These were private discussions. My last meeting with the Brewers Society took place on 13 June.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further representations he has received on the cost to industry of the current levels of interest rates.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further representations he has received on the cost to industry of the current levels of interest rates.
  222
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further representations he has received on the cost to industry of the current levels of interest rates.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has received a number of representations on the level of interest rates. The Government's firm action to curb inflation continues to receive strong support from industry.

  Financial Services
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied that the Financial Services Act is being operated to the benefit of the investor.

  Mr. Maude
  Yes, but I remain ready to review the operation of the Act if there is evidence that it is not working to the benefit of investors.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the regulation of financial services.

  Mr. Maude
  I receive a considerable number of representations on a variety of topics relating to the regulation of financial services. Those which relate to the scope of the framework of the regulatory system, or the powers under the Financial Services Act which the Government retain, are given careful consideration. Those which relate to matters which are the responsibility of the SIB or of another regulatory authority are passed to the appropriate body.

  Mining
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the implications for those industries which are involved in mining equipment, engineering and technology of the continuing contraction in the British mining industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is for companies to decide how to respond to change, not Government.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement on the operation of the European Economic Community's Renaval programme to assist shipbuilding areas.

  Mr. Newton
  Applications for eligibility have been made to the European Commission by the Government for Plymouth, Gibraltar and Strathclyde. I am consulting my right hon. Friends about the submission of applications for other areas. Most shipbuilding and shiprepair areas already receive all available benefits from the European regional development fund.

  Deregulation
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made in implementing the new deregulation initiatives outlined in the document entitled "Releasing Enterprise".

  Mr. Maude
  Departments are pushing ahead with the plan of work set out in "Releasing Enterprise". They have
  223
  already made much good progress under the programme, resulting in a wide range of benefits to business, and are committed to maintaining momentum. I expect to make a statement to the House in the autumn.

  New Industry (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what amount of central Government funds has been invested in creating new industry in Liverpool during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Central Government investment towards industrial and commercial development in Liverpool is undertaken in the main by the DTI and Department of Environment.

  DTI expenditure on investment in the travel-to-work area of Liverpool, through the main schemes of regional selective assistance, regional development grant and, from 1988, regional enterprise grant was £258 million during the last 10 years.

  In addition, funding for Liverpool city through the Department of Environment urban programme and derelict land grant and including expenditure by the Merseyside development corporation amounted to £439 million, though not all of this is directly related to industrial development.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the percentage increases, in real terms, in(a) profits and (b) research and development expenditure, in the United Kingdom between 1979 and 1988, or the nearest years for which comparable information is available.

  Mr. Forth
  Between 1978 and 1987 expenditure on research and development performed by United Kingdom industry increased by 31 per cent. at 1985 prices. Profits figures are not readily available with the same coverage as research and development and conceptually, because they cannot be related to specific flows of goods and services, they could not be adjusted to constant prices.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to seek to increase the level of civil research and development by British industry.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have created a favourable economic climate which encourages companies to invest in R and D themselves. Industry increased its own funding of R and D by about 30 per cent. in real terms between 1983 and 1987.

  Inner City Task Forces
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress achieved to date by the inner city task forces.

  Mr. Forth
  The inner city task forces have continued to make good progress in meeting their objectives of securing more jobs and training for local people and encouraging local enterprise. Since the task forces began their work in 1986 they have committed about £42 million in support of over 1,300 projects. These generate, or safeguard, nearly 7,000 jobs, facilitate nearly 30,000 training places and provide support for 7,000 businesses. Over 450 private sector companies have supported task force projects.
  224
  I announced on 9 March, as part of the Government's Action for Cities anniversary announcements, that the task forces would be withdrawing from Leicester, Wolverhampton and Preston, and that new task forces would be opening in Bradford, Granby/Toxteth and Deptford in Lewisham. I am pleased to say that the Granby/Toxteth task force is now operational with a small team occupying temporary premises. It is hoped that Bradford and Deptford task forces will open later in the year.

  Manufacturing (Unit Costs)
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the effect in the change in unit costs on manufacturing industry.

  Mr Atkins
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Financial Statement and Budget Report forecast that total unit costs in maufacturing industry would increase by 4¼ per cent. in 1989. Restraint of unit costs, which is in industry's own hands, is the key to improved competitiveness.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the concentration of media ownership.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the concentration of media ownership.

  Mr. Maude
  We receive many representations on the concentration of media ownership both where it concerns ownership of a single medium and where cross-media ownership is the issue.

  United Kingdom Goods
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to encourage people to purchase goods made in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  Ministers repeatedly point out the advantages of buying United Kingdom goods where they are competitive in design, quality and price. My Department's policies are geared to helping businesses achieve this.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received recently concerning the future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A report on the future status of ECGD, commissioned by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was submitted to Ministers in May 1989. The report takes account of evidence provided to Mr. Kemp, its author, by a wide range of interested parties including exporters, banks and the insurance industry. In order to assist those same parties to contribute to the consideration of the report itself, Ministers decided that the report should be published. At the same time we established an inter-Departmental working group of
  225
  officials, chaired by ECGD's chief executive to provide advice on the status options identified in the report. Comments have already been submitted to the working group by interested outside parties.

  Appledore-Fergusons
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, when he last met the chairman of British Shipbuilders, they discussed the disposal of Appledore-Fergusons of Port Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I last met the chairman of British Shipbuilders on 29 June. The disposal of Ferguson Shipbuilders Limited was among the topics discussed.

  Mortgage Finance
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement on the working of the Financial Services Act so far as it affects seeking advice on mortgage finance.

  Mr. Maude
  Advice to house purchasers on mortgage finance is not in itself a matter covered by the Financial Services Act, but if the arrangements for repaying the mortgage involve an investment agreement (for instance, by the borrower taking out an endowment life insurance policy) then that element of the transaction is subject to regulation. A person giving investment advice on such transactions by way of business must, unless exempted, be authorised under the Act and abide by rules regulating the conduct of that business.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total cost of the advertising campaign for the enterprise initiative; and what has been the average cost per take-up.

  Mr. Newton
  Expenditure on advertising the enterprise initiative since January 1988 has been about £19 million. Of this, we estimate that some £14·4 million has been specifically directed at promoting the six consultancy initiatives, which would represent an average of about £485 per application.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the current state of the textile industry in Britain.

  Mr. Atkins
  There have been major improvements in productivity in the industry since 1980 and significant new investment. The woollen textiles sector announced a new record for exports in 1988 and a further increase in the first four months of this year. The industry continues to make an important contribution to the wealth of the country.

  Cyclotron
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the manufacturers of the cyclotron machine received any Government grants to develop the machine.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply
  226
  Cyclotron machines have a variety of applications in medicine and research. The development of cyclotrons specifically for medical use has not been funded by the Department. Details of the cyclotron to be installed at St. Thomas's hospital have yet to be settled by those concerned.

  Road Building (EEC)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the 1992 potential for United Kingdom road building and surfacing contractors in the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  Such assessments are a matter for the industry itself.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he keeps any record of accidents to motor vehicles or horse riders due to panic reaction caused by low-flying aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  I regret that the information requested is not maintained in the format required.

  Maps (Military Installations)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding the inclusion of military installations on Ordnance Survey maps.

  Mr. Neubert
  Most military installations are included in Ordnance Survey maps. Those that are not are excluded for security reasons.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men and women have become liable for the community charge in Scotland since April; how many of these are also ratepayers in other parts of the United Kingdom; what representations he has received on this point; whether he proposes to indemnify them against additional costs; and what advice he is giving as to whether to register for the community charge in England and Wales.

  Mr. Neubert
  No comprehensive information on numbers of service personnel liable for the community charge is held either by service authorities or the Ministry of Defence. Seventeen letters have been received from hon. Members, service personnel or their families about concurrent liability for community charge in Scotland and rates in England and Wales. As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 5 May 1989 at column 278, we are prepared to consider, for possible exceptional financial compensation, cases where the requirements of the service place personnel in a worse position this year than they would be in next year when the community charge applies throughout Great Britain. Copies of guidance given to members of the Armed Forces about liability for the community charge have already been placed in the Library of the House.

  Boscombe Down Research Establishment
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the aircraft and armaments research establishment at Boscombe Down near Salisbury.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Aircraft and Armaments Experimental Establishment (A&AEE), Boscombe Down, plays an important role in the evaluation and acceptance into service of all military aircraft, their armament and associated equipment. It was not listed as one of the MOD establishments initially selected for inclusion in the Defence Research Agency. This was in no way an indication of any uncertainty over its continuing role but simply a reflection of fact that the work undertaken at Boscombe Down is not strictly of a research nature. The position of A&AEE is currently under consideration as part of a further study being undertaken on the most appropriate organisation for the MOD's test and evaluation facilities. This study is scheduled for completion later this year.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many front line RAF squadrons will be equipped with European fighter aircraft when it enters service.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On present plans, seven front line squadrons would be equipped with the European fighter aircraft when it enters service.

  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel from his Department are currently employed in the strategic defence initiative unit.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Seventeen Ministry of Defence staff are employed in the strategic defence initiative participation office, 14 based in London and three on the staff at the British Embassy, Washington. A further five staff are based in London, on secondment from other Government Departments or from United Kingdom companies; and the embassy in Washington employs four locally engaged civilian staff in support. The total is 26.

  RAAF (Bounty)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Auxiliary Air Force officers and other ranks were awarded their annual bounty for completion of the minimum training commitment in the 1988–89 financial year.

  Mr. Neubert
  This information is not held centrally. I will write when the details have been collected.

  Royal Marine Reserve (Bounty)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Marine Reserve officers and other ranks, respectively, were awarded their annual bounty for completion of the minimum training commitment during the1988–89 financial year.

  Mr. Neubert
  The answer is 59 officers and 526 other ranks.

  Royal Naval Reserve
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Naval Reserve officers and other ratings were awarded their annual bounty for completion of the minimum training commitment in the 1988–89 financial year.

  Mr. Neubert
  The answer is 1,729 officers and 2,762 ratings.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the Royal Naval Reserve in officers and ratings.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is 2,094 officers and 3,463 ratings, as at 31 March 1989.

  Tucano
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Shorts Tucano aircraft have been delivered to Royal Air force training command to date.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Twenty two aircraft have been delivered to the RAF by July 1989.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when basic flying training courses will commence on Royal Air Force Shorts Tucano aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is currently scheduled that the first Royal Air Force ground school training course for the Tucano aircraft will begin on 16 October 1989, with flying training commencing at RAF Church Fenton on 4 December 1989.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army officers and other ranks were awarded their annual bounty for completion of the minimum training commitment in the 1988–89 financial year.

  Mr. Neubert
  A total of 5,225 TA officers and 41,839 TA other ranks qualified for and received their annual bounty in respect of the period 1988–89.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the Territorial Army in officers and other ranks.

  Mr. Neubert
  The strength of the TA as at 31 May 1989 is 7,864 officers and 65,747 other ranks, excluding the HSF.

  Air Defence Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what air defence weapons are currently available for British land and amphibious forces earmarked for the defence of Norway.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The British land and amphibious force contribution to NATO reinforcements for the defence of the Northern Region, including Norway, has a balance of air defence weapons which includes Javelin missiles and machine guns in the air defence role.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what air defence weapons are currently availablie for British land and amphibious forces earmarked for the defence of Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein.
  229
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The British land and amphibious force contribution to NATO reinforcements for the defence of Denmark and Schleswig Holstein has a balance of air defence weapons which includes Rapier and Javelin missiles, and machine guns in the air defence role.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what air defence weapons are currently available to land forces serving with the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Land forces currently serving with the British Army of the Rhine have a balance of air defence weapons which includes tracked and towed Rapier missiles, Javelin missiles, and machine guns in the air defence role.

  Intrepid and Fearless
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the cost of treating corrosion on the assault ships HMS Intrepid and HMS Fearless.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Corrosion repair and preventative work are normal features of the refitting of warships. HMS Intrepid is currently operational; whilst she will shortly undergo a hull survey, no major corrosion problems are expected. Some corrosion treatment, which is not unduly extensive, is in hand in the refit of HMS Fearless; but the cost of this treatment could be separately identified only at disproportionate cost.

  Home Service Force
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the home service force in officers and other ranks.

  Mr. Neubert
  The strength of the HSF as at 31 May 1989 is 167 officers and 2,883 other ranks.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of HSF personnel have had previous armed forces experience prior to enlistment.

  Mr. Neubert
  All HSF personnel have had previous armed forces experience prior to enlistment.

  Royal Army Education Corps
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the Royal Army Education Corps.

  Mr. Neubert
  The strength of the Royal Army Education Corps as at 30 June 1989 was 518 Officers.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to privatise the work of the Royal Army Education Corps.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are currently no plans to privatise the work of the Royal Army Education Corps. However, all areas of the corps responsibility are regularly reviewed in the normal planning process and the potential for privatisation, civilianisation or contractorisation identified where appropriate.

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in officers and other ranks.
  230
  Mr. Neubert
  The strength of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force as at 1 April 1989, is 143 officers and 1,429 other ranks.

  Royal Marine Reserve
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the Royal Marine Reserve in officers and other ranks.

  Mr. Neubert
  The answer is 81 officers and 1,145 other ranks, as at 31 March 1989.

  Royal Naval Auxiliary Service
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service in officers and ratings.

  Mr. Neubert
  The answer is 114 volunteer staff officers and 2,817 auxiliary men and women as at 31 March 1989.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of RNAS personnel have had previous armed forces experience prior to enlistment.

  Mr. Neubert
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Volunteers (Payments)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payment and bounties are paid to RNAS and HSF volunteers for training and partaking in exercises.

  Mr. Neubert
  RNAS volunteers are not paid in peacetime and do not receive a bounty. They are, however, reimbursed approved travel and subsistence expenses and may qualify for a loss of earnings allowance and a course and exercise training allowance on a daily basis where eight hours or more training are involved. The HSF are paid in accordance with TA rates of pay and receive a bounty of £45 in the first year, £90 in the second year and £150 in the third year, on completion of six days' minimum annual training.

  Fisheries Protection
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to privatise the Royal Navy's fisheries protection role.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Navy provides a fishery protection service for both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and, in the North Sea, for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (DAFS). At present there are no plans to change these arrangements. Additionally, DAFS owns vessels and aircraft and MAFF charters civilian aircraft which are employed on fishery protection duties. I understand that there are at present no plans to change these arrangements either.

  Wintex 89
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Government Departments participated in Exercise Wintex 89.
  231
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following Government Departments participated in WINTEX 89.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Cabinet Office

  HM Customs and Excise

  Department of Employment

  Department of Energy

  Department of the Environment

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Department of Health Home Office

  Northern Ireland Office Scottish Office

  Department of Social Security

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Department of Transport HM Treasury

  Welsh Office

  Portsmouth Naval Base
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels are currently undergoing refits or major servicing at Portsmouth naval base.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  HMS Exeter is the only vessel currently undergoing a refit at Her Majesty's naval base, Portsmouth; the following vessels are undergoing docking and essential defects (DEDs):HMS Otter, Jupiter, Charybdis, Endurance and Bristol.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an indication of all work undertaken by Porton Down involving anthrax in the last five years; what was the purpose of such activity and the locations involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom is a signatory to the 1972 convention on biological warfare and does not undertake any work on the development of biological weapons. The chemical defence establishment at Porton Down is charged with the responsibility of research into the application of up-to-date technology leading to the provision of the best possible equipment to the armed services for the detection, decontamination and treatment of such agents as well as protective systems against them. CDE's work on anthrax conforms to these criteria. Some of the work has potential to benefit the civil population and therefore involves interaction with other agencies and publication in open literature. CDE's scientists carry out their studies at Porton Down and one of the useful consequences has been the recent successful clean-up operation on Gruinard island, which has been contaminated since being used for wartime tests.

  Land Holdings
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the location of the areas referred to in footnote 2, page 50, cm. 675-II, Statement on the Defence Estimates vol. 2.

  Mr. Neubert
  The two locations are 50,000 hectares of Forestry Commission land in Galloway and 11,679 hectares of British Aluminium Company land at Kinlochleven. In both cases, there are restrictions upon the nature and extent of the training that may take place.

  Military Exercises
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with the Supreme Allied Commander Europe or the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe concerning the possibility of reducing the size and number of military exercises.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Together with his subordinate commanders, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, is conducting a review of exercise activity within his command to ensure that, in nature, size, scope and number, exercises undertaken represent an effective and economical way of meeting Alliance requirements. Recommendations have yet to be put to NATO allies for decision.

  Major Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, further to the reply of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, 8 June,Official Report, column 458, he intends to write to the hon. Member for Linlithgow in relation to the points he raised on Major Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to which NATO member states have legislation to require(a) their own military bases and (b) bases allocated to United States military forces on their territory to provide (i) an environmental impact statement for military bases and (ii) environmental pollution data regarding military base operations, to their governments.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: The Ministry of Defence follows the provisions of Department of Environment circular 15/88, Welsh Office circular 23/88 and Scottish Development Department circular 13/88 in respect of environmental impact assessments relating to projects carried out on behalf of both home forces and visiting forces. There is no general requirement to make statements or provide data in respect of existing operations. The legislative requirements of other NATO members are matters for the Governments of the countries concerned.

  Aldermaston (Radiation Monitoring)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additions have been made since May 1979 to the personnel radiation monitoring programme technology at atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: I understand that the hon. Lady is referring to the personnel radiation monitoring programme. In addition to making relevant adjustments for compliance with requirements of new legislative measures arising since May 1979, the atomic weapons establishment have made the following major changes since that date in monitoring low levels of personal radiation exposures that might arise at their Aldermaston and other premises:

  233

  (a) the use of personnel-borne air samplers (PAS) has been extended to cover any personal occupational exposures to radioactive and toxic substances which might be of health and safety significance;

  (b) thermoluminescent radiation dosimeters (TLD) have been brought into use in place of film-badges as a means of assessing any personal gamma radiation exposures that might occur;

  (c) two in vivo (whole body) monitors have been installed and are operating for assaying any levels of radioactive substances that might have been deposited in the bodies, and particularly the lungs, of workers;

  (d) newly developed instruments have been, and are continuing to be, installed to provide further facilities for monitoring radioactivity that might be dispersed in the air, on surfaces or on persons in occupational work-spaces.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, for each of the Training Agency's areas within Greater London, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Glasgow, Sheffield, Birmingham and Solihull, Coventry and Warwickshire, what are the monthly statistics for the latest available three months for employment training showing(a) the number of referrals to ET from restart interviews, (b) the number of ET action plans completed, (c) the number of starts with ET training managers, (d) the number of ET filled places and (e) the number of unfilled ET places.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. Restart referrals are available only for employment service areas and are given in table 1. The figures for action plans, starts at training managers and filled places are given in tables 2, 3 and 4. Information about unfilled places is available only for May and these figures are given in table 5.

  Table 1. Employment service restart referrals to ET training agents February to April 1989

  Employment service area

  February

  March

  April

  Inner London South

  598

  494

  435

  Inner London Central

  782

  595

  550

  Inner London West

  630

  295

  444

  Inner London East

  646

  694

  491

  London South East

  370

  303

  326

  London South West

  298

  273

  167

  London North West

  516

  428

  368

  London West

  345

  667

  314

  London South

  377

  349

  386

  London East

  464

  444

  458

  London North

  604

  490

  422

  Merseyside North

  713

  660

  599

  Merseyside South

  953

  1,033

  723

  Liverpool Central and Wirral

  600

  591

  343

  Manchester City1

  562

  726

  —

  Manchester North East1

  285

  316

  —

  Manchester North West1

  510

  455

  —

  Manchester South1

  358

  392

  —

  Manchester West1

  352

  444

  —

  Manchester Central1

  —

  —

  758

  Manchester East1

  —

  —

  505

  Manchester West1

  —

  —

  610

  Glasgow North

  1,392

  1,466

  895

  Glasgow South

  833

  805

  538

  Sheffield

  870

  742

  769

  Birmingham and Solihull

  1,808

  1,776

  1,267

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  656

  735

  487

  1 Employment service areas re-organised from 1 April 1989.

  234

  Table 2.Employment training Action plans completed by training agents March-May 1989

  Training agency area

  March

  April

  May

  London North

  1,000

  820

  730

  London West

  630

  380

  370

  London East

  1,090

  730

  740

  London South

  540

  420

  410

  Inner London North

  2,090

  1,630

  1,600

  Inner London South

  740

  500

  420

  Merseyside

  2,220

  2,060

  1,670

  Manchester East

  910

  710

  640

  Manchester Central

  840

  830

  640

  Manchester North

  890

  810

  690

  Glasgow

  1,920

  1,430

  1,190

  Sheffield

  1,040

  940

  990

  Birmingham and Solihull

  1,600

  1,470

  1,180

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  830

  660

  520

  Table 3. Employment training Starts with training managers March-May 1989

  Training agency area

  March

  April

  May

  London North

  850

  570

  580

  London West

  280

  180

  190

  London East

  490

  380

  340

  London South

  300

  360

  220

  Inner London North

  1,120

  930

  770

  Inner London South

  760

  680

  460

  Merseyside

  2,030

  1,860

  1,640

  Manchester East

  800

  660

  550

  Manchester Central

  870

  920

  770

  Manchester North

  720

  620

  520

  Glasgow

  1,310

  970

  800

  Sheffield

  1,340

  1,140

  820

  Birmingham and Solihull

  1,580

  1,440

  960

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  570

  560

  410

  Table 4. Employment Training Filled places March-May 1989

  Training agency area

  March

  April

  May

  London North

  3,280

  3,320

  3,560

  London West

  1,180

  1,210

  1,180

  London East

  2,010

  2,160

  2,200

  London South

  1,440

  1,630

  1,610

  Inner London North

  5,580

  5,680

  5,790

  Inner London South

  3,020

  3,360

  3,350

  Merseyside

  7,680

  8,170

  8,700

  Manchester East

  2,400

  2,550

  2,630

  Manchester Central

  3,940

  4,170

  4,190

  Manchester North

  2,550

  2,660

  2,620

  Glasgow

  4,130

  4,410

  4,510

  Sheffield

  5,370

  5,550

  5,490

  Birmingham and Solihull

  6,700

  7,350

  7,350

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  2,330

  2,600

  2,660

  Table 5. Employment Training Unfilled places May 1989

  Training agency area

  May

  London North

  160

  London West

  360

  London East

  280

  London South

  280

  Inner London North

  740

  Inner London South

  850

  235

  Training agency area

  May

  Merseyside

  4,670

  Manchester East

  610

  Manchester Central

  5,030

  Manchester North

  2,170

  Glasgow

  2,110

  Sheffield

  740

  Birmingham and Solihull

  2,140

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  1,220

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for Great Britain and each standard training agency region, what are the monthly statistics for the latest available three months for employment training showing(a) the number of referrals to ET from restart interviews, (b) the number of ET action plans completed, (c) the number of starts with ET training managers, (d) the number of ET filled places and (e) the number of unfilled ET places.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. Restart referrals are available only for employment service regions and are given in table 1. The figures for action plans, starts at training managers and filled places are given in tables 2, 3 and 4. Information about unfilled places is available only for May and these figures are given in table 5.

  Table 1. Employment Service Restart referrals to ET training agents February to April 1989

  Employment Service Region

  February

  March

  April

  London and South East

  8,300

  7,600

  7,600

  South West

  1,600

  1,600

  1,200

  West Midlands

  5,000

  5,200

  4,000

  East Midlands and Eastern

  3,000

  2,800

  2,900

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,100

  4,100

  3,800

  North West

  5,700

  5,900

  4,800

  Northern

  3,400

  3,300

  3,300

  Wales

  2,800

  2,800

  2,400

  Scotland

  7,100

  7,600

  4,800

  Great Britain

  41,000

  41,000

  33,800

  Table 2. Employment Training Action plans completed by training agents March to May 1989

  Training Agency Region

  March

  April

  May

  South East

  4,300

  3,600

  3,000

  London

  6,100

  4,500

  4,300

  South West

  2,800

  2,300

  2,000

  West Midlands

  5,900

  4,900

  8,900

  East Midlands and Eastern

  4,000

  3,600

  3,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,600

  5,100

  5,000

  North West

  7,200

  6,400

  5,300

  Northern

  5,300

  4,600

  4,300

  Wales

  3,400

  2,800

  2,800

  Scotland

  7,800

  5,700

  5,300

  Great Britain

  52,300

  43,700

  38,900

  Table 3. Employment Training Starts at Training Managers March to May 1989

  Training Agency Region

  March

  April

  May

  South East

  2,100

  2,300

  1,600

  London

  3,800

  3,100

  2,600

  South West

  2,300

  2,000

  1,700

  West Midlands

  4,900

  4,100

  3,200

  East Midlands and Eastern

  3,200

  3,100

  2,400

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,400

  4,900

  4,100

  236

  Training Agency Region

  March

  April

  May

  North West

  6,500

  5,800

  4,800

  Northern

  4,700

  3,800

  3,300

  Wales

  3,200

  2,900

  2,300

  Scotland

  6,000

  4,400

  4,000

  Great Britain

  42,200

  36,300

  30,000

  Table 4. Employment Training Numbers in Training (Filled Places)

  Training Agency Region

  March

  April

  May

  South East

  9,900

  10,200

  10,700

  London

  16,500

  17,400

  17,700

  South West

  10,900

  11,300

  11,500

  West Midlands

  20,600

  22,100

  22,400

  East Midlands and Eastern

  14,000

  14,900

  15,300

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  23,900

  24,600

  24,900

  North West

  24,800

  25,900

  26,400

  Northern

  20,000

  21,100

  21,800

  Wales

  13,400

  14,200

  14,500

  Scotland

  20,900

  22,000

  22,300

  Great Britain

  175,000

  184,000

  187,000

  Table 5. Employment Training Unfilled Places May 1989

  Training Agency Region

  May

  South East

  5,900

  London

  2,600

  South West

  3,000

  West Midlands

  7,600

  East Midlands and Eastern

  3,600

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,300

  North West

  15,800

  Northern

  6,700

  Wales

  5,800

  Scotland

  12,600

  Great Britain

  68,000

  Employment Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a breakdown of the number of accidents that have occurred on employment training since its inception in the categories covered by "Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences, 1985"; and if he will express this also as a percentage per 100,000 trainees.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table gives the numbers of fatal, major and minor accidents reportable under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 which have occurred to trainees on employment training since the inception of the programme on 5 September 1988. Accident rates are expressed as an annual rate per 100,000 trainees.

  Number of Accidents

  Accident Rate/100,000 (provisional)

  Fatal

  Nil

  Nil

  Major

  83

  74

  Minor

  452

  403

  Hotels and Catering
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people he estimates are employed in the hotel and catering industry throughout the United Kingdom; and how many of these he estimates come from other European Community countries and from outside the European Community.

  Mr. Lee
  It is estimated that in March 1989 there were 1·2 million employees in employment in the hotel and catering industry in the United Kingdom. Preliminary results from the 1988 labour force survey show that in spring 1988 there were about a further 0·2 million self-employed people in the hotel and catering industry.

  The labour force survey also suggests that, of those in employment in the hotel and catering industry in spring 1988, either as employees or as self-employed, about 5 per cent. were nationals of other European Community countries and a further 4½ per cent. were nationals of countries outside the European Community.

  Jobclubs (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the reasons for the closure of jobclubs in Bestwood park, Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 27 January 1989,Official Report, column 810, in which he announced that we would be able to increase numbers helped by jobclubs while streamlining the network.

  There was substantial underused capacity in the Bestwood park jobclub and the closure decision was taken to make better use of resources. Long-term unemployed people in the Bestwood park area will continue to have full access to the jobclub programme. There are a number of jobclubs within easy travelling distance and travelling expenses to and from jobclubs are paid in full.

  Training, Gloucester
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the number of employment training places currently available in the Gloucester travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Programme information is not held on a travel-to-work area basis. Information about the number of contracted places will be available later in the year for the area covered by the Training Agency's Gloucester and Wiltshire area.

  Mine

  Reportable accidents

  Fatalities

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  (a) Murton

  249

  166

  204

  —

  —

  1

  (b) Easington

  153

  112

  161

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Dawdon

  200

  124

  260

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Vane Tempest/Seaham

  169

  87

  118

  —

  —

  —

  (e) Wearmouth

  308

  202

  253

  —

  —

  —

  (f) Westoe

  232

  142

  123

  —

  —

  —

  (g) Ellington

  230

  141

  229

  —

  —

  —

  Trade Union Rights
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many requests for assistance have been received by the new commissioner for the rights of trade union members; and if he plans to introduce measures to extend the commissioner's powers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I understand that up to the beginning of this month, the commissioner for the rights of trade union members has received over 100 inquiries and 19 formal applications for assistance.

  Proposals to extend the commissioner's powers were made in the Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment". The Government are considering responses to these proposals and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to ensure that existing national training schemes will not be prejudiced by the proposed training and enterprise council system.

  Mr. Cope
  The introduction of training and enterprise councils will enhance training provision and ensure that skill needs are addressed in the light of national and local priorities. Proposals have been issued to national providers under which they will contract directly with training and enterprise councils; but the Training Agency will continue to provide a service to national providers to facilitate their involvement under the new arrangements. Training and enterprise councils and national providers have much to offer each other.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action has been taken to publish guidelines to employers and managers on the need to identify the cause and to prevent repetitive strain injury in the workplace.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive has published a guidance note on this subject, entitled "Beat Conditions and Tenosynovitis" and is preparing new guidance which we expect to be published before the end of the year.

  Collieries (Accidents)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of reportable accidents and fatalities at the following collieries for the last three years(a) Murton, (b) Easington, (c) Dawdon, (d) Vane Tempest, (e) Wearmouth, (f) Westo, and (g) Ellington.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Reportable accidents and fatalities for the last three years are:

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy the latest figures, in terms of national currency, showing average earnings of adult male workers in the steel, motor car and mechanical engineering industries and of adult female workers in the textile and clothing industries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available figures are to be found in the Eurostat publication "Earnings in Industries and Services" No. 2 1988, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the number and percentage of employees earning less than £2·80 per hour giving (a) the total, (b) male, in total and full and part-time, (c) female, in total and full and part-time, (d) full-time, in total and male and female and (e) part-time, in total and male and female for each region and England, Scotland, Wales and Great Britain for the latest available year.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information is published in part E table 115 and part F table 175 of the 1988 new earnings survey report, for full-time employees and female part-time employees respectively. A copy of the report is in the Library. Information on part-time male employees is available only for Great Britain: 54·5 per cent. of part-time male employees in the 1988 new earnings survey sample earned less than £2·80 per hour.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the smallest geographical unit for which information on the number and percentage of employees earning less than £2·80 per hour is available.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on the distribution of earnings of employees in the new earnings survey sample is available for the standards regions of England plus Scotland and Wales, for full-time employees and part-time female employees. Equivalent information on part-time male employees is available only for Great Britain as a whole.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the contribution made to Britain's economy by the tourist industry.

  Mr. Lee
  The total turnover of tourism in the United Kingdom in 1988 was estimated to be some £19 billion.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the number of (a) jobs, (b) full-time jobs and (c) part-time jobs in all tourism-related industries for each year for 1978 to the latest date available.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information is given in the following tables. Table 1 shows the number of employees in employment in all tourism-related industries in Great Britain in June of each year from 1978 to 1988. Table 2 is based on information from the labour force survey and shows the number of self-employed people in the hotel and 240
  catering industry in Great Britain in the spring of each of those years from 1978 to 1988 in which a labour force survey took place. Separate figures for full-time and part-time self-employed people are not available.

  Table 1

  Employees in employment in alt tourism-related industries in Great Britain

  Thousands

  Females

  June of each year

  Males1

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1978

  428

  232

  436

  1,097

  1979

  445

  242

  467

  1,154

  1980

  455

  241

  488

  1,183

  1981

  443

  234

  474

  1,152

  1982

  448

  241

  484

  1,173

  1983

  443

  219

  481

  1,143

  1984

  465

  229

  508

  1,202

  1985

  515

  248

  529

  1,291

  1986

  524

  257

  536

  1,318

  1987

  534

  276

  548

  1,358

  1988

  567

  304

  554

  1,424

  1 separate figures for full-time and part-time male employees are not available.

  Table 2

  Self-employed people in the hotel and catering industry in Great Britain

  Spring of each year

  SIC (68) Minimum List Headings 884 to 888 Thousands

  1978

  n/a

  1979

  1100

  SIC (80) class 66

  1980

  n/a

  1981

  145

  1982

  n/a

  1983

  142

  1984

  169

  1985

  170

  1986

  185

  1987

  180

  1988

  183

  n/a = not available

  1 not strictly comparable with later years

  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any information as to the current level of use of local enterprise agencies.

  Mr. Cope
  Local enterprise agencies are independent private sector-led organisations. Information on the use made of them is not collected by the Government. l understand, however, that a recent business in the community survey estimates that the 314 agencies which they recognise undertook 250,000 counselling sessions last year, thereby assisting 50,000 small businesses.

  BAT Bid
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the number of jobs that will be created if the Hoylake bid for BAT is successful; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  We have made no assessment of job gains and losses that could result from the Hoylake/BAT takeover bid.

  Deptford Skillcentre
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many TOPS trainees were trained at Deptford skillcentre during 1986; how many achieved skilled status; and how many were placed in employment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1986–87, 605 trainees completed the courses at Deptford skillcentre. Of these, 465 were trained for skilled occupations. A total of 393 trainees were placed in employment.

  Employment Rehabilitation Services
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to the reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe on 21 June,Official Report, column 186, he will make it his policy that the employment rehabilitation services of his Department should remain within the public sector.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 5 July 1989]: A wide-ranging review of services for people with disabilities has been undertaken by this Department. A consultation exercise will be undertaken before any final decisions are taken.

  Job Interview Guarantee Initiative
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in which inner-city areas the new job interview guarantee initiative is on offer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in which inner-city areas the new job interview guarantee initiative is on offer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has had to the job interview guarantee initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has had to the job interview guarantee initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 20 June 1989]: I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 14 July 1989, Official Report, column 654.

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

Horniman Museum: Future
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will be appointing the independent trustees for the Horniman Museum, in view of the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority in March 1990.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, it is intended that key members of the "shadow" board of trustees for the Horniman Museum and Library will be appointed this autumn. The directors of the museum are commenting on a management consultant's report and compiling a list of possible trustees. The Museums and Galleries Commission is seeking legal advice on the composition of a constitution for the new charitable trust, and a skeleton constitution should be available for discussion later this month.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Have any discussions taken place with the director of the museum about the museum's future?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts recently met the director of the Horniman to discuss progress. The prospect of the planning period is an exciting one, balancing important tasks behind the scenes, such as introducing a planned programme of conservation, with highly visible public service tasks. This is a major challenge and one which, by building on the strength of its place in the hearts of Londoners, the Horniman Museum is confident of meeting.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I do not think the directors of the Horniman will be in favour of too long a planning period? I am sure that they would very much like to be free of the present Government—so should we all, but that was a slip of the tongue—and free of the present organisation so that they can run themselves.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord is presumably aware that the museum is to pass from ILEA to link with the LRB if necessary. We are anxious that this process should be as brief as is legally and practically possible. It is, however, the most expedient way of transferring staff and property to the new trust taking advantage of all the relevant expertise offered by members of the LRB. We are hoping to proceed as quickly as possible.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am delighted about what the Minister said concerning the appointment,
772
probably in October. Will the trustees, directly they are appointed, have full powers to negotiate the transfer of the collections and to deal with matters of staff and any assets which will be necessary if the museum is to achieve, as we all hope, full independence by April 1990?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I should correct the noble Baroness. I did not mention a month. I said that the trustees would be appointed this autumn. In other respects I concur with what she says.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in the improbable event of my finding my way to the Horniman Museum, what will I find in it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Horniman's collections are immensely rich and varied—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Trumpington: The outstanding ethnographic collection presents a worldwide view of human culture and belief as seen through arts and craft. There is a natural history collection ranging from a fully grown walrus—against which visitors can weigh themselves—to exotic birds. The aquarium and vivarium are both high on the list of visitors' favourites. The world class collection of 6,000 musical instruments also contains the renowned Carse collection of 18th and 19th century woodwinds.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in addition to having told us what is in the museum, can my noble friend tell us about the very wide educational activities of this museum?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Horniman has a full and popular education programme for both adults and children, ranging from formal lectures to art, craft and pottery instruction, and—of particular interest to my noble friend—concerts, performances and activities such as boomerang throwing.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can my noble friend please tell us where this wonderful building is?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords. It is in the south of London.

Community Care: Scotland
2.43 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend, when announcing their decisions in response to the Griffiths Report on Community Care, to state what are to be the implications for community care in Scotland.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, as you will know my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made a written statement on 12th July in

773
another place about his plans for community care in Scotland in the light of the Government's response to the Griffiths Report. A copy of that statement was placed in the Library.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that in that statement the Secretary of State asserted that the current arrangements for sharing responsibilities for services for the mentally ill between health and social work authorities in Scotland have generally worked well? Does he acknowledge that in Scotland there is widespread disagreement with that statement, coupled with deep disappointment that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not follow the lead of the Secretary of State for Health in England and Wales and announce a specific grant to encourage local authority support for services for the mentally ill? Finally, will the noble Lord advise the Secretary of State for Scotland before he publishes his White Paper to have the good sense and the humility to do what he did not do in the Griffiths exercise; namely, to seek the advice of those who tried with inadequate sources to provide help for those who need it in Scotland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I agree that in many arrangements there is always room for improvement. However, the present arrangements have resulted in significant reductions in the number of mentally handicapped and ill patients in long-stay institutions. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, who has a great interest in this matter, will realise that.
Between 1979 and 1987 the number of mentally handicapped people in hospitals fell by 21 per cent. The number of long-stay mentally ill patients fell by 13 per cent. We have placed a high importance on having the right facilities in the community. Expenditure in the community health service has increased by 43 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
The arrangements recently announced for community care are designed to form the basis for further improvement in co-operation and co-ordination. Of course, the Scottish Office will be happy to meet representatives of the Scottish Association of Mental Health to discuss arrangements for the mentally ill.
Finally we wish to consider carefully whether there will be any advantage in introducing in Scotland the specific grant proposed for England or whether the resources might not be as effectively used in other ways. Decisions have not yet been made.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister referred to a statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place in which he emphasised that the primary objective of care in the community should be that of sustaining people in their homes for as long as possible. Recognising the great variations in individual circumstances, will the Minister ensure that the White Paper will allow for the maximum flexibility in dealing with individual people in need of care? Can he also say when the promised White Paper on the Griffiths Report will be published and whether there will be a separate White Paper for Scotland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, yes, we have in mind and high on the agenda individual packages for individual needs, whether it is residential day care or respite care. Present indications show that it will be a GB White Paper with a Scottish dimension; in other words, there will be a Scottish input. We hope to publish it in the autumn.

School Meals: Take-up
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been any change in the take-up of school meals resulting from the Social Security Act 1986.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the overall trend in numbers taking school meals has been downwards for many years. Figures from the latest school meals census show that 2·8 per cent. fewer school meals were provided on the day of the 1988 count than on the corresponding day for 1987. It is not possible to say how far that reduction is attributable to the 1986 Social Security Act, which provides for a cash sum instead of a free school meal for schoolchildren whose parents receive family credit.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that general Answer. Is he aware that the most recent census on school meals, carried out in October 1988, showed a most alarming decrease in the number of children having free school meals? The decrease was 31 per cent., which represented 337,000 children, out of which 7,000 were reported from Manchester alone. Does the Minister agree that the reasons for the decrease is the low take-up of family credit? Therefore, will he say whether the Government will extend eligibility for free school meals to those children whose parents receive family credit? Will he also say whether the Government will set up a review, as they did in 1983, of the prices charged, whether they are deterring parents and whether the children are substituting for school meals junk food and sandwiches from home, which are not good for growing children?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree that the number of pupils having free meals has declined. Until April 1988, children whose parents received supplementary benefit for family income supplement received a free school meal. Since then children from families in receipt of income support—which replaced supplementary benefit—and those pupils who themselves receive the benefit are still entitled to receive free school meals.
Family income supplement has been replaced by family credit, which includes a cash addition for each child in place of free school meals. It is payable throughout the year, not only in term time. The amount is reviewed annually and it amounts to rather more than the average cost of a school meal.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, what evidence is there to show that the take-up of family credit has

775
anything to do with the number of children receiving free school meals? What is the evidence to show that that is an indication of anything?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is no evidence.
Lord Peston: My Lords, surely one possible piece of evidence is that the two occur at the same time, so they go hand in hand. Bearing in mind the figures which the noble Viscount has given about the general decline in the number of young people receiving school meals, and which seems deplorable, do the Government agree with the old-fashioned view that if all children took school dinners the communal spirit of the school would be improved and it would be good for education?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a point of view. It is the Government's policy as far as possible to replace benefits in kind with benefits in cash, so that parents can have a choice as to how they use their money.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is the health of the children being monitored, bearing in mind the number of those not receiving school meals but having inadequate types of food?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the question of diet is best left to local education authorities as providers of meals. But the prime responsibility for what children eat lies with their parents. A survey of diets was carried out six years ago, but much has changed since then. Over 70 LEAs banded together in the FEAST —Fun Eating At School Today —campaign. That is a national advertising campaign to promote changes in the services provided. Those include encouraging moves towards healthier eating, greater choice and value for money. The campaign began in January of this year and is off to an excellent start. I am happy to pay tribute to that exciting initiative. In addition, all children are made aware of the importance of healthy eating through the curriculum in schools.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the sum of £2·55 per week given to people on family credit does not leave much scope for choice? Will he also accept, as the noble Baroness said, that that has meant a great increase in the consumption of junk food by children who cannot afford anything else? Is it not time that the Government began to think of imposing a national standard of nutrition for school meals?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the sum of £2·55 per week is over the year as a whole. That is roughly equivalent to £3.30 per school week.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, am I to understand the Minister to say that the survey on which he bases his comments is six years old? He said that a lot has changed since then. What does he mean by that? If a lot has changed, why is there not another survey to bring the information up to date?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, your Lordships can see how much our diet has changed over the past six years.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister say what is the take-up for family credit, which contains, as it does, an allowance for school meals?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness that, but I can say that difficulties such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness are not limited to families on benefit. It is not right that the budgeting difficulties of the minority should deprive the majority of families of the benefit of having the help in cash rather than in kind. Providing much more generous family credit will make it easier for more families fully to meet their parental responsibilities. However, there is a limit to the extent to which the Government can, or should, dictate how working families spend their money.

Government Departments: Training
2.52 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in developing training in government departments since the publication in December 1988 of the White Paper Employment for the 1990s.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Civil Service's approach to training already largely conforms with the framework for training set out in the White Paper. This emphasises the need for sound planning, investment and professionalism in the training and development of staff.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply so far as it goes. Does he agree that the White Paper is written as though the only people in need of training are those in industry and commerce? There is hardly a mention of what needs to be done in national and local government. I suspect that most of the training there is cognitive rather than experiential. Would not all public services benefit greatly from the use of trainers experienced in helping to manage change in the private sector?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Civil Service's record on training is extremely good and is highly regarded in training and development circles of all types. The White Paper is a framework for the national training effort and does not differentiate between government departments and other industries. On the other point raised by the noble Lord there is a great deal of cross-fertilisation in training between government departments and industry.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House, in view of the welcome commitment in the White Paper to the need for improving training and prospects for women, what is especially being done in those areas in public service and the Civil Service generally?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, again the Civil Service's record on employing women is very good. There are increasing numbers of women at senior

777
and middle management grades. I gather that a report has just been published on the future for women in the Civil Service. A copy will be placed in the Library.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the abysmal performance of British Rail management in the recent dispute points to the need for a really good look at retraining for British management throughout industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is another question; the White Paper relates specifically to training.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that principles of total quality management are used in the training process of civil servants?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Civil Service is active as a major employer on several of the industry lead bodies which are helping to define workplace standards of performance and has incorporated them into its training programme.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, taking account of the questions already asked, is the noble Lord not aware that the Government's record in the field of training over the past few years is disappointing if not disgraceful? For example, the number of trainees in manufacturing industry has fallen from 210,500 in 1981 to 93,000 in 1988. Is that not a grave and ominous decline for a country that depends on manufacturing and exports?
Furthermore, are the Government not cutting the YTS budget by £150 million by 1991? Is that not an appalling story? How does the noble Lord justify it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Question appertains purely to training in government departments. There, the Government's record is extremely good with over £300 million being spent —approximately 6 per cent. of the pay bill. That is in line with the best practice among employers generally.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government's record on training in government departments must be set against their record generally and that the general record as regards the prospects of the United Kingdom is appalling?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course, that is why the White Paper was published last year.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government and Housing Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Human Organ Transplants Bill will be taken.

Legal Profession: Government Proposals
2.56 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement relating to the future of the legal profession. The Statement is as follows:
When I published the Government's Green Papers on the legal profession, which were designed to remove any unnecessary restrictions in the provision of legal services, I undertook to make a Statement to the House before the Summer Recess. I have received over 2,000 responses to the Green Papers, and held discussions with many of those directly involved. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who helped in that process. All the points which were put to me in writing or orally have been carefully considered. The Government are today publishing a White Paper containing their own proposals for legislation.
The Government propose to introduce legislation which will set out broad objectives designed to further the interests of the administration of justice, to increase access to justice and to extend the range of those possessing rights of audience before the courts. All those involved in granting rights of audience will be required by the statute to have regard to these objectives. An independent statutory Advisory Committee on Education and Conduct will give advice on the achievement of these objectives. Again there will be a statutory requirement for all those involved in granting rights of audience to have regard to this advice. The advisory committee will have a membership broadly as set out in the Green Paper, but, in order to emphasise its independence from the Government, it will have the power to appoint its own staff.
The Government propose that both the Bar and the Law Society should have a statutory entitlement to grant rights of audience to their members in all courts. All those called to the Bar should receive rights of audience in all courts. On qualification solicitors will continue to receive rights of audiences equivalent to those they now possess. Solicitors will, however, also be eligible to progress to rights of audience in some or all of the higher courts, if they have achieved the necessary standards of competence and conform to appropriate rules of conduct.
All rules relating to the competence and conduct of advocates will continue to be made by the professional bodies, but, building on the current arrangements for the Law Society's rules, all changes in such rules will in the future require the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and each of the four Heads of Division (the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President o1 the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor). All these will be required to have regard to the statutory objectives and the advisory committees's advice.
Other professional bodies might subsequently be empowered by Order in Council, approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament, to grant rights of audience in particular classes of business in particular courts, provided that their competence

779
and conduct requirements satisfied the Lord Chancellor and the four Heads of Division. Similar arrangements will apply for the future to any professional body which might want to have the right to issue legal process or to take steps in proceedings on behalf of others. These rights are at present reserved by statute to solicitors.
The importance of ensuring that both a wide range of barristers generally and an adequate choice of specialist barristers are available to take cases in court requires that the Bar should continue to be able to make its own rules about partnerships and multi-disciplinary practices. Considerable concern was expressed in the responses to the consultation that removing such rules might threaten the future viability of the Bar. The Government attach great importance to the continued existence of a vigorous independent Bar.
Solicitors, who are also frequently involved in litigation, ought to be treated on an equal basis to barristers. The Government therefore propose to remove the existing statutory restrictions which prevent solicitors forming multi-disciplinary partnerships, but to provide that the Law Society will henceforth be allowed to make its own rules about partnerships and multi-disciplinary practices. Except in so far as such rules are related to advocacy and the conduct of litigation and are approved as necessary in the interests of justice by the Lord Chancellor and the Heads of Division, they will be subject to review under the new restrictive trade practices legislation proposed in the DTI White Paper, Opening Markets: New Policy On Restrictive Trade Practices. The links between the two sets of proposals, including an extended role for the Director General of Fair Trading, are set out in the two White Papers.
The Government propose also to remove the present statutory obstacles to multi-national practices and to ensure that lawyers from Scotland and Northern Ireland will have the same rights in England and Wales (and vice versa) as lawyers from other European jurisdictions will have under Community directives.
The Government propose to legislate, as the Green Paper suggested, to replace the provisions in the Building Societies Act 1986 with a power to allow the Lord Chancellor to recognise professional bodies as competent to authorise their members as authorised practitioners to undertake conveyancing for their borrowers. Conveyancing by such practitioners will be subject to the existing requirement that it is supervised by a solicitor or licensed conveyancer; and every such authorised practitioner will be required to offer its clients a personal interview with the solicitor or licensed conveyancer having conduct of the transaction. Throughout the transaction that solicitor or licensed conveyancer will have a paramount duty towards the borrower.
There will be a detailed code of conduct laid down by statutory instrument by which authorised practitioners will have to abide. Moreover, authorised practitioners will be prohibited from providing conveyancing services to both seller and
780
buyer in the same transaction (except in very limited circumstances) and from providing estate agency services to the seller and conveyancing services to the buyer in the same transaction. Making the provision of one service conditional upon taking another (so-called "tying-in") in connection with house purchase will be prohibited. Authorised practitioners will be required to charge for their conveyancing services on a basis that is not less than the true cost of providing them.
These arrangements are designed to provide adequate protection for individual clients and also to ensure that all those who want to provide conveyancing services, whether small firms of solicitors or large financial institutions, can compete on fair terms.
Litigation will be permitted to be undertaken on the speculative basis now allowed in Scotland. It will also become possible in such cases for there to be a moderate percentage uplift on the ordinary taxed costs otherwise payable, within a maximum to be prescribed by statutory instrument. There should, however, be no introduction of any kind of contingency fee linked to a proportion of the damages received.
My Lords, I have dealt with these issues in particular because they are those about which there has been most public comment. These proposals, and others, are presented in more detail in the White Paper. Taken together, these proposals, which are an integral part of the Government's wider programme of improving access to justice, represent an appropriate balance between the encouragement of competition and the maintenance of standards in the administration of justice and the provision of legal services. I believe these proposals provide a satisfactory framework for the future.
3.7 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for making the much awaited Statement and for the publication of the White Paper which sees the light of day today. How much daylight there will be remains to be seen in what clearly will be contentious debates on several of the provisions in the White Paper.
Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor give an indication of the Government's programme for the future handling of this important matter? Will there be an opportunity to debate the White Paper before a Bill is introduced? Further, when is it proposed to introduce such a Bill? Should there not be an opportunity for the House to discuss the White Paper before a Bill is introduced? Normally, that would be the procedure, I venture to think, after a White Paper has been published. Is it contemplated that there will be such an opportunity? I do not suggest that it is possible to fit in a debate between now and Thursday week, but there will be an overlap period of some weeks when the House resumes in October. I have not, happily or unhappily, been a fly on the wall at the discussions, but perhaps there will be the opportunity for a debate of substance before the Bill is produced.

781
As to the White Paper, clearly there has not been sufficient time to examine it in detail —I had the benefit of receiving a copy before lunch —but it would seem that some of the more objectionable proposals have gone, such as those tending to undermine the independence of the Bar, and, indeed, of the judiciary; no doubt as a result of the consultations which have taken place on the perhaps too hurriedly prepared Green Paper.
It is gratifying, for example, that the advisory committee is to be wholly independent, that there are proposals for improvement in legal education and that there is to be a new office of legal services ombudsman, the value of which on the face of it looks useful at any rate to those of us on this side of the House. However, its value will only be known after a constructive examination of the precise proposals and when all the details relating to it have been fleshed out.
Sadly, there is one glaring and crucial omission in the Statement and in the White Paper. The Statement claims, in the last paragraph, that the proposals are:
"an integral part of the Government's wider programme of improving access to justice".
but we hear no further words about improved access to justice in the sense of increased provision to enable those who cannot afford it to go to justice —not a word. I submit that it is regrettable that there is no clue or indication of any proposed extension or improvement on legal services to those who most need legal assistance in present conditions. There is no provision for that in the White Paper as far as I have been able to read it this morning.
Even as regards proceedings which are of vital importance to the subject, there is no provision for legal assistance in the White Paper. These proceedings, for example, may relate to his home and may concern rent or possession disputes. Another problem may concern his family and the monstrous complexities of matrimonial disputes. These matters have resulted in difficult and expensive litigation. There may be problems with his work. At present an employee, unless he is supported by a trade union, is not likely to be able to afford to go to an industrial tribunal. Such a facility is not open to him in terms of expense.
There are also consumer disputes and insurance issues. There are proceedings affecting a citizen's rights vis-à-vis the state; for example being subject to a compulsory purchase order. We have had signs of that difficulty as regards the Channel Tunnel. There are also planning inquiries. Suddenly a person may find that the whole environment in which he lives has altered fundamentally. There are also immigration tribunals. In some ways they provide perhaps the most flagrant example of the absence of legal aid and advice. There are also the fields of social security and medical appeals tribunals, besides criminal injury compensation proceedings. For none of these matters is there provision for an extension of legal aid and advice.
Is it not the case that the policy of the Government has been to reduce the level of legal aid in a number of ways? Whereas in 1979 70 per cent. of the population qualified for legal aid, that percentage
782
has fallen to 50 per cent. and it is still falling. This reduction has taken place at the very time when tribunals have increased in their numbers and complexity. The importance of their work has also increased. Alas, the network of law centres has also been in decline. I refer also to the citizens advice bureaux, family, housing and other advice centres. These facilities badly need strengthening but they are not getting it.
There is not a word about these matters in the Statement. Therefore we greatly hope that, when we come to resume discussion of these subjects, the Government themselves will have given urgent thought to them in the coming months so that this glaring omission in the gap between the noble words about improving access to justice and the reality of the diminution of it may be faced squarely by the Government.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we join in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his eagerly awaited Statement. We are thankful now to have the considered view of the Government to set against the Green Papers that were published in January. I for one am particularly grateful for the comparative table in Annex B to the White Paper, which is most helpful. It enables us to compare the proposals in the White Paper with those in the Green Papers. It may enable some of us to put the latter where many wanted them to go in the first place.
This is certainly not the time to rehearse all the arguments in detail. It is not just the lawyers who will want time to study the small print. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has just said, not only were the Green Papers silent on the strengths of the existing system but they were also silent on the topic of legal aid. On my reading so far, the White Paper, too, is silent on the topic of legal aid. Now we have government policy as distinct from propositions in consultative Green Papers, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can tell us whether the Government accept and are concerned about the decline in the number of solicitors taking legal aid work.
Do the Government accept that there will still be a substantial risk of their proposals reducing the number of local solicitors available to the public and, conversely, producing a concentration of larger firms in the larger towns competing only for the more profitable work? If so, I hope that the Government will indicate how those trends can be reversed. I hope that at the forefront of our thinking will be the survival of the small firms whose conveyancing work enables them to do legal aid work.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can agree that the response of the Bar has been constructive and that the catalyst of these Green Papers has accelerated a considerable number of practical and structural changes in the operation of the Bar most of which were already under way without any necessity for legislation. I hope the Government now recognise that the Bar does, and will continue to, provide a cost-effective service.
Whether or not we have an opportunity to debate this matter before the legislation comes, we shall need to look carefully at the conveyancing proposals

783
which, as the White Paper seems to indicate, must concentrate on the protection of the consumer. The picture of the large institutions providing all the conveyancing services to both parties as well as lending money was quite alarming. The trend towards one-stop shopping, meaning one-choice shopping, must certainly be arrested. The consumer must be protected as regards the terms on which money is advanced for these very important transactions.
Likewise we shall need to look very carefully at contingency fees. I am pleased that the Government appear willing to confine the proposals for such fees. I wonder whether the Government have estimated and allowed for what seems to be an inevitable increase in litigation which will be brought before the courts on a contingency fee basis. I welcome the recognition of the independence of the Bar. I am concerned about only one matter in that respect: it is dealt with in paragraph 3.23 of the White Paper. Apparently it is proposed to introduce a new criminal offence of impersonating a barrister. As far as I can see, that will stop me being in more than two places at once. I wonder what will be the penalty for this very serious offence.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. As regards the serious matter of the offence of impersonating a barrister, we are very open to suggestions as to what maximum penalty might be appropriate.
It is important to recollect that the Green Papers were dealing with the organisation of the legal profession and related matters such as contingency fees and authorised practitioners. Legal aid has always been provided in general terms through the legal profession. The White Paper is concerned with examining the arrangements in that connection. We spent a good deal of the last parliamentary Session discussing legal aid and the Legal Aid Act. Under that Act a new Legal Aid Board has been set up and to some extent the administration has been transferred to it. What we are concerned with here is the way in which the services may be delivered. As regards questions about a debate, these are matters for the usual channels. The Government express the hope that it will be possible to obtain an early opportunity for legislation in this area.
Dealing with matters concerning conveyancing which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised, the emphasis is of course on providing to the person who wants conveyancing services those that he wants together with proper protection for his interests. That is what the White Paper seeks to achieve.
I am very happy to recognise the changes that the Bar itself has proposed. I wish these changes well. They are in my view highly constructive changes which will themselves contribute to achieving the aims which the Government set out in the Green Papers and which remain the aim of the White Paper.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I broadly welcome my noble and learned friend's Statement on the White Paper. How do the Government intend to handle
784
the general problem with regard to the fact that the legal profession, as demonstrated in its response to the Green Papers, was concerned not so much with the delivery of legal services as about being paid for delivery of those services? Perhaps I may also suggest a suitable punishment for those who have the temerity to impersonate a barrister: they should be compelled to perform as a barrister for at least a week.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is obviously a suggestion for consideration. The responses to the consultation papers have been extremely valuable, interesting and varied. I am sure that in the vast majority of cases the interest that the respondents have sought to serve is the interest of justice generally.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, as someone who was very critical of the original Green Papers, I should like to say also how much I welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord has introduced a White Paper for further consideration and discussion. It is quite clear that he has listened to the responsible views expressed as to the fundamental principles which lie at the basis of the administration of law in England and Wales. One is most grateful that he should have done so. No doubt he was greatly assisted in his task, and I am sure that he would want to pay tribute to the fact that the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh condemned the same unacceptable proposals in the Green Papers as did the Bar of England and Wales.
From a quick reading of the White Paper, the question of rights of audience would still seem to be left largely in the air and to be deferred. The rules for qualification of non-barristers to practise in the superior courts appear to have the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the judges. I wonder what will happen if the judges should differ from the advisory committee as to the contents of those rules. Can he help us as to whether the advocates will be truly independent, will be available to all, will obey the cab rank rule, will not be involved in the investigation of evidence and will be subject to the same rules of discipline as members of the Bar? If there were any dispute about that, it would seem that the judges might well be drawn into the political arena. I should like some assurance from the noble and learned Lord on that point.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first point, I am in the habit of paying attention to the views not only of the Faculty of Advocates but also of the Bar of England and Wales. I have seen the views of the Faculty of Advocates on these matters.
The noble Lord asked about the proposals for rights of audience. The rules for qualification and for conduct of solicitors are proposed to be made by the Law Society, having regard to the advice of the advisory committee. The present rules are subject to the consent of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, as concerns training, and subject to the consent of the Master of the Rolls as concerns conduct. I am proposing to make that requirement for consent somewhat more

785
general as these rights of advocacy would relate to the whole width of the court structure.
The content of the rules is a matter for discussion. This is a framework within which these matters can be discussed between the advisory committee, the professions, the four Heads of Division and the Lord Chancellor. This is a framework for progress and for development of the kind which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice advocated towards the end of his speech in our debate on 7th April. I certainly took it that this kind of structure might well meet the aim he had in mind in producing a structure which would give us the opportunity of satisfactory progress.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that many people will appreciate both his basic courage in coming forward with these proposals and the obvious care which he has given to the representations made to him in respect of what was set out in the Green Papers? Is he also aware that at any rate some of us are very glad that he is continuing with the proposal to give right of audience in the higher courts to members of the solicitors' profession? It has always seemed to me slightly ludicrous that the most junior member of the Bar is entitled, if anyone is foolish enough to brief him, to appear before the highest courts in the realm and before your Lordships' House, whereas the most experienced solicitor with 40 years of experience in the courts is not so permitted.
Is he further aware that many people feel that this is a belated but very sensible effort to modernise in some respect our somewhat old-fashioned system? Many of us have a deep affection for that system but have to accept that it is both expensive and often very slow. Therefore the moves which my noble and learned friend intends to make with the legislation forecast by the White Paper are welcome. Many of us wish him good luck in the no doubt stormy battles that lie ahead for him.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies to those comments, will he accept that it is perfectly absurd to talk about decreasing costs by allowing the right of audience to solicitors of 40 years' experience? None of them —I have one beside me here —would ever want to appear before your Lordships' House. A great fear has always been that we might move into the American system, where litigation is far more expensive and takes far longer. What will happen if the Lord Chancellor disagrees with the judges after the advisory committee's proposals? What will be the position if the judges disagree with the Lord Chancellor, as, alas, we have seen in the recent past?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the judges are entirely entitled to disagree with the Lord Chancellor. If it is this Lord Chancellor in question, it is probably this Lord Chancellor who would be wrong. On the other hand, the structure which we have proposed will minimise the risk of that and enable rational discussion to take place. Between the advisory committee chaired by a judge, the professional bodies, the Heads of Division and the Lord Chancellor, the prospects for rational discussion reaching an agreed conclusion are about
786
as high as they could be in any assembly. I certainly hope that this structure will produce progress. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his expressions of support.
I shall not go into the question of costs today because they are elaborate and, although one could do so, I think that they are matters which must be taken into account in the future. I believe that this is a structure which will produce sensible progress in the interests of those who wish to use the legal services in this country.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, since the House debated the Green Papers of the noble and learned Lord on 7th April, it is clear that he has made important concessions and that those are contained in the White Paper. Unfortunately, the House at this stage has not had the opportunity to study the White Paper in detail and therefore the question of a debate, which was raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, has not been fully considered by the noble and learned Lord.
The traditional reply to a request of this kind is that the matter must be processed through the usual channels. But, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, on this occasion that is not quite enough. The House will require to know whether it would be advisable to have a full debate on the White Paper between now and Prorogation. We should be grateful for the advice of the noble and learned Lord in this respect.
Would it therefore be appropriate for the House to ask, through the usual channels, for a full debate on the White Paper, or is the noble and learned Lord in a position to say that, in fact, such matters would be better dealt with in a Second Reading debate on a Bill which he is certain will follow in the Queen's Speech?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is not possible for me to say whether legislation will be introduced immediately following the next Queen's Speech. But we certainly expect, and I hope, that we shall have an early opportunity of introducing legislation. So far as concerns the debate, as your Lordships know we had a fairly full debate on 7th April into these various matters. Of course, for my part, there is nothing I like better than to debate matters about the legal profession. But, on the other hand, I am well aware that there are many others who have other interests to pursue. The interests of the House as a whole must be taken into account.
So far as I am concerned, I feel that taking into account the debate which we had on 7th April, and the written representations of which we have had a large number, views have already been clearly expressed. Therefore, I should have thought that a Second Reading debate on the proposals, if they come forward in legislation early, would be perfectly satisfactory. But, as I said earlier, these are matters for the usual channels. Nevertheless, since the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has asked me about this, I think that my own personal view is that a further debate at this stage in this Chamber is probably not necessary having regard to the other pressures on the time of the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that his acknowledgment of the part played by the Bar Council during the consultation period was well justified? Is he also aware that the Bar Council has in fact, for the past two years been working on various changes in the profession which he would find welcome? Would it not be better, therefore, to study the effects of those changes, instead of of embarking upon the legislation to follow what we understand to be in the White Paper, which is bound to be controversial on many points? In particular, is he aware that, although he seems now to be placing this in the hands of the profession, the Statement he made about multi-disciplinary practices and about partnerships, possibly, for the Bar to be in hands of the profession will be controversial, and that he may well wish to reconsider those matters before legislating?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that it is right to make progress by legislation. I have certainly carefully considered the matters about multidisciplinary practices and partnerships. What I have put together on the subject is the result of very careful consideration of this matter and also consideration in relation to the White Paper published yesterday by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I have not read the White Paper, but perhaps I may ask, first, whether it applies to Scotland. I rather imagine that is does not. But, if not, what will happen about Scotland? Will there be a separate White Paper in that respect? Secondly, when the Government are considering wider proposals, as was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, will they be considering an extension of the inquisitorial system which, after all, is widespread in Europe, with which we shall become more and more involved?
Thirdly, when it comes to widening rights of audience, to which many people attach the very greatest importance and upon which we very greatly welcome the stand of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, do I understand correctly that the framework of which he speaks is to be entirely composed of lawyers? Finally, at what stage, in considering whether rights of audience should be extended, are clients and other professions to be consulted and what rights will they have to take part in the final decision?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I must say, first, that the White Paper relates to England and Wales and not to Scotland, although I indicated the reciprocal arrangements based upon the provision under the Community directives towards the end of my Statement. So far as concerns changing from our present system to an inquisitorial one, that is obviously a very large question indeed. But the Civil Justice Review, which I indicated we were proposing to implement in its main outline, suggested that perhaps in relation to small claims those adjudicating might take a more inquisitorial line. That is certainly a development which I think the noble Lord would welcome.
As regards the framework, this will not be composed entirely of lawyers. I proposed that the
788
central role of the advisory committee, which will be chaired by a judge, will consist of a majority of persons who are not practising lawyers. That is the Government's way of putting into the system, in a very central and important position, people who have an interest in, and an understanding of, the situation, but who are not themselves lawyers. Therefore the lay people, the clients, will have a voice in the framework in the way I described. I believe that that is a valuable aspect of the framework which we are proposing.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the concessions he has made and for having truly kept a wholly open mind. But, in particular, I should like to thank him for the concession he made during this discussion, to which I attach considerable importance; that is, self-regulation of the Bar. As regards that concept, can my noble and learned friend say whether within that area of self-regulation the Overseas Practice Rules will be included?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Overseas Practice Rules would not be part of the system which would require, so far as concerns changes, the approval of the Heads of Division and the Lord Chancellor. The rules which the Lord Chancellor and the Heads of Division would be considering would be rules relating to advocacy and litigation in this country. Accordingly, that particualr machinery would not come into the overseas practice.
I have sought to improve the proposals in the light of the consultation and, for example, to propose that the rights of the Law Society should be on the face of the statute, rather than subject to a statutory instrument as was originally proposed.

Associated British Ports (Hull) Bill
3.38 p.m
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This meeting of the committee was wholly devoted to agreeing an up-to-date edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders and a revised edition of the Brief Guide to procedure and practice, which your Lordships will recall was suggested in 1987 by the group on the working of the House. For the most part, that was a rather complicated editorial task. It resulted in a simple revision of those two documents to incorporate the current Rules of Procedure. There are 10 matters which, though of small import are nevertheless important, that are listed in the report under the headings (a) to (j). They are all self-explanatory. I shall say no more about them unless your Lordships wish me to. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report:
ORDERED TO REPORT:—
1. REVISION OF THE COMPANION
The Committee have considered and approved a new edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords prepared by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
In the course of preparing the new edition a number of minor points have been identified which the Committee draw to the attention of the House as they represent small procedural changes or the clarification of previous practice hitherto without written authority. These points are as follows:
(a) Taking the Oath
The Group on the Working of the House which reported in 1987 (HL Paper 9 of 1987–88) recommended (para. 112) "that Peers should be asked to take the Oath in a clear and audible manner", to aid the identification of new Peers. The Group had in mind occasions when a new hereditary Peer takes his seat without formal introduction. The Committee endorse this recommendation and recommend that it should be noted in the new edition of the Companion. It presupposes that Lords will extend to a new Peer the courtesy of listening quietly while the Oath is taken.
(b)Reference to strangers
The Companion (page 40) currently discourages reference "to persons in the Gallery". The Committee believe that reference to strangers in other parts of the Chamber is equally undesirable, and recommend that the new edition of the Companion should record this.
(c)Foreign languages
The custom of the House has long been that the gratuitous use of foreign languages in debate has been considered undesirable, but this is not stated in the Companion. The Committee recommend that guidance on this matter should be included in the new edition of the Companion, as follows:
"It is undesirable to use a foreign language in debate, except where the matter in question demands it."
(d) Exhibits
The production of exhibits in debate has long been considered undesirable. Only members close enough are able to see, and the reader of the Official Report is at a loss. To use an exhibit may also be emotive and may lead to disorderly proceedings as objects are passed round the Chamber. It is proposed to give guidance on this matter in the new edition of the Companion, as follows:
"Exhibits should not be taken into the Chamber or produced in debate, whether to illustrate a speech or for any other purpose."
(e) Questions on Church of England matters
The 1984 Companion includes in the list of inadmissible questions those "relating to Church of England matters". This does not correspond with the intentions of the Committee when they considered and reported on the matter on 15th February 1977. The Committee plainly intended to refer only to questions on matters within the responsibility of the Church of England. The rule as currently expressed would catch questions on Church of England matters within the responsibility of the Government. The Committee recommend that the revised Companion should reflect the original intention of the Committee.
(f) Daily number of Questions for Written Answer
The practice of the House has been that Lords do not table more than six Questions for Written Answer per day. This convention helps to ensure prompt attention for those questions which are tabled, and appears to cause no inconvenience. The Committee recommend that this convention should be recorded in the Companion.
(g) Public Bills rejected by a Select Committee
Past practice has varied as regards the treatment of such a Bill in the list of Bills in Progress at the back of the Minutes of Proceedings. The Committee recommend endorsement of the practice followed on the Hare Coursing Bill (1976) and the Foreign Boycotts Bill (1978), whereby a Bill rejected by a Select Committee would be listed as "Reported from the Select Committee that the Bill should not proceed". This would indicate that the Bill is still theoretically "in progress", but that to allow it to proceed further would be to disregard the recommendation of the Select Committee.
(h) Withdrawing a Bill
(i) On the motion for a stage
According to the 1984 Companion (page 101) a Lord who withdraws the motion for a stage of a Bill is presumed not to have withdrawn the Bill unless he notifies the Clerks. Since in most such cases the Bill will not in fact be proceeded with, the Committee recommend the reversal of this presumption.
(ii) Between stages
According to existing practice, a Bill may be withdrawn between stages without notice by unanimous leave of the House. This the Committee consider an unsatisfactory procedure. The principal objection is that, in considering whether leave should be granted, the House is required to make a substantive decision without notice. Bills once introduced are in the possession of the House, and not in the sole ownership of their sponsor; yet members of the House who have taken part in earlier proceedings on the Bill are given no warning to be present. Furthermore, it would be discourteous for the Lord in charge of the Bill not to give his reasons for wishing to withdraw the Bill, so he must make at least a short explanatory speech. Yet, since there is no motion before the House, there can be no debate on the subject. There is, therefore, no orderly opportunity for other members to inquire further into the matter and no proper means for the Lord in charge of the Bill to reply.
At present, the only alternative to accepting the Lord's request for leave to withdraw the Bill is to refuse him leave. In that event, he may put down a motion to withdraw the Bill which can then be debated and decided in the usual way. While this second step does provide the conditions necessary to enable the House to come to a considered decision, the present procedure requires two steps in order to achieve that position. The Committee recommend that this protracted procedure be improved by eliminating the first step: withdrawal of a Bill should in future only be done with notice, on a motion "That the Bill be withdrawn" which may be debated and, if necessary, decided on division.
(i) Short Debates
The current Companion gives no guidance to Lords who wish to intervene in a Short Debate but who do not appear on the list of speakers. The Committee recommend that Lords whose names do not appear on the List of Speakers may intervene before the final wind-up speeches if time allows, but in so doing must have regard to the time constraints on the debate.
(j) V.C.s and G.Cs
The Committee recommend that Lords who are the holders of the Victoria Cross or the George Cross should be described on the Floor of the House as 'noble and gallant', as are Admirals of the Fleet, Field Marshals and Marshals of the Royal Air Force.
2. REVISED EDITION OF THE BRIEF GUIDE
The Committee have considered and approved, with amendments, a new edition of the Brief Guide to the Procedure and Practice of the House of Lords, as revised by the Group on the Working of the House in 1987, publication of which has been delayed, so as to allow revision of the two procedural guides to proceed together to prevent discrepancies.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I note that one of the changes considered to the Companion to the Standing Orders touches upon the important question of the use of foreign language in debate. It reads:
"It is undesirable to use a foreign language in debate except where the matter in question demands it".
Are Welsh and Latin considered to be foreign languages for that purpose? Another important matter is that the committee recommended that Members of the House who are holders of the Victoria Cross or the George Cross should be properly referred to as noble and gallant. In order to ensure that neither I nor anyone else commits a solecism, could we have a list in the Library of those noble Lords who are currently holders of the VC or the GC?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, on the first point about foreign languages, I am sure that Latin is a foreign language. Welsh is in a rather more delicate position and has a special standing. As your Lordships probably know, it is permissible to take the Oath in Welsh. On the other hand, it would be rather difficult if one of your Lordships were to address the House in Welsh. It would be difficult for most of your Lordships to understand and almost impossible for Hansard to get it down. The convention has always been, therefore, that we address the House in English. However, the proposal says:
"except where the matter in question demands it".
That allows some latitude for the use of quotations or special words.
In answer to the other question put to me by the noble Lord about VCs and GCs, I shall see what I can do to find a list of those of your gallant Lordships who are holders of either the VC or the GC.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he said about the Welsh language. Is he aware that Welsh is one of the two languages of southern Britain and is the older of the two and that it also has a special status under the Welsh Language Act 1966, which I had the privilege of piloting through the other place and which is looked after in this House by my noble and learned friend?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, ydwyf
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Extradition Bill [H.L.]
3.43 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Representation of the People Bill
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have
792
been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government and Housing Bill
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Disqualification and political restriction of certain officers and staff]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Baroness said: This is the first of a long list of amendments dealing with the proposed restriction of political activity by council officers. We believe that this is a case of the Government taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Many of us see the whole Bill as an abuse by central government of local government and those who work in it.
Parts I and II are particularly obnoxious. My amendment seeks to deal with Clause 1(2). At the same time, with the permission of the Committee, we shall be discussing Amendment No. 6 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, which deals with the same point from a slightly different angle.
As the clause stands, it would disqualify anyone from standing as a Member of Parliament at Westminster or as a Member of the European Parliament if he or she holds a politically restricted post. The amendment would delete that subsection and would mean that, while chief executives, chief officers and their deputies could not stand for election to another local authority, they would be able to stand for election to the Westminster Parliament or to the European Parliament.
We support the restricting of the local political activities of those officers; but there is no good reason to prevent their involvement in national politics. We should distinguish between the local level, where there may be a conflict of interests, and the national level, where the categories (a) to (e) as defined in Clause 2(1) can stand as a Member of the Westminster Parliament or of the European Parliament.
There may be cases where that right is abused; but should all chief officers and their deputies be politically restricted in that way merely because of

793
the misdemeanours of the odd one or two? Surely we should be establishing machinery to deal with the few cases of abuse rather than assuming the guilt of hundreds of public servants.
The specific example that I would put is that of David Brough, whom I met recently, who is head of committee services in the London Borough of Hillingdon. He has been a parliamentary candidate in two parliamentary elections. He would, if the Bill is passed as it stands, be prevented from standing as a parliamentary candidate by virtue of the fact that he is a deputy officer and earns over £13,500 a year. People such as David Brough accept the need to prevent twin-tracking. What they cannot accept is that they should be prevented from participating in any kind of political activity. Hundreds of local government officers are affected by this or may be affected by it in the future. There is Michael Gray, who at the moment is a planner in South Tyneside. He is the leader of the Conservative group in Sunderland. I should have thought that the Government would have wanted to preserve any support they have in the North East and would do all that they could to encourage Michael Gray if he wanted to stand for Westminster or the European Parliament. If the Bill goes through, he will be one of those who is affected.
It is iniquitous that those people should be singled out for such treatment when people who do comparative jobs in the outside world, and who may be carrying out services for the local authority if those services are privatised, will be able to stand for Parliament while those who are doing the jobs in the local authorities will not. That is manifestly unfair and should not be allowed to go through. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must congratulate the noble Baroness not only on her fine sense of time and space in slipping in the amendment at the beginning of the Committee stage of the Bill, but on the forthright way in which the amendment has been drafted and on the forthright way in which she has addressed it.
As will be very clear, the amendment goes a good deal further than our Amendment No. 6 which is being taken at the same time. If I say a word about the latter amendment first, perhaps that will clarify the debate for the benefit of the Committee.
Amendment No. 6 does not seek to restore the right of membership of the House of Commons or the European Parliament to local government officers in politically restricted posts. Indeed, we rather assume that most local government officers who found themselves Members of the House of Commons or the European Parliament would resign from their posts, because they could hardly do both these paid jobs at the same time.
The reason for Amendment No. 6 is that it seems to us quite wrong to make it impossible for local government officers in politically restricted posts to announce themselves as candidates for the House of Commons or the European Parliament. After all, inevitably a majority of those who announce themselves as candidates will not be elected. The ability to stand as candidates, both in the national
794
legislature and in the European Parliament, is an important part of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the terms of that convention. Protocol 1, Article 3, provides that standing for election to the national legislative body is in principle a right for everyone. So the removal by Clause 1 of the Bill of the right of those in politically related posts to stand for Parliament would have to be justified as a lawful restriction upon this right.
If it were to be justified as a lawful restriction upon the right, the Government would have to show that there is significant evidence of abuse of such a right which would be dealt with by the proposed restriction. In other words, they would have to show that the restriction was not arbitrary, because otherwise the European Court would be unlikely, I should have thought, to uphold a law of that kind. It would be much more likely to hold that such a provision was in conflict with the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court would almost certainly find that, if a restriction did not arise out of a serious and legitimate problem in practice, and did not actually, as drafted, address the problem and that problem alone, the restriction would be arbitrary. In those circumstances, the Government would have great difficulty in upholding their proposed legislation in the European Court if they were challenged.
It is the view of learned counsel who have been advising the National Council for Civil Liberties on the matter that it is strongly arguable that the removal of the right of holders of politically related posts to stand for election to local councils, as opposed to the national legislative body, is an unlawful limitation on their freedom of expression. That is going a good deal further than these amendments go and it is a matter to which we shall turn in dealing with later amendments.
The point which I must emphasise to the Committee as strongly as I can is that the Bill may have been introduced, or this part of the Bill may have been introduced by the Government and by some noble Lords speaking at Second Reading as a remedy for the abuses which we re identified of twin-tracking. However, the effect of many of these proposals, particularly those to restrict rights to stand for and hold office in the national legislature, is to go very much further than the twin-tracking abuse which it is claimed they are to remedy.
In learned counsel's opinion, and in our opinion, there is a serious risk that the proposals are an infringement of the civil liberties of many thousands of people in this country. The noble Baroness said hundreds, but it would be many thousands of citizens of this country. It is a restriction which ought not to take place and which is not justified by the facts.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I oppose the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has just talked about a serious and restrictive policy in practice. That is exactly what we are talking about. How can a person be a public servant and work for an authority, if at the same time he is a Member of Parliament or of any body which requires him to be

795
away from his job for great periods of time? I think the noble Lord said —and I agree with him —that what would happen in practice is likely to be that a person could not do it and therefore, so far as the European Court's requirements are concerned, in practice it would not be a contravention of any article.
How can one be impartial in giving advice and doing one's job if one is a known political activist, practising in a way which comes within the terms of the amendment? I just do not see how it can be done. If it is to be done, if one can say, "Yes, there are examples of such people", it is sad that that should be so. It is quite contrary to all that I have ever found to be acceptable in local government officers during the many years when I was in the service. It was not done then and was not heard of.
We cannot say that this is the kind of problem to which the noble Baroness refers in her amendment. In practical terms, one cannot do both jobs together properly. If one did, as I see it, it would be wrong and therefore I certainly oppose the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I believe that the person concerned in Hillingdon was quite a senior officer in the GLC. I can see the former leader of that authority nodding. Certainly in the other place there are a number of instances of former civil servants who have been elected to Parliament and who had much to contribute in the House.
I think I am right in saying that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is purely to make sure that that is allowed to continue. I do not think for one minute that an officer elected to the House of Commons or the European Parliament could possibly retain his job for very long, although an attempt was made in the case of that particular person. Surely it would be in the person's terms of employment that, if he were successful in such an application, he would have to resign. However, I do not think we should put a total ban on his right to stand. That cannot be right.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Surely one must look at the matter from the point of view of the working of a local authority. If one is an elected member of a local authority, one relies on the permanent officials —particularly the senior permanent officials with whom the amendment is concerned —to give absolutely impartial political advice.
What is the position, if one is a Labour elected councillor, on a politically controversial issue coming before the council? If advice was given to such a councillor by an official who happened to be the local Conservative candidate, both the councillor and the official for that matter would be in an impossible position. Surely one must accept that the way in which local government —and indeed central government—works is that there are elected persons who are expected to be, and generally are, though not always, members of political parties. Then there are the senior officials who are supposed to give absolutely impartial advice to the elected members. I agree that there is probably no question of anyone being a sitting Member of Parliament and a local
796
authority official, because he would not have time. At any rate, one could rely on the party Whips to see that such a person did not do both jobs for very long.
However, we are concerned here with the chap who is a candidate, going about putting the political view of the party for which he is standing and seeking votes. At the same time, that man or woman is supposed to give impartial advice to the elected members of the authority. It is an impossible situation and I am worried that even the vivid fantasies in which the Liberal Party is apt to indulge include expecting that kind of thing to happen.
The Earl of Onslow: It seem to me that Macaulay got it right in the middle of the 19th century. He produced the idea of incorruptible civil servants who are trained to do a job on platonic ideals. Funnily enough, he copied that idea from the Chinese. However, to underlie the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, let us assume for the sake of argument that the GLC is still in existence, and that the head of the civil service of the GLC is standing as a Conservative Member for Lambeth or, let us say, Putney and is going round making vicious attacks from a party political point of view on the lamented —not the late lamented —Ken Livingstone for his running of the GLC. That strikes me as being something that we should not put up with.
We should surely have a platonic ideal of the Civil Service with civil servants who are neutral and who can make decisions according to facts and not according to rhetoric. Rhetoric and emotion enter into politics, but facts and logic should control politicians. We cannot have it both ways. We should have a Civil Service composed of, and local authority civil servants who are men of integrity and balance, but we cannot have it both ways. Therefore, I strongly hope that we defeat this amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Jay: Both the two Members of the Committee who have just spoken referred to central government and the central Civil Service, which of course this Bill does not affect, as well as to the local civil service. Perhaps in his reply the Minister could explain the relation between the limitations and restrictions which exist in the national Civil Service and those which a local civil servant will have to fulfil if this provision becomes law; that is to say, if this amendment is not passed. This Bill applies only to local civil servants. Will there be similar increased restrictions introduced for the national Civil Service and, if not, why in this particular respect should we discriminate only against local civil servants?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This is a difficult matter. My noble friend, with respect, slightly confused civil servants with local government officers. I think we all realise that local government officers are not civil servants. At this point we are talking about local government servants. On the face of it, if one is talking about someone deciding that he will stand for Parliament and having a three-week election campaign and not getting in and not having to resign in order to do that, that may be acceptable. But of course that is not what happens with

797
parliamentary candidates. That is the problem. They are prospective parliamentary candidates for quite a long time. So, in the case of local government, one would have to live with the fact that it is not abnormal for someone to be a prospective parliamentary candidate for two years. One would have someone who was warming up a constituency as a parliamentary candidate while also being a chief officer in a local authority. He may possibly have opposing points of view to the other members of the local authority. Even if that were not the case, he would mix up the point of view he was expressing as a parliamentary candidate with that he was expressing to his political masters in the council.
In view of that, I see the point of what the Government are doing. I am bound to say that it is a new idea to me. I always thought that twin-tracking was about candidates standing for election to local authorities and not for Parliament, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that over a period of time a prospective parliamentary candidate cannot give impartial advice in a way that would satisfy the council or would satisfy the electorate of the council, however much a man of integrity he may be. Therefore, I think that the Bill as it stands is correct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This debate is getting off the rails very early on. Many of the contributions are not about the amendments which are before the Committee. I find that very unfortunate. Amendment No. 6 in particular is about candidatures. It accepts that it is not possible to be a senior officer of a local authority and to be a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament. I think that that is common ground between us. However, there are cases where people can be and should be allowed to stand as prospective candidates without losing their job as the result. All the examples I know reflect on the Conservative Party rather than on the Labour Party.
Reference has been made to the GLC. The head of the office of the Conservative Leader of the GLC, Sir Horace Cutler, was not only the leader of Hillingdon Council but was also a parliamentary candidate for one of the seats in Hillingdon. He was elected and remained a local government officer. The honourable Member for Chorley was head of a housing department in the GLC. After he had been elected, he not only refused to resign, but he demanded a very large golden handshake as the price for being forced out of office. The honourable Member for Buckingham was a member of the Diplomatic Service right up until the time of his election to Parliament. All those people are Conservatives, and the first two were members of a Conservative-controlled council. If there are abuses, they are certainly not abuses by the radical Left wing in this country.
I suggest that we would do well to get back to the thrust of Amendment No. 6, which is that it should not be a restriction of people's civil rights to stand for a national legislature if they are senior officers in a local authority. We shall go into the definition of senior officers later. I have just realised that I used the word "abuse" in relation to three Members
798
of another place. I did not mean to use that term, and if I used it I certainly withdraw it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should say to the noble Lord that I was not trying to make a party political point. I was thinking about all councils of any political colour and all candidates of any political colour.
Lord Hesketh: These two amendments would mean that local authority officers in the politically restricted group would be able, no matter how senior their position, to be Members of Parliament or of the European Parliament, and even more importantly could be adopted as candidates for those positions. I say "more importantly" because it is likely that anyone elected to these posts, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, would resign as a local authority officer, as it would be difficult, though not impossible, to combine the two activities.
We have made it clear that declaring oneself as a candidate for public elected office was one of the forms of public political activity with which the restrictions would be concerned. The only exception was for parish, town and community councils. The Opposition's own amendments, and the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 20, recognise the reasonableness of including such activities, for they include candidature for public elected office as one of the permitted categories of restriction.
That is only common sense. To declare oneself a candidate for elected office in a principal council—that is, county council, district or borough council —Parliament or the European Parliament, is to subject oneself inescapably to a string of activities declaring to the world what one's political views are and trying to persuade others to share them. Why, then, this proposal to allow local authority officers to announce their candidatures as either Members of Parliament or Members of the European Parliament? The main argument is that there can be no overlap between the candidature as an MP or MEP and work for a local authority. We do not think that this is the case: it is impossible to take part in political debate on the nation or on an international plane without getting involved in consideration of policies which are bound to have repercussions on the work of any principal local authority. Think of questions about the role of the public sector, for instance. The lack of conflict cannot stand as a possible justification for allowing these candidatures.
Such a lack of conflict simply does not exist. If the Committee considers the range of matters on which we regularly express views, both in this House and in another place, it will see that many are intimately bound up in the work of local authorities, as is the case in this Bill which we have started on its course in Committee today. They include the role of the public sector, public housing policy, roads policy, education policy and the care of the elderly and the handicapped.
Our objection to public political activity by senior local government officers is that it is neither plausible nor possible for them to function at the same time as both impartial advisers and executives

799
of their authorities and committed, vociferous politicians pressing a particular point of view.
If Members of the Committee consider that objection together with what I have said about the inevitability of Members of Parliament expressing views on matters affecting local authorities, they will see the clear, logical reason why subsection (2) is in the Bill and ought to remain there, and why it is not acceptable to allow local government officers in politically sensitive jobs to offer themselves as candidates for Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, queried the relationship between these proposals and the rules which apply to the Civil Service. We have modelled the proposals as closely as possible on those for the national Civil Service, but differences and quirks exist between local government and central government. As a result there will not be a perfect mirror image.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, argued that the prohibition on standing for, and being elected to, Parliament breaches the provision in the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees freedom of expression in elections to the legislature. The European Commission of Human Rights, the guardian of the convention, has repeatedly recognised that that right is subject to limitations which are not arbitrary and do not interfere with the expression of the people's opinion. We believe that our proposals serve an important end and meet that test. That is why we urge the Committee to resist the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may add one more word. The Minister has failed to address or to understand Amendment No. 6. I remind the Committee that Amendment No. 6 provides that candidature for the House of Commons or the Parliament of the European Community shall be a possible exception in regulations laid down by the Secretary of State. In other words, the Secretary of State has the power, even if the amendment is carried, to make such provision for very senior and politically sensitive posts —and we shall be debating the matter in detail in a moment—if there is any conflict.
In his reply the Minister used the phrase —which I think he will come to regret—that such a lack of conflict simply does not exist. One cannot make statements of that kind. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, gave two examples —one Conservative and one Labour, and she could also have given a further example of one Democrat—of candidates for the House of Commons who are local government officers holding politically restricted posts in whose case there has been no conflict whatever. She supported that case, of which much greater detail can be provided if the Committee wishes.
It is simply not possible for the Government to state, in a double negative statement of that kind, that such a lack of conflict does not exist. The European Court will require evidence of such conflict if it is to be persuaded that the restriction is not arbitrary. The point that has to be made is that the Government have made no attempt whatever to back up their statements about conflict.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to come back to the point that was raised earlier. The impartial Civil Service was introduced in the middle of the 19th century to get rid of jobbery, hocus-pocus, bribery and corruption by both Tory and Whig candidates. The ideal was introduced by Macaulay, who invented the impartial Civil Service. The fact that people can produce examples of either Conservative or Labour Members of Parliament who have been local authority officers does not in any way remove the temptation and the possibility of corruption. I use the term corruption in its 19th century sense. One cannot have people subject to outside discipline. Michael Heseltine ceased to be a member of the Welsh Guards half-way through his National Service because he wanted to be a Member of Parliament. He was told that he could not serve in the Army and be a Member of Parliament, or even stand for election to Parliament. That was his choice, and I believe a perfectly reasonable one.
I suggest that one cannot have anything other than a platonic Civil Service. The Government's position enhances that view of a platonic Civil Service. I hope that the Committee will go along with that view and that my noble friend will resist the amendment strongly.
Baroness Lockwood: Are we not in danger of creating a great many anomalies with the proposal put forward by the Government? As my noble friend has said, there are provisions in the Bill for a list of very sensitive posts to be agreed by the Secretary of State. However, we are concerned with the professionalism of people who are employed in local government. People in other professions also often find themselves in very sensitive situations, giving advice and guidance to clients, but the Bill selects just one group and withdraws some of their civic rights. As a result a number of anomalies could be created.
We shall be discussing later what is a senior local government officer. For example, it may be that we would say that a health visitor was a senior local government officer, on the basis of salary, but we would say that a nursing sister in a hospital was not a local government officer. She would therefore be in a different position. One of those two people would be eligible to stand as a candidate and one would not. A lawyer employed by a local authority would not be in a position to accept candidature, but a lawyer who operated outside local government, and gave very sensitive advice on controversial issues, would be able to stand as a candidate.
In the past we have always relied on individuals applying professionalism to the post which they occupied and for which they were paid and divorcing that from their public and political activities. I believe that that same principle can be applied to local government officers, just as it can be applied to others. If the government proposition goes through many anomalies will be created and many people, comparing like with like, will be placed in a very disadvantageous position.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I hope that my noble friend will stand firm and not be seduced by the arguments

801
which have been addressed to the amendments. I say that as the former Secretary of State who appointed the Widdicombe Committee to deal with what was becoming a growing scandal in local government. Since the deliberations of the Committee, successive government proposals have taken the main proposition that one cannot be a senior officer of an authority and an elected councillor, and that principle is now to be applied where it needs to be applied, across the board.
The principle is quite clear. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, it is the professionalism of the public servant. I adopt her words: if one starts with the main proposition that one is trying to safeguard that professionalism and to prevent it being corrupted—and I use that word in the same sense as another noble Lord—by involvement on the political side, it seems to me that everything else falls into place. Of course it is a constraint on the freedom to engage in political activities on the part of those who have chosen to make their career in the public service and who have achieved a level of importance and influence which would be in conflict with their involving themselves in politics. But that is their choice. It is perfectly clear. The history of Parliament and of local authorities is full of cases of people having crossed the line. They have decided to abandon a career on the profesional side of local government in order to stand as a local councillor. I had such a person in my constituency.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Perhaps the noble Lord —
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would allow me to develop the argument. It is perfectly clear. However, to argue, as the noble Baroness has done, that lawyers in the private sector and members of other professions are not subject to the same constraints is wholly to ignore the facts.
If one has to deal with a local authority as a resident of that area, because, for example, one tries to buy one's council house from that authority, and one finds that the chief housing officer or his assistant are well known local councillors from a neighbouring authority or are standing as parliamentary candidates and openly condemn the sale of council houses, how will one ever be satisfied that one will get a fair deal?
In the case of the lawyer, the individual can go elsewhere. He is not obliged to be advised by a lawyer who is standing for Parliament or is a well known political figure. However, if the lawyer is employed by the local authority and one has to deal with that local authority, one has no choice. It is therefore right that a lawyer employed by a local authority should be subject to the constraints in the Bill.
Again I adopt the phrase of the noble Baroness; it is a case of safeguarding the professionalism of public servants in local authorities. If one adheres to that principle, all the special pleading for one particular man, job or candidature is seen to be just what it is—special pleading for particular cases or categories of case. It inevitably encroaches upon the clear boundary that should exist between paid professional public servants and those, like many of
802
us in this Chamber, who chose to make their careers in the world of politics. The two cannot be combined under our system. As my noble friend pointed out, that has been the case for many years in the central Civil Service. The Widdicombe Committee and the pamphlet that preceded it, entitled The New Corruption, set out to translate those principles in the same way for local government. They were long overdue and I very much welcome them.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord whose logical contributions to our debates I regularly admire. However, he was not addressing the specific amendment before the Committee; namely, the right of a senior local government officer to stand for Parliament or the European Parliament. He was opening the general debate as to whether a senior official in a local authority could stand for a local authority. That is not the issue before the Committee at the moment. The only question before us is the right of a senior local government officer to stand for Parliament as is his normal civic right and duty, if he feels so disposed. It is that right which the Bill seeks to withdraw and which the amendment seeks to protect.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: If the noble Lord was intervening as I was about to sit down, I should say that his argument falls firmly, if one adheres to the principle of safeguarding the professionalism and independence of senior local government officers. Once he has crossed the Rubicon and publicly declared his political allegiance, his position as an impartial adviser to a local authority is bound to be prejudiced.
I therefore totally support my noble friend in resisting both the amendments, however beguiling and attractive the apparent logic of the arguments that have been adduced in their support. If we are to cut this cancer out of local government —and it has been a cancer of considerable and offensive proportions in certain parts of the country —we must deal with it properly. I believe that the Bill does that.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, sits down for the second time, perhaps I may put one point to him. The individual who seeks to buy his council house is far more likely to run into difficulties in practice if the local government officer with whom he has to deal is secretly, rather than openly, opposed to the sale of council houses.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Of course, one cannot stop a local government officer having his own opinions. Councillors are well able to take account of that. But they are private opinions and he is not standing up elsewhere, making speeches and writing articles in a sense contrary to those of the authority that he advises. That is the difficulty.
Perhaps I may make one other point to the Committee. When we in the Department of the Environment began to tackle the problem five years ago, the group that was most enthusiastic to see us deal with it included some of the leading members of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. They had had to live alongside individuals in their

803
authorities who occupied politically sensitive posts and who had engaged in and were openly engaging in politics. They found it deeply offensive. Some of the messages that reached me and my department at that time from senior members of SOLACE convinced us that we were right to press ahead. I do not see the distinction between standing for a local authority and declaring one's political allegiance by active political involvement in any other way. It is not permitted to senior civil servants and should not be permitted to senior local government servants.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, persists in resting his argument on the integrity and professionalism of civil servants, both local and national. I believe that he has sought to cast a slur which is offensive to the overwhelming majority of those men and women who are proud to call themselves professionals in the service of both local and national government. There may be individuals who do not act as the noble Lord would wish, but on the basis of his evidence and our evidence that this is not wholly a one-party issue, illustrations can be seen of maladministration by political parties everywhere. Yet, when one listens to the case put by Members opposite, it is always a Labour, Left-wing inspired issue. However, if we are to assume that it is not —I withdraw any inference that I drew from the imputations made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin —we must have names and instances.
On Monday of this week a number of noble Lords were invited to listen to NALGO officers of all parties and all levels of responsibility. At the end of each hearing, I asked broadly the same question: "Has the issue ever been raised by your fellow officers, councillors, citizens or any other groups who know that you are a politician active in one area, but give professional advice in another?" All of them —of all political parties and more than one from any one party—said, "Never, ever".
So what are we being invited to do today? Some people may detest the behaviour of certain individuals, but at the end of the day we are seeking to lift the slur on the professional integrity, not merely of individuals but of the professions. As one who has served for many years in local government and as a professional in some of the fields that have been attacked, I very much resent the imputations.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is still intervening in my speech, and I must bring it to a conclusion. The noble Lord mentioned speaking before I sat down for the second time. However, let me say that if his noble friend Lord McIntosh, had not mentioned the honourable Member for Chorley, it had been my intention to do so because that was clearly a totally unacceptable case. I accept that not by any manner of means has this been all on one side, although I believe that the real mischief was happening in some of the local London boroughs and it was that which provoked the whole subject. However, in so far as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that there had been a slur cast on local
804
government professionals as a whole, with the greatest respect to him, I must say that that is absolute rubbish. Nothing that I said or every have said could leave anyone to believe that I do not have the highest regard for the many dedicated senior people in local government with whom I have come into contact.
As we are dealing with this amendment, I must say that I do not think it makes any difference whether it is a parliamentary candidature, a European candidature or a candidature for a local authority which is in question. What is wrong (and it is tackled by this Bill) is when a senior public servant in a local authority crosses the Rubicon and is still, while doing that job, actively conducting a political campaign as a candidate. That creates an impossible and undesirable position. It is right that this House should legislate in the way that Clause 1 provides. This amendment would water down that legislation and I hope that it will be resisted.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I should like to intervene, on two grounds. One is that I do not like this amendment. I believe that, on practical grounds if no other —I accept entirely the theoretical grounds put forward by my noble friend —many Members of this House must at one time or another have been either a political candidate for the other place of have assisted in canvassing for friends who were standing in one interest or another for the other place. Noble Lords must recognise how very difficult it is to avoid in anything that one says as a result of one's own political activity, or in promoting that of one's colleagues or friends involving the local authority in the area in which one is active, or indeed perhaps local authorities generally. That is extremely difficult.
As a candidate who nursed constituencies —I think "nursed" is the word which I think my noble friend was seeking —I know that it is inevitable that one will meet the officers of the local authority and local councillors as well as many other people. It becomes impossible to carry out that function satisfactorily if one is in any way involved in the activities of a senior local government officer.
It seems to me that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, reinforces the argument that I am putting forward. She used the example of a solicitor who was employed by the local authority compared with a solicitor who was consulted by the local authority. They are indeed two quite different animals. The person who is consulted is covered by the professional codes which operate for lawyers and for others —the noble Baroness mentioned medical and nursing personnel and so forth —whereas the person who is employed directly is not only a professional in his own field but is also a senior employee of a specific authority.
Undoubtedly there is a place for politics. There is a place for all kinds of opinions and the expression of those opinions. With this amendment one is not moving into the realm of the thought police, which was the tenor of the intervention in the speech of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. It seems to me on both practical and theoretical grounds —with no slur whatsoever cast on any local government

805
professionals, whatever party they may adhere to—that it makes no difference. It would be just as difficult whichever party they happened to belong to, including the party of the noble Lords opposite.
On both theoretical and practical grounds this appears to me a reasonable suggestion. Everyone knows that there is a place for politics. Those of us who choose, of our own volition, to enter that field know whether or not our actions and our professional activity are consistent with it in terms of both our life situations and our jobs. I do not believe that this provision places a very great restriction at all on a civil liberty. To a very large extent the arguments framed against it are, if I may use the expression, considerably overblown.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will remain firm. I do not oppose the amendment because I envisage that any local government officer who wishes to get into the business of politics will always be of a Liberal or Labour persuasion. This matter cuts across party lines. I have no doubt it is possible that there are as many Conservatives as members from other parties who will be offended by our words this evening.
During my time in local government I found that the most effective local government officer was the one whose policies I found it impossible to detect. Apolitical officers were, I found, always the most effective. There were a number of reasons for that. I regard a good relationship between members and officers as essential to the healthy provision of good local services for people. I discovered that, if an officer was of the same political persuasion as myself, there was always a temptation to compromise that officer in the business that one was conducting. On the other hand, if an officer is overtly not of the same political persuasion as oneself, it is always difficult to perceive the advice that he gives as objective. That is natural. It is natural on the part of the public when they know that someone is overtly political one way or the other. It is very important for the good working of local authorities for its officers to be seen to be objective and to be seen to be apolitical.
I want also to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegie. It is seldom that someone simply announces three weeks before an election that he will stand for Parliament; that he will take paid or unpaid leave with the permission of the authority, run for Parliament, either win or lose the seat and then resign to enter Parliament or return to his work. More likely there will be a year, or in some cases even longer, maybe two years, during which the individual will have been overtly canvassing opinion, trying to persuade people and actively moving around the country or the constituency, or, what is even worse, being overtly active in politics in the constituency in which the local authority happens to be.
Therefore, the idea that one can stand right back and be totally objective and apolitical when giving advice is like asking someone to be superhuman. Being seen to be objective is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke about someone
806
who wished to buy his home and said that if this amendment were passed it would be better to be overtly political than possibly secretly political. Perhaps I may just say that someone who is overtly political and overtly opposed to the policies of the government of the day creates an air of intimidation. Not all members of the public can walk into a local government office and apply to buy their homes when week after week they are reading letters in the press, are being canvassed or have literature pushed through their doors to the effect that that particular department is run by someone who is overtly opposed to the policy of the right to buy. Therefore the air of intimidation is very damaging.
Policemen, the armed forces and civil servants make their choice. People who move into those careers make choices. They know that by entering that line of work they are not choosing a political career. I think it is time that we depoliticised local government as far as possible. I believe that that would be welcomed by the majority of competent local government officers. My noble friend Lord Jenkin spoke about the way in which apolitical professional local government officers would welcome a return not only to being professionals but to being seen to be professionals. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will reject this amendment.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I have listened to the debate with great interest. I served for 29 years as a member of the local authority. Indeed I was a local government officer before that and a secretary of NALGO at that time. I also had four years in government as a junior minister. I yield to none in my admiration for the impartiality and professionalism of those who served me both in local and in national government. I resent the implication made by some noble Lords opposite that local government officers are somewhat less careful about their impartiality and advice than are civil servants.
I also speak from personal experience as one who has worked with a senior local government officer as a parliamentary candidate. For some 13 years in my constituency we had a senior local government officer as our candidate. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is not here, because he would probably support what I am saying. At no time did we have any problems. That candidate gave up all his weekends and all his holidays, took no time off from his employment and, so far as I know, there was never any question that there was a difficulty about him being a parliamentary candidate. There was no difficulty about him working in the constituency. He resigned as a local government officer when he became a Member of Parliament and he did that job as well as he had done his local government work.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that these candidates can make their choice and can leave local government if they want to enter politics. Yes, I suppose they can. What I am afraid cif is that many of our senior local government officers, if the Bill goes through unamended, will feel that they have to take that choice and we shall lose them to local government and not necessarily gain them to

807
national or European politics. They may not have a seat which they can win. I would rather see them staying in local government.
I also remind the Committee that most of these senior local government officers are also members of their professional institutes or associations, which lay down pretty strict codes of conduct as to how their members should behave as treasurers, surveyors, engineers or what have you. The professional associations would have something to say about it if members became too politically involved while they were doing their jobs.
I am sorry that the Minister was not as helpful as he might have been when he replied. I was rather expecting the usual reply, that the amendment was badly drafted or that it was not in the right place. But neither of those suggestions arose, either about Amendment No. 1 or about Amendment No. 6. On reflection I believe that Amendment No. 6 is perhaps the better one and at this stage, with the leave of the Committee, I beg to withdraw Amendment No. 1 and hope that when we reach Amendment No. 6 on the Marshalled List the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will decide what he wants to do about that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 35, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 14, 22, 24, 25 and 38. With these amendments we come to the point which so many noble Lords opposite thought they were speaking about when we dealt with the last amendment. In other words, we are dealing now with issues of twin tracking and service on local authorities by local government officers.
I make it clear from the outset that these amendments represent not only one compromise but two compromise positions, because we are anxious to see how far we can persuade the Government by the force of sweet reason that their proposals for dealing with twin tracking go very much further than Widdicombe or their own White Paper intended or that common sense might dictate.
Amendments Nos. 2, 14, 22, 25 and 38 would keep the restriction on twin tracking, but would restrict that to chief officers, deputy chief officers, the newly defined head of the paid service, as it is defined in the Bill, and the newly defined monitoring officer: in other words, those officers who are in a truly senior position responsible for giving advice to members of the council on behalf of their departments, and whose objectivity we entirely agree ought to be maintained by political restriction.
Before I go on to setting out the argument in more detail, I wish to refer to Amendment No. 4 which is a weaker alternative to the amendments to which I have just referred. It would restrict twin tracking to the head of paid service, the monitoring officer and chief officers and deputies and it would abolish other restrictions than local authority membership only for more junior staff, rather than abolishing all
808
restrictions for them. If the Government are antagonistic to Amendment No. 2 and its following amendments, perhaps they might look more kindly upon Amendment no. 4.
The problem with the Bill as it has reached us is that it does not reflect what Widdicombe suggested, because it introduces a completely new concept of a salary bar at £13,500 which was not contained anywhere in the Widdicombe Report. It does not reflect what the White Paper says because it introduces this new salary bar. It reflects the definitions of politically sensitive posts which Widdicombe used and which were defined more closely in the White Paper—definitions of "political activity" as holding office in a political party, speaking or writing on behalf of the political party or canvassing for it —but it leaves to regulation far too much definition of what is meant by "political activity".
As we have already seen that the Secretary of State is prepared in drafting a Bill to be much more draconian in his definitions both of "political activity" and "politically restricted posts" than had originally been planned, one must raise the possibility that, subsequent to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State will introduce in regulations more onerous restrictions than have so far been announced.
All this is compounded by the fact that there have been no draft regulations made available to Parliament. If we had had draft regulations —as, to be fair, we had for some aspects of the Water Bill, even though I complained about the inadequacy of that information —we could have debated them. If there were matters which we thought objectionable we could have sought to have them taken out by amendments to statute, but in the absence of draft regulations we are forced to rely on the tit-bits of information that drop from the lips of Secretaries of State and Ministers for local government, principally in Committee in another place.
That is not very satisfactory and it does not provide an assurance to us that the regulations will not be too onerous. There are so many issues left undetermined in the Bill as drafted. They are issues fundamentally of civil liberties. They are not issues about twin tracking. Almost all the very few examples which have been given of abuse by twin tracking —I think back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, at Second Reading —were of chief officers and deputies and people in particularly responsible positions and twin tracking would still be banned under our amendments. So the noble Lord's objectives would be achieved under our amendments. The difficulty is that so many other posts —we shall be spelling this out in more detail in later amendments —which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be thought to be politically sensitive, will be covered by the regulations to be laid under the Bill.
The fundamental question arises as to how many there are. If we take what Widdicombe said in 1986, his calculation was that there were approximately 70,000 local government officers of the rank of principal officer and above. If we take the 7 per cent. pay settlement which has been offered to local

809
government officers to take effect from 1st July —it has not been accepted by NALGO yet, but if it were to be accepted —that figure of 70,000 would rise to 114,000 local government officers who would be caught by the political restriction definition.
In addition, no fewer than 8,600 members of the fire service —fire fighters, no less —would be caught by the political restriction because they earn more than £13,500 a year. Whatever one may think about the abuses to which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, referred —I do not differ from him in condemnation of some of those abuses —I do not think he was speaking about 8,600 members of the fire service and I do not think he was really talking about 114,000 local government officers. I am sure he would agree that the definition in the Bill has gone much too wide.
It is not just the definition of who is covered by this which raises problems. There is the whole question, totally ignored by the Bill and Ministers, of how the regulations are to be implemented. Is it a requirement that all local government officers engaged in political activity at the time of Royal Assent shall resign or immediately be required to give up their political activity? If they appeal under the procedure laid down in the Bill, will they be allowed to retain their posts or maintain their political activity while the appeal is being heard? If they receive a salary increase subsequent to the passing of the Bill, will they immediately be caught by its provisions and be excluded from political activity, or must they refuse the salary increase whether or not promotion is involved? Increases in salary are actually awarded.
What will be the effect on the morale of those in local authority service? Is a bar on the salary of £13,500 the best way to encourage good morale and good spirit in the service? One may be doing the same job as a school teacher, a sub-station officer in the fire service or an assistant quantity surveyor and suddenly the social conscience which has driven one into political activity will no longer be permissible, because one is receiving above a certain salary. That is a nonsense as the examples which have been given make clear.
How will the restriction be enforced? We understand from Ministers that the prescription will extend to a ban on canvassing and putting up posters. Who will go around looking at posters in the windows? Who will keep a record of canvassers for political parties? We are moving far too rapidly into a state where the regulation of the Secretary of State will set up a "thought" police, as someone has described it. We shall be spying on loyal, honourable members of local government service because they have reached a salary of more than £13,500. We shall be looking at what they do outside their working hours and deciding whether that is in breach of the regulations laid down by the Secretary of State.
One of the people who saw us on Monday raised a point which had never occurred to me and which was not raised in Committee in another place. He pointed out that if, under recent legislation, his service was privatised the political restrictions would be removed. However, if the privatisation contract failed —and there have been such cases where the
810
local authority have had to take back the service —the political restrictions would be reimposed. What kind of a recipe is that for a professional local government service? The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, used the word over again.
I argue that the provisions, which extend to well over 100,000 members of local government service, are a direct challenge to the professionalism of that service. They make it virtually impossible to ensure that local government officers have the incentive to advance their careers without giving up their civil rights. I argue that the Government have it badly wrong, particularly the extent to which they have departed from Widdicombe and their White Paper.
Let us put on one side the examples used by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and others. Whatever has been said in the past, let us agree that twin tracking by chief officers and senior officers is wrong. Let us make that common ground. But let us not then go from an undoubted abuse to a draconian measure affecting more than 100,000 people and doing severe damage to the professionalism of the local government service. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): If the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment Nos. 3 to 7 inclusive.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I entirely support the general policy of the Government ir, implementing the Widdicombe Report. However, I have a great deal of sympathy for the concern expressed about the nature of this and other provisions in the Bill. I believe that the provision goes too far in allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations to:
"incorporate such requirements for restricting his political activities as may be prescribed".
I make the general criticism that I have previously made about legislation which has come before Parliament. This is another bulky Bill which to a large extent is skeletal. It lays down general principles but does not provide any indication of what may eventually appear in the large number of regulations which can be made under it. There are more than 30 provisions allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations or orders or to lay down codes of conduct. In nearly every case they are subject simply to negative resolution. I do not believe that that is good enough and, as far as it lies within our power, we must put a stop to the practice of drafting such legislation. There are so many provisions which allow the Secretary of State to make regulations which might, in the wrong hands, contain provisions which nearly all Members would wholly deplore.
As a member of the legal profession I must declare an interest; otherwise, I should put up a case for privatising the drafting of legislation. An enormous burden now falls upon approximately 45 parliamentary draftsmen who are paid an average salary of £30,000 a year. We are manifestly wrong in believing that that is the way in which we can put legislation on the statute book. Over the past 10 years, 50 Bills have been passed affecting local government. Some barely survive a parliamentary Session, much less a Parliament. It is not a sensible way in which to legislate. While I wholly approve of the Government's attempts, I believe that in many cases we are not going about it in the right way.
Baroness Stedman: I support this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has explained the difference that a modest salary increase can make to the number of people who will be affected. He spoke of the absurdity of the involvement of 8,500 fire service employees. Many people who receive London weighting will earn that amount. Technically, it is not their basic salary but they are drawing that amount or more, including London weighting and various locally agreed salary incentives.
What will happen when someone is decreed to be above the limit and proscribed from doing what he wishes? If that person appeals, what will happen during the course of the appeal? Can he continue or must he suspend operations until the appeal is heard? What timescale do the Government have in mind for appeals to be dealt with? Have they any idea how many appeals are likely to arise as a result of this part of the Bill?
The Government are laying down trouble for themselves. The arbitrary bar will prevent those who wish to work in their community and serve their local authority from applying for jobs if their salary will rise above that low level. For example, jobs which have recently been advertised include a housing officer in Harrow from £13,311 to £13,566. That puts the job within the scope of the regulation. The same applies to a planning assistant in St. Helens and an assistant minerals officer in North Yorkshire. Such people with special skills to offer, who wish to work in local government, may sit back and ask, "Ought I to be applying for the job if I also wish to put something back into the community?".
The Government have not thought the matter through. They have not thought about where the arbitrary figure of £13,500 will leave them and the damage that it will cause to local government and its services.
5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the noble Lord replies to this amendment, perhaps he can tell us exactly who is included above this salary bar, what the implications are of it and why it is fixed at that point. Also, perhaps he can say what will happen when there are salary increases each year in the salary round. I wonder whether this way of defining people to whom the Bill applies is the best one. I mentioned that point on Second Reading and I suggested that there might be another way of defining the position on the scale above which the Bill will apply. Perhaps the Minister can help us on those matters. It will then be rather easier for us to know where we are and what we should be doing.
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps I may make another observation to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I certainly did not have firemen in mind when I gave illustrations and examples. Usually firemen do not give advice to the public on matters other than fire, on which I am sure they are well qualified.
As I said before, I listened sadly to the whole debate. I am sorry that it has to take place, and I am sorry that there has to be legislation at all. I listened
812
to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I pay tribute to former fellow practitioners who certainly know the business. They also know, as I do, that this sort of debate would have been unheard of in their time. The whole subject was unheard of because it was a matter of great pride to local government officers that they retained their own political views and no one knew of them.
I took the point made by my noble friend Lady Blatch. She said, "In all the years that I was in local government and working at first hand with the officers, I did not know and did not want to know what were their politics. I was concerned that they should do a good job; and that, and only that, mattered to me".
Having said that, I believe that there are some 3 million employees in local government service so that if the figure was 100,000 or so, that represents about 3 per cent. Therefore, at present it will not apply to 97 per cent. I believe that those figures are right and I am open to correction.
This is all a matter of confidence and a matter of standing and reputation of local government. As I say, it is so sad that we should have seen the deterioration which we have seen. That has brought about the need for legislation in the first place. I take the point referred to by my noble friend when he spoke with his great experience about regulations. That problem has arisen in the many Bills which I have introduced into the House. Sometimes one wonders whether there is not a better way of achieving that other than by regulation.
Coming back to the basic point, this is a shame but I do not believe that £13,500 is so sacrosanct. I do not think it will have anything like the adverse effect which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, spoke about when she said people would say "Well, there is a choice. Because of that do I go in or stay out?" Most local government officers —and I also pay tribute to them —are proud of what they do and are proud of their impartiality. That is a matter of pride for them. When we have seen the adverts for those like-minded to the party in power, they have cringed more than any of us, that that has been the case. They have deplored that. My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to the representations made by SOLACE and others. That was and is a fact. Therefore, I regret that this is as it is. I fear that it is necessary. I do not support the amendment, although I pay tribute to some of the observations made by the noble Lord. Basically, there is a problem here which will have to be tackled. It is being tackled and I support the way in which the Government are doing that.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble friend Lord Bellwin said many of the things which I might have said. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is normally very thorough in his preparation for these debates and I would not necessarily challenge the figures that he has given; but we are talking about 2.5 or 3 per cent. of the total employment by local authorities.
I should like to make one point touching on something the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said. It must not be assumed that the only way in which

813
a local government official, who has achieved a position of influence and importance in his profession, can put something back into the community is by engaging in politics. It seems to me that if you are the kind of person who feels that it is through the political machinery that you wish to influence the life of the community in which you live, then you do not choose to go into the public service in the first instance. If you want to put something back into the community, there are a myriad of voluntary bodies of all kinds. There is an enormous range which is expanding all the time. I know many local government officials at different levels who play an enormously important role in bringing their expertise into that kind of community work. They do that without in the slightest way tainting, or even appearing to taint, the advice which they give to the authority which they serve or the function which they perform.
In politics we are inclined to believe that the only effective way to take part in community life is by standing for election and serving on a local authority parliament. Far more people achieve that through the voluntary sector. Therefore, when we consider exactly where the boundaries should be drawn, that is a perfectly legitimate question to be asked. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right when he says this goes wider than Widdicombe. However, we should bear in mind that we are talking about people who have chosen a career in the public service, where they are likely to serve political authorities of all political persuasions and perhaps, in some cases, successively in quite short periods. Once they have reached a position at a certain level, even if that appears to us comparatively junior, it makes it difficult for them and those they serve if they are overtly pursuing a political career at the same time. There are other ways—and in some cases better ways—of serving the community, and that should be an avenue which is open to them.
Lord Kirkhill: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, should reflect upon the fact that many local government officers—professional in every sense of that word—choose to serve in the public service as a matter of conscience and social persuasion. By doing so, they usually enjoy—if that is the correct word—a lower salary than they would otherwise have obtained had they been engaged in the private sector. To further deny them the opportunity of political persuasion by being a representative in another local authority is entirely draconian.
The Earl of Carnarvon: The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that she had served for 29 years in local government. I am not far behind her. We seem to have strayed over the major part of the Bill before we have reached Clause 6, so perhaps I may add a few words.
I realise what the Government are trying to do and that there have been notable abuses of the present unrestricted position in certain parts of the country. However, I do not believe that that is a sound argument for imposing wholesale prohibition on very large numbers of people by the imposition of a financial limit. I accept that certain staff, because of the nature of their work, should be restricted from
814
standing for election to local authorities. However, I believe that the clause is much too widely drawn. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to senior staff who should be giving impartial advice, and with that I quite agree. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, several times referred to employees of local authorities who have important posts and posts of influence. In Hampshire, for example, a cut-off level of £13,500 would result in 1,000 members of staff of the county council being restricted. Teachers are exempt for very good reason —they do not influence policy. The same applies to other categories of staff. Firemen have already been mentioned. There are also trading standards officers, estate officers, recreational wardens, home help organisers, and many others.
There are 47 county councils in. England and Wales and therefore there may be in excess of 30,000 county council employees who would be affected. No doubt later this evening we shall be debating an amendment that I have tabled. However, I believe that the figure of £13,500, as written in the Bill, is far too low.
Baroness Stedman: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the fact that these people do not have to be on local authorities in order to put something back into the community. I agree that there are many voluntary organisations in which people can help and which are glad to have people help them. Again, however, that raises a question in the minds of some local government officers as to whether they are doing political work for those voluntary organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to a meeting. We had one young lady who told us that she was on a parent-teacher association and occasionally had to cross swords with the education authority. Is she to be told that she cannot be a member of the parent-teacher association because that is political? We had a disabled councillor with us who did a lot of voluntary work on access for the disabled. He is an ex-Lord Mayor of his city. Occasionally he had to take the local authority or the county council to task. Is he to be told that that sort of work is political, and that he cannot continue with his voluntary work because it brings him into opposition with his local authority? Another example is a lady involved with the campaign for Scottish devolution. Perhaps that is a little more political than some of the others, but it is not an official body as such. It is a group of people in Scotland who are campaigning for more independence for themselves. Is that thought to be in conflict with the work she is doing as a planning officer in her authority? Is a person in Essex who is helping with the campaign to clean up beaches considered to be in a political organisation? These people do not know where they stand or what is to be classed as political.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should like at this point to say a word or two in regard to Scotland. In Scotland we have two tiers of local government —regional and district —and our community councils have no statutory functions. England is quite different with county, district and

815
parish community councils and many joint boards all with statutory functions.
I have received a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who is very concerned about these matters. He had a meeting with three East Lothian district council officials and they told him that they fully approved that any officer, first, holding the position of chief officer or deputy, secondly, having powers of delegation from a committee, or, thirdly, falling within Clause 2(3), should be in the politically restricted area. However, they felt that the PO grade in England and Wales of £13,500 was far too low a figure to apply to Scotland. It would include all professional posts such as architects, environmental health officers, planners, surveyors, senior librarians and social and community workers. Do the Government really wish to include all those professional officers within Clause 2(2)(a)?
Lord Rippon of Hexham: We have gone a little beyond the omission of subsection (5); but in so far as we have gone on to talk about the salary limit, then I share the views expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and others, that £13,500 appears to be far too low, especially if one takes into account such factors as overtime and the special position of people in the fire service who are not involved in giving advice on policy. I should like to add also, in the light of discussions we have had, my hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least agree that we should see the draft regulations which are proposed before we go much further.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments would delete all the controls over public political activities other than the ban on membership of Parliament, the European Parliament and principal councils, and would limit that ban to chief executives, chief officers, their deputies and the monitoring officers. This represents the furthest that the Opposition are prepared to go in recognising that there is a problem in senior local government staff simultaneously undertaking their job as impartial servants of their local authorities and acting as partisan political activists.
To explain why this is not acceptable to the Government, I need to demonstrate two things. First, it is important to control more than simply membership of an elected body. Secondly, this case applies to more than chief executives, chief officers and their deputies. On the first point, I have to ask the committee to consider each of the four categories of political activity that we have proposed should be regulated in addition to membership of principal councils and Parliament.
The first of these is offering oneself as a candidate for those bodies. For the reason explained on Amendment No. 1, we think that the arguments against membership apply as much to offering oneself as a candidate. Secondly, there is holding office in a political party. Again, this seems to be something that clearly is incompatible with holding sensitive posts in a local authority's service. How would a Conservative or Labour chairman of a local authority committee feel if he knows that the
816
committee clerk advising him is chairman of the local branch of the SDLP or the Green Party? How will a Liberal or Labour councillor feel in getting advice from an assistant treasurer of the authority who in his spare time is treasurer of the local Conservative Party? We think that such relationships undermine the proper functioning of local government and should be controlled.
The third category is canvassing for candidates for principal councils or Parliament or for a political party. Again, this seems clearly incompatible with the sort of impartiality demanded of those holding sensitive posts. Consider the case of a housing allocation officer who in his spare time goes round his local housing estate canvassing for his local party's candidates. How are tenants, or would-be tenants, going to react? Or consider the councillor who finds that the assistant chief officer advising his committee was going round his ward canvassing for policies totally different to those on which the councillor was elected.
The final category is speaking or writing in public on a matter of party political controversy. We shall be consulting local government about the precise definition of this, but we think that the definition will concentrate on activities which appear to be designed to promote the cause of a political party, as opposed to contributing to a debate on a controversial matter. This we think is bound to be seen as undermining the impartiality of the officer concerned in exactly the same way as the other activities. If the assistant housing manager mounts an attack on the policies he is responsible for administering, how is anyone going to be confident about the professional impartiality of his advice? There is no difference if he is advocating the policies of his council in a way that is designed to win support for the controlling group on the council. Both undermine his position.
On the second point, whether to confine the restrictions to a limited number of very senior staff, the argument turns on the definitions of the politically sensitive posts that the Government have proposed. We are proposing essentially that in addition to the chief executives, chief officers and their deputies the restrictions should apply to three other groups of officers.
The first are the assistants to political groups. The arguments there are very different from the others, and we shall return to them on another amendment. However, I may briefly say that this is because we do not think that these posts should be subsidies to local political parties. Secondly, there are the officers to whom have been delegated a function of the authority. Here the case seems to be clear. If an officer is, on his own, to be given the task of making the authority's decision for it, then the public and the councillors are entitled to assurances that he will not seem to be using that power to further his own political ends. If he is simultaneously an active politician, that will be difficult to accept.
Finally, there are the officers who hold sensitive posts as defined in Clause 2(3); those who regularly advise councillors, those who regularly speak for the council to the media, and those who regularly deal with the public in circumstances where the public

817
would think that they could influence the authority's decision. In the interests of proper administration, we want to ensure that there can be no suspicion that those officers are carrying out those functions with an axe to grind.
We cannot, of course, claim that the provisions of the Bill will stop this. What it will do, however, as in the Civil Service, is remove obvious grounds for suspicion that this is happening. Human nature being what it is, people are unlikely to believe that those who are running both tracks will always and in every case scrupulously separate their personalities between the impartial official and the active politician.
We therefore think that it is necessary to bring into the politically-restricted group not only the most senior officers, but also those who are in sufficiently sensitive posts to give rise to concerns that they could be subjected to conflict between their paid work and their political activity. That is what the Bill does, and we think that it does it in a reasonable and effective way.
Many Members of the Committee, including my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, drew to our attention the level of £ 13,500. That level was selected on the basis that that is the recommended minimum for the grade of principal officer. Proceeding from that point, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that the figure had risen from 70,000 to 114,000 people particularly if the 7 per cent. pay award, that is a matter of dispute at the moment, is accepted.
In another place, my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government said that if the 7 per cent. increase comes into effect the figure of £13,500 will be increased. My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked whether or not it would be possible to redefine the limit other than by cash. There is no obligation on any local authority to adopt any particular salary structure or system of salaries. Therefore the only common denominator between all authorities is cash. That is why we have had to use it as the only way of describing posts that is bound to apply to all local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked: who will enforce the restrictions? After his many arguments concerning the complications involved, I return to the point I made earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Jay; namely, that these proposals very clearly reflect those that already exist for the Civil Service at the present time and do not cause any problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asked what will happen if someone's salary is increased over the threshold. The power in Clause 2(2) to exempt the duty to list posts could be used to make appropriate transitional arrangements in the case that she brought forward.
My noble friend Lord Rippon once again criticised the regulation-making power as a general feature of the legislature. Every Minister who has to deal with the large numbers of regulations must have sympathy with the noble Lord's comments. But regulations give a flexibility to respond to changes in practice which primary legislation cannot give. We thought that, on balance, it was right in Clause 1(5) to opt for flexibility. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked about the situation regarding consultation. We intend to consult local government in detail on the
818
regulations to implement Clauses 1 to 3. We intend to consult both on the basic policy questions and on the text of the regulations. I hope that a consultation document on the policy will be sent to the local authority association in August. That is our firm intention.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also asked: what happens when an appeal is in progress? That is clearly a matter to be decided after consultation. It would be possible to exempt staff while an appeal is pending, and to exempt only those where the local authority has given a certificate under Clause 3(2)(c). We shall decide in the light of the comments that we receive, on the basis of the consultations as they proceed with those who will be able to make a great contribution to those consultations.
It must be remembered that we have modelled these proposals as closely as possible on those that already exist for the Civil Service. I believe that the complications are not as great as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggests. I apologise if I have ventured somewhat away from the amendments themselves, but the debate itself travelled a little further than the amendments. For that reason I have taken some time. I hope the Committee will resist the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not have any doubt that the Minister was seeking to be helpful in his reply. Indeed there were helpful elements. It is helpful to know that the consultation document will go to the local authority associations in August. That means that, though the time for consideration of this part of the Bill in Committee will have passed, nevertheless there will be something that we can get our teeth into at Report stage. It is helpful to know that we have learned a little more about appeals. Unfortunately, in his reply the Minister is now using the consultation document as a way of saying that he cannot give firm answers to the questions raised by Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, said, it would have been preferable if the draft regulations had been available for consideration while we are in Committee, when we can give them the most detailed consideration. Though he was trying to be helpful the Minister was not convincing. He left us in the position that the Secretary of State has the power by regulation to impose such restrictions as he thinks fit. In his reply the Minister gave virtually no further idea of what those restrictions will be. There is certainly no further evidence that those restrictions are necessary on such local authority staff as he thinks fit.
The definition of a politically sensitive post is still unclear. In any case, it has been overtaken by the salary bar that was criticised by Members of the Committee on all sides and to which the Minister offered no defence. We are left with Clause 1(5), and our consequential amendments, which give the Secretary of State virtually the power to do what he likes. If one could write Shakespeare into legislation it would be from King Lear. The Secretary of State,
"will do such things,—
What they are, yet I know not; but they shall be
The terrors of the earth".

819
That is not a satisfactory situation to find ourselves in. The Minister has not answered the very grave concerns expressed on all sides of the Chamber about the extent of these restrictions and the deprivation of civil liberties implied by them. It is appropriate that I ask the opinion of the Committee on this matter.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 112.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jay, L.

Alport, L.

Jeger, B.

Amherst, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kagan, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bradford, Bp.

Lockwood, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mais, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Monson, L.

Carter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Falkender, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Scanlon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grimond, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hayter, L.

White, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Willis, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Winstanley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Auckland, L.

Butterworth, L.

Bauer, L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Bellwin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belstead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bessborough, E.

Chelmer, L.

Birdwood, L.

Coleraine, L.

Blatch, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blyth, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Borthwick, L.

Cox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

820

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Middleton, L.

Dundee, E.

Milverton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Morris, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Nelson, E

Ferrers, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Onslow, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Greenway, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gridley, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Prior, L.

Pym, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochdale, V.

Harrowby, E.

Rugby, L.

Henley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Shannon, E.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Stockton, E.

Hood, V.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathspey, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Sudeley, L.

Keyes, L.

Swinfen, L.

Killearn, L.

Teviot, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thurlow, L.

Layton, L.

Trafford, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lytton, E.

Ullswater, V.

Manton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Marley, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 35, leave out from first ("of") to ("every") and insert ("a Code of Conduct applicable to").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 13. This amendment seeks to make clear the Government's intention in respect of matters governing and defining political activities. This is one of the benign aspects of this part of the Bill.
We believe that the Minister is anxious to get this matter right. We all know what a code of practice is. It is a body of opinion and guidance which is looked upon as helpful. We ask that this code of practice shall not be left to others, but shall ultimately be the creature of the Secretary of State. We ask that it should be prepared and issued only after consultation with the appropriate bodies. The amendment preserves the principle of consultation and taking advice.
We believe that the lead in the issue should be taken by the Secretary of State. We do not look upon this as a delaying tactic or as something designed to buy time. There is a fair measure of agreement that, if the Government go down this route, those who are to be caught or affected by the provision should have some guidelines. In advance of taking the wrong

821
route or putting themselves in jeopardy, they need to have the best possible advice.
We have tabled the amendment in that spirit. We shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say about the amendment and about his intentions in the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: It will be helpful to consider together Amendments Nos. 3 and 13. They deal with the suggestion of a code of practice as an alternative to the Bill's proposals. The effect of Amendment No. 3 is to replace, with a proposal for a code of conduct to be issued by the Secretary of State, the Bill's proposal that the terms of employment of officers holding politically restricted posts should incorporate restrictions on public political activity. Amendment No. 13 would require consultation with a variety of representative associations about the code of conduct.
The crucial part of these proposals is therefore the replacement of the Government's proposals for binding rules on the restrictions to apply to public political activity by those holding sensitive posts in local government with something rather more imprecise.
The Government believe that it is essential that there are clear rules which should apply across the whole field of local government on what officers are free to pursue their political avocations and which officers should, like civil servants, be expected to preserve political neutrality as professional advisers and spokesmen, and from what actions they should abstain in order to preserve that neutrality.
Such clear rules can now be provided only by legislation. Until not many years ago, there was such a code of practice. It was not written down, but everyone knew what was expected of them and behaved accordingly. If any noble Lord doubts this, I suggest that he consult the standard authors of 20 years ago: Sir Kenneth Wheare on Government by Committee or the Royal Institute of Public Administration study of The Town Clerk in English Local Government. The general understanding was that local government officers were not publicly active in politics.
Contrast that with the position now. Not merely have we seen a chief executive of a district council who is a councillor in a neighbouring district, we have seen a chief executive of a district council who was chairman of the local Labour Party. We read that 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the members of this London borough or that London borough council hold posts in other authorities which we would regard as politically sensitive.
We have therefore tried a code of conduct —a code of conduct of the best possible kind, one established by the common consent of those involved. It has, however, sadly broken down. When such codes break down then having them written down by local authority associations will not, we believe, revive them. Regretfully, we can only have recourse to legislation.
The amendments do not say whether the code would be binding on the officers concerned in any more than conscience. As I said, we have seen what
822
has happened to the traditional standards of conduct in this field. There is no reason to think that a code written by local authority associations or issued by the Secretary of State with the approval of Parliament would have any different effect.
Local authorities would be free to take it into account or not. How far the code was followed in any authority would therefore depend on the discretion of the current councillors. If a council changed political control—a not unheard of event—the new councillors might find that their predecessors had given the staff terms of appointment which left them free to pursue parallel political careers, even though the new councillors might disapprove of such arrangements.
Further, the amendment would link the effects of the code of conduct to chief executives, chief officers and their deputies. We think that the problem of incompatibility goes much wider than this. What is at issue is the problem of people being both impartial advisers and active politicians: this is not confined to the select group of chief executives, chief officers and their deputies.
The usual phrase is to warn Members of the Committee not to be led astray by siren suggestions. I do not think, however, that I can realistically suggest that these suggestions have the degree of attractiveness that even superannuated sirens would have. Effectively these amendments are a proposal to defer indefinitely any reinforcement of the traditional convention.
The Government believe that the provisions in Clause 1 are essential if we are to maintain the tradition of the impartiality of local government officers, It is for those reasons that we shall oppose these amendments.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: As always I am grateful to the Minister who has taken great care to be clear in what he says. He may well be right, in the light of events, in his view that one needs 20, 30 or 40 years after an understood ethos has been accepted and has been broken, or is breaking down, to reflect upon whether one can do it better in the future. The noble Lord rests his case upon the change of a council which may well have been operating its interpretation of a code of practice in one way and then, when the opposition comes into power, decides to interpret the code of practice in another way. The same, of course, applies with a change of government.
The Government's attitude to these matters may be offensive. I believe that it is offensive to the majority of those who are practitioners in local government. I do not dispute their entitlement to believe that they are acting in the interests of the majority of the electorate of the country. I am not saying that they are right; but they are entitled to believe that they are acting in that way. All I am saying to the Minister is that if there were a change of government, then of course that government would be entitled to change the law.
The Government rest their case upon these matters being enshrined, as we say, "on the face of the Bill". We should have thought that the

823
Government who are pretty confident, if not arrogant, about their ability to interpret what is right in most areas, could well have said, "We believe that we know what is right in this area" without needing the full panoply and majesty of the law to support them.
In the light of the Government's clear intention to legislate, we seek the maximum goodwill and co-operation of the people concerned. We believe that a code of practice —we are certainly not saying at this stage what it should contain or exclude —would be a better way of dealing with the situation. However, we recognise the realities. We shall consider what the Minister has said: we may well return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert ("in accordance with section (voluntary Code of Practice) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 44. What is proposed here is to insert a code of practice into the Bill and also to introduce a new clause. We seek to promote the preparation and acceptance of a voluntary code of practice, setting out the extent of acceptable political activity at the rank of principal officer and above. What is suggested is also designed to probe the Government's intentions on the type of political activity to be restricted.
Reference was made in earlier debates to what the Widdicombe Committee understood to be politically sensitive and restrictive activities. There was also reference to what other individuals do. I should remind the Committee that the Widdicombe Report suggested that political restrictions be approached through agreed amendment to local authorities' terms and conditions of service. This, the report suggested, was the best approach as political activity is not a concept readily amendable to legislation and is not the subject of legislation in the Civil Service context. It was felt that flexibility was required in local government, as it is in central government, to deal with particular cases. The report proposed joint approaches involving the Local Authority Conditions of Service Advisory Board with legislation introduced only as a last resort.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned many interesting activities which local government officers believe could well be held by either the Government or by local authorities to be matters meriting political restriction. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, tried to help the Committee. He said that there were often ways in which an individual could exercise his desire to serve the community: not by being a councillor in some other area, but by being involved in voluntary activities.
We come to the point of who will decide whether the level of politicisation in the voluntary organisation is such that it will demand the attention
824
of those who will lay down the diktat that that is the point at which it should stop. We can all give illustrations of benign organisations which are non-political in intention, but which nevertheless from time to time are moved to take up political stances. There may be a community activity which is all-party or non-party, in which the individual is heavily involved. It may be the question of a road going through a sensitive area or the building of a supermarket.
Local government officers who are not politically active may become active in a residents' association or in the "Save our Town Hall" or "Save our Playing Field" campaign. They are exercising their rights to be involved in voluntary organisations, but they may suddenly find that they are involved politically. It is not a party-political activity, but, nevertheless, they may come up against the party-political machine. They oppose the council. They oppose the councillors. They seek support from other councillors. Before they know it, they could be involved.
The difficulty that the Government face is that the goal post will be shifted when £13,500 becomes worth less by the mere advance of salary scales or inflation. One can pursue activities which at one moment are non-party political, but which may be held to be politically highly successful when the group scores a success against the council.
Local authorities currently address a variety of key issues through agreed custom and practice. The Minister will be well aware of the areas that that procedure covers: interest in contracts, acceptance of hospitality, outside activities, including membership of societies, dealing with confidential information and recruitment procedures. The purple book and the buff book set out national terms and conditions of service for white-collar and manual workers respectively. They embody national agreements which can be varied locally.
The Government have been high-handed by assuming that negotiated agreement is not possible. It has been possible previously. The amendment seeks clarification from the Government as to what they intend when they produce their list of politically acceptable activities. In the second amendment we seek to impose a duty on LACSAB and the local authority associations to prepare and publish a code as soon as practicable. I know that the Minister will want to be helpful. I should be grateful if he could comment on the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Nobody has denied that it will be difficult to define precisely the proscribed area of political activity. There is a nearly seamless robe. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, made some fair points about where the line is drawn. He also has a point when he says that it may be easier to have a code of practice which would express the matter in general terms, rather than to have specific rules which lay down clearly whether one is on this side of the line or the other. That is inherent in any legislation of this kind.
On the previous amendment, my noble friend effectively demolished the argument that some kind

825
of voluntary code would be the way to do it. As we all recognise, the vast majority, especially of senior local government officials, well understand the canons and conventions, but, until the whole subject was brought into the open with the pamphlet The New Corruption and the subsequent appointment of the Widdicombe Committee and the evidence given to it, felt powerless to do anything. There seemed to be no guidelines, no signposts, as to how they could make representations to councillors or, in some cases, their own staff.
What is now necessary, and what the Bill and the regulations will achieve, is to point to the nature of the activities which must be regarded as out-of-bounds for senior officials. In practice, if someone becomes involved in a voluntary campaign in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and begins to come into the public domain where embarrassment may be caused to his political chiefs (the councillors), to the council, if he is on the staff, or to members of the public who have to deal with him, that is the point at which the chief executive, or his own senior officer, has him in and says, "Look, I think you have to consider your position. I think that you are sailing dangerously near the line. Here are the rules which are set out clearly. You are a valuable local government officer. You want to consider your position and watch what you are doing. My advice to you is, not to cease to have anything to do with the campaign—I would not dream of asking you to do that—but not to adopt such a high profile. You should not be part of the deputation" or whatever it may be.
Without having some clear rules, which the Bill and the regulations will set out, the senior man will find it much more difficult to tender advice to and guide the member of staff. That is the way it will work in practice in the great majority of cases. I do not deny that there will always be some instances where people will feel so strongly, or so politically committed, that they will try to find a way round the rules and say, "I got myself through the regulations". There may be the odd case, but the general pattern of what it is wanted to achieve will have been laid down. There will therefore be ways to bring public pressure to bear to ensure that the system works.
I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but it is clear that without this provision unacceptable practices were becoming almost common. They were not limited to one political party. When there was controversy between the Government and Labour-controlled local authorities, it looked as though one were criticising the Labour-controlled authorities. People came to me and said, "Go easy on this, because you will find some of your political friends will be in difficulties". I said that that actually made it easier for me to appoint the Widdicombe Committee. It was an argument that I used when I was persuading some people to collaborate.
I met all the local authority associations. We discussed the membership of the committee. The Committee will recognise that we included people of all parties and of none. The argument was that the activity was not confined to one political party. It was becoming dangerously accepted within local government as a whole. As a result, all the local
826
authority associations and all the political parties worked closely to ensure that the Widdicombe Committee was able to reach a conclusion.
Therefore, without wanting to anticipate my noble friend's response, I think the point that is made is that we need to have clear statutory guidelines. Let us by all means examine exactly what they should be. But if those guidelines exist, then it should be possible for senior management and local authorities—and it may well be trade union leaders who are equally unhappy, sometimes, about the political involvement of the people of influence in the local authority —to point to something and say, "Look, you are going over the line. You must consider your position". Of course there will be the odd exception, but that would be a very much better state of affairs than at present.
6 p.m.
Lord Hayter: I should have thought that the noble Lord who has just spoken could have gone further and said, "I therefore propose to vote for the amendment". What does the amendment say about the code of practice? It says that authorities shall prepare and publish a voluntary Code of Practice for local authorities covering the scope of acceptable political activity by officers at the rank of principal officer and above.
That is precisely what the noble Lord wants and what the code of practice will do. It is far better to do that, than to leave it to the Secretary of State who will change from one political party to another and dictate exactly what he wants. I should have thought that the noble Lord would support the code of practice.
Lord Hesketh: A code of conduct is not something that we believe could usefully be added to the provisions. What we believe we need are clear rules. Those are what Clause 1 will give us and those are what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was referring to. A further code of conduct might, however, be useful if it came from the wishes of local government officers themselves. However, I have to say that to date there has been no initiative to produce one. Perhaps the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will provide a spur to those officers to produce one.
With the next Amendment No. 8, we shall come to voluntary bodies which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, mentioned. I shall not anticipate that debate, except to say that there is a distinction between participating in a voluntary body and using that body as a platform in order to promote a political party.
With regard to the position of local government officers and their involvement in political activity which is not party political, as I have said we shall consult local government about the definitions of the activities to be restricted. The sorts of areas which we shall need to cover will be exactly those described by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
However, even after that has been defined, at the end of the day there will be a requirement for common sense. Beyond that, I feel that it would not be to the benefit of the Committee for me to repeat

827
the arguments concerning our position on a voluntary code, with which I dealt on the previous amendment. I say no more than this. It is for the reason that I gave earlier, that we believe our job is to provide those clear rules at the start, that we resist the amendment to provide a voluntary code.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has been helpful in his reply. I do not think that there is a great deal of difference between the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and noble Lords on this side. He said more than once that what we needed were clear statutory guidelines. I asked for a clear voluntary code of practice. However that may be, as far as possible we want there to be no dubiety about codifying those activities which are acceptable and those which are not. We argue that this should be conceived and brought together not merely by the Secretary of State but by other people.
Interestingly, the Minister said that he and his colleagues had issued an invitation to the local government unions concerned to produce a cock-shy at what they felt was acceptable. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee whether, if and when that was done, tomorrow or next week, it would be accepted. I understand that the reason why local government representatives have not produced such a thing up to now is that they have not been encouraged positively to do so. But if they did, would it be given serious consideration? If I have got that wrong, then of course I apologise to the Minister and his advisers.
However, if the Minister is telling us that, at the end of the day, there will be clear guidelines on what is understood to be "political activity" and what is not, and on the kind of political activities that are tolerable and those which are intolerable in the context of the Bill, then we shall have gone a very long way.
To the best of my knowledge, we have clumsy phrases like "holding office in a political party, speaking or writing publicly on matters of party political controversy" and "canvassing at elections". These are pretty big chunks, but they leave an enormous area of other activities, particularly in an open, voluntary, democratic society. We are not arguing that there is no need in 1990 to have a better understanding, particularly in the light of the last 10 years and the whole changing atmosphere in the relationship between local and central government.
I do not intend to press the amendments, but we shall consider what the Minister has said. Before I sit down, perhaps he will reply as regards his invitation to the local government unions. If his invitation to the local government unions bears fruit and they produce what they believe is a sensible list of activities, will it be treated sympathetically? Can the Minister answer the question?
Lord Hesketh: I must make clear what I said. I said that if a code were forthcoming, it might —I repeat the words to the noble Lord, Lord Graham —be useful. In the light of those circumstances, if it were useful it could well make a useful supplement to the regulations themselves.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am sure that those outside the Committee will be able to read what the Minister has said, as helpfully and usefully as we in the Chamber have heard it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(5A) No requirements prescribed in regulations under subsection (5) above shall be taken to apply to activities undertaken for or on behalf of any voluntary organisation, whether or not such activities relate to any matter of political controversy.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is very appropriate, because it takes up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. Earlier he suggested that there were other outlets for the social conscience of senior local government officers than working for a political party. We agree with that. We think it is true of a number of amendments which we have put down on this subsection of Clause 1. We agree that work for voluntary organisations ought not to be caught by the regulations to be imposed by the Secretary of State. We think that that should apply, even if on occasion —as happens —the work of the voluntary organisations coincides with the objectives of a political party.
After all, it is hardly possible for a voluntary organisation to conduct its activities entirely on the premise that nothing it says will ever be taken up by a political party and used in a political argument. That would be to impose absurd restrictions on the work of voluntary organisations. In practice, many charitably registered voluntary organisations, forbidden by their charitable status from undertaking political activity, still have occasion to campaign, and still find themselves on occasion in agreement with political parties of one persuasion or another.
I could give a very large number of examples, many of which I have been closely involved with on the Water Bill. Many of them are frequently in contact with Members of this House and another place about prospective legislation. They are, for instance: the National Council for Civil Liberties; the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child; Friends of the Earth; Greenpeace; the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the opposite of that —the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not present —SOS, whatever that stands for; the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; the League Against Cruel Sports; the Council for the Protection of Rural England. They have been very active on what might be thought to be political issues in connection with the Water Bill.
The Ramblers' Association is also very active. The RSPCA seeks to put down amendments to Part IX of this Bill. The London Voluntary Service Council is also active. I could go on indefinitely. However, all of these are voluntary organisations. They are restricted by their charitable status from undertaking party political activity; but they have, on occasion, to undertake political activity to exert pressure on a government or a council in power, whether it be Labour or Conservative. In this amendment we seek

829
an assurance that such activity will not be included in the regulations laid by the Secretary of State in Clause 1(5) of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: It is always tempting, when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is so urbane, to agree with him in the interests of harmony, sweetness and light. However, on this occasion, I have to say that this amendment is quite unacceptable. I say that from the standpoint of one who, when I was Secretary of State, spoke to the National Council of Voluntary Organisations on precisely this subject. I believe I made that speech in 1984. It concerned the right of voluntary bodies to take part in political debate, provided they did not breach their charitable status—one is talking primarily here about charities—so as to forfeit the tax relief to which they are entitled as charities. That is of course a matter for the Charity Commissioners and for the Inland Revenue.
However, I was concerned to state the policy of the Government at that time, which was that we did not expect active, concerned voluntary bodies to be political neuters. That speech is on the record and can be examined. I believe that speech was well received by its audience. Nicholas Hinton (who was then the general secretary of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations) expressed concern that there appeared to be growing opposition to that policy. He took the opportunity in a newsletter of drawing the attention of all the member organisations to that point. That is the point from which I start. Therefore, quite clearly the great mass of political activity in which a local government officer may become involved should in no way fall foul of the provisions of this Bill.
However, I was also the Secretary of State for the Environment who had more public money laid out against him than, I suspect, any previous or subsequent Minister. Mr. Livingstone, whom the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will remember with mixed feelings, once boasted that he reckoned that something like £35 million was spent on the campaign in defence of the GLC. That is in an order of magnitude greater than the sums that were spent by any political party in the preceding general election. The majority of that money was not spent on advertising in the national press and on other advertisements and on the hoardings with which we all became so familiar—that mischief has now been dealt with elsewhere, because the rules which apply to government have always been very strict on that—but went to a wide range of so-called voluntary bodies which were perfectly clearly, and had always intended to be campaigning bodies, irrespective of whether they were charities.
I do not know what the sum involved was. If one were to exercise a guess, I would say that probably somewhere between £5 and £10 million was spent by the GLC on advertising per se, and the balance was spent on using the powers under local government legislation to pay sums to voluntary bodies. Some of those bodies were of course perfectly respectable; but I shall not weary the Committee by reminding it of some of the bodies that most emphatically were not.
830
The idea that one should have a blanket exemption from the provisions of this Bill for any local government officer, however senior, provided he is carrying out activities under the guise of a voluntary body, whether or not that is subvented by his local authority, so that he can engage in activities which would clearly be regarded as political, seems unacceptable to me. I honestly do not think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, can have thought this matter through.
The problem is one of definition. I do not think many of us would have too much difficulty in, as it were, recognising which side of the line a body falls on. It is the old problem of trying to define an elephant. Most of us would recognise one if we saw one, but it gets a little difficult if we try to write down a definition of what an elephant is. However, I think one can see the principle here perfectly clearly. As I said earlier, I sought to enunciate to the National Council of Voluntary Organisations that government policy does not mean voluntary bodies have to be political neuters as they can of course take part in political activities. But at the other extreme one has campaigning organisations which clearly should be caught by the provisions of the Bill. I can see that in drawing up regulations in this form, the Government will need to steer a careful line because they do not wish to inhibit political representations by voluntary bodies. There may well be useful contributions to be made to voluntary bodies by local government officials. However, somewhere the line has to be drawn, and it certainly in this amendment is not drawn in the right place.
The amendment would leave a glaring gap in what we all recognise should be the principle by which this part of the Bill is governed. Having seen the matter as it were from both sides in government, I urge the Committee to resist this amendment if it is put to a Division. I hope that my noble friend will add the weight of his arguments explaining why we could not accept this kind of blanket exemption.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: Perhaps it might be appropriate if, from where I sit in the Chamber, I endeavour to draw the careful line to which the noble Lord referred, and draw it betwixt the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on this issue. It seems to me that there is a conflict here which cannot possibly be resolved in a form of words such as an amendment.
As the noble Lord rightly said, there are voluntary bodies and voluntary bodies. Many voluntary bodies start off entirely as voluntary bodies aimed at providing a service, but they rapidly turn into campaigning bodies. I can mention the example of Shelter which came into being as a voluntary body designed and set up in order to provide living accommodation for homeless people. It then, fairly rapidly and inevitably, evolved into a campaigning body designed to conduct campaigns against local housing authorities in order to ensure that housing provision was made.
No one, not even the noble Lord himself, can draw up a list of voluntary bodies and say that some are voluntary bodies which provide a service and others

831
are campaigning bodies. One cannot do that because voluntary bodies constantly shift from one side of the line to the other. Why should they not shift from one side of the line to the other? There are two bodies which exist to provide service and help for one parent families. One is the National Council for One Parent Families which in the main is a campaigning body, and rightly so. It carries out excellent campaigns. The other is Gingerbread, of which I happen to have the honour of being president. That body exists primarily to provide services for one parent families. Those are two different bodies which may each stray on one side or other of the imaginary line which the noble Lord has drawn. I do not think that any Minister or any government can start making lists. An impossible situation would be created if the department or any Minister in this Government or any other were to say that a list of voluntary bodies existed to which it would be quite illegal for a senior local government officer to belong. That would be impossible, and I do not think anyone is suggesting that should happen.
However, to say that membership of any voluntary body whatsoever should be allowed may again cause difficulties. What really matters is how a senior local government officer conducts himself in relation to his membership or otherwise of a particular body. That is what we are concerned with. I do not think anyone in this Chamber, wherever he sits, would defend a senior local government officer playing an active political role in the course of his membership of a voluntary body. That would be improper behaviour and, I believe, ought to be dealt with in this Bill or in some other way. However, I do not believe that it can be provided for wholly by the noble Lord's amendment. Nor can it be provided for by ignoring the matter as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, seemed to suggest. Perhaps he could tell the Committee what we should do. Surely, the noble Lord agrees that it would be an outrageous limitation on the liberties of senior local government officers if they were not permitted to join the CPRE or the Ramblers' Association, for example. That would be intolerable. What does the noble Lord suggest should be done instead in order to control the activities of senior local government officers who happen to be members of voluntary bodies of one kind or another?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The Committee wishes to make progress with the legislation, but I have been asked a question and I shall reply to the noble Lord. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has asked precisely the right question: what activities of a local government officer should be singled out as being on one side of the line? Certainly it is not the nature of the charity. Nor is it the degree to which the charity is itself a campaigning body.
The CPRE has been mentioned. That is a very effective campaigning body. One could not possibly say that it would be wrong for a local government officer to have anything to do with it. However, he should not front it. The CPRE may be involved, for example, in the issue of whether houses should be built on the fringes of towns and whether a new town
832
like that at Hook should be built. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, has left, but I think that he would agree that it would be quite wrong for a senior member of the planning department of a local authority in Hampshire to be involved in such a campaign, even if waged by a voluntary body.
It is the activity of the officer which must be the test. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of the parliamentary draftsman when drawing up the regulations to use a form of words which would make the position clear. As I said earlier, the council or senior executive could then say to an individual, "Watch it, you are getting too near the line". The vast majority of individuals would have a clear sense of duty to the obligations of their office and the authority they serve and would draw back. That is what has been lacking hitherto and what this Bill is intended to provide.
Lord Hayter: I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. However, I should point out that if the amendment is turned down, we are back to the Bill, which is what we should be discussing, and the words:
"incorporate such requirements for restricting his political activities as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
That is what the argument seems to centre around. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, suggests that if the Secretary of State is to make regulations we should know about them and see whether we agree. If we do not agree at least we shall know what the limits are. Does the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, agree with me that at the moment it is the Secretary of State who will bring out those regulations?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I had assumed that that was what we were talking about. We discussed earlier whether there should be a voluntary code of practice or whether there should be a code of practice in addition. An invitation is now being made to local authority bodies to consider whether a code of practice would help. I would assume that this was a matter for the regulations under the Clause 1(5) procedure.
I think we are all agreed that it is not the nature of the voluntary body but the activities of the officers to which the question should be addressed.
Lord Ross of Newport: One further point occurs to me. If we are not careful we shall stop any local government officer of any standing from helping any charitable or voluntary body. Those officers will make the excuse that this Act of Parliament places them in some difficulty and therefore they cannot help. County treasurers or their deputies may help local causes. Chief officers or their deputies may give legal advice freely and willingly. Bank managers often become treasurers of local bodies. If we are to say that there will be problems in defining exactly what is political activity and what is not the situation will be clouded.
Many local government officers who help worthwhile causes throughout the country will take the easy way out and say, "Sorry, I cannot help". That is a tragedy. It has to be considered if the regulations are to make any sense.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment has two features. The first is very praiseworthy: to make it clear that the Government's proposals will not debar local authority staff—even if they are in the politically restricted grades—from worthwhile public activity in many different fields in which some form of public controversy is likely, if not bound, to arise. Voluntary bodies are active in many different fields, and the Government have no intention of trying to restrict the ability of local authority staff to play their role in their local community in any way, as long as what they do does not undermine their impartiality in discharging the duties of their job. In this the position is exactly parallel to that in the politically restricted grades in the Civil Service.
With that we can all sympathise. We cannot sympathise however, with the other feature of this amendment; which ignores the purpose of the proposals in Clauses 1 to 3. The reason why we think that the restrictions on public political activity are essential is that we do not think that someone can simultaneously represent himself as both an impartial expert adviser and a committed active politician. The problems created by trying to fulfil both roles simultaneously are not affected by the stage on which one chooses to play the politician.
That is the flaw that undermines the amendment. It assumes that because the platform is worthy anything done from it must be acceptable. It ignores the fact that many different actions can happen on the same platform. If someone is trying to promote a political party, doing so from the platform of a voluntary body may be very effective: but it does not alter the fact that it is the promotion of a political party.
I must therefore advise the Committee that we think that this amendment is fatally flawed, as indeed are the amendments that follow. We do not think that we can define that which is to be restricted by looking simply at the context; we must look at the intention—at its purpose.
We have said that there are four sets of public political activities that we think should be covered by restrictions. Some of those we think have a very clear, immediate political content: being a candidate for election as a councillor or Member of Parliament; being the officer of a political party; canvassing in favour of a candidate for elective office or for a political party. We do not see how any of those can be other than political. Clearly those are not the sort of activities at which these amendments are aimed. The other category is not, I admit, as clear cut. It is speaking or writing in public on a matter of current political controversy in such a way as to appear to take part in party political debate.
The Committee will remember that over recent years we have spent a significant amount of time debating the correct definition of the types of party political publicity that local authorities should not issue. We consider that there is a legitimate read-across from what local authorities may do to what officers of local authorities in sensitive posts may do publicly. The definition of what constitutes contributing to party political debate must therefore, we think, concentrate on the question of what appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party.
834
When we consult local government on the form of the regulations under Clause 1(5), we shall probably want to draw on that experience in trying to draw the distinction between the legitimate rights of local authority officers to continue to participate in public activities of many kinds and the public political activities that we see as objectionable.
The Committee will no doubt recall the 1986 and 1988 Local Government Acts. There were the Jeremiahs who claimed that our proposals in that field would be the end of effective campaigning by local authorities and voluntary bodies that they supported. I have seen no signs of that now that we have had experience of the legislation. I do not believe that a similar approach in this field will produce the ill-effects which some have predicted.
I can reassure the Committee that our proposals will not restrict the general activities of local government officers in voluntary organisations. The only restraint that they will place upon them will be speaking or writing publicly in a way that appears to contribute to public party political debate. That is all. It is for those reasons that we reject the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: Before my noble friend replies, I must say that I find this argument comes very ill from a Government who appear to have changed the rules that I recall were in operation when I was a Minister. We were told that we were never supposed to refer to ourselves as Labour Ministers. We were Members of Her Majesty's Government and we spoke, as I have always understood it, rather as a mayor speaks; in other words, totally non-politically. We were certainly not allowed to go on any programmes—the Minister an check this point—once we were Members of the Government. In other words, we were paid officers in exactly the same way as some of the people whom we are discussing are paid officers.
However, Members of this Government go on "Any Questions" and "Question Time". Ministers are on every kind of programme. They speak as Conservatives; they do not speak as Government Ministers. So far as I can see, it is exactly the same argument. They are certainly not impartial. They definitely speak on behalf of the party they represent, but they are members of the Government. As I understand it, they are not supposed to do that; but everyone accepts it. However, when it comes to local government, for some reason we must have a different set of priorities. I find the argument confusing and, if I dare say so, slightly hypocritical.
Baroness Blatch: I must take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. We find ourselves in agreement on so many things, but not on this issue. There is a distinction between being a member of a party and a member of Government, and being a member of the Civil Service serving that Government.
The functions of both parties are very different. A government Minister is engaged in determining policy and strategy. The role of the officer is to implement that strategy. Therefore, when a Minister speaks publicly, he is often defending proposed

835
policy, as my noble friend on the Front Bench is doing today. When the policy is enshrined in an Act, he defends that Act publicly. There is therefore a distinction between the roles of a politician in government and of a servant of that Government engaged in implementing policy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In his reply, the Minister referred to the earlier Local Government Act which laid down the controls on party political activity by local authorities. He sought to draw an analogy between that and local government officers. As I believe he was not involved at the time, I should perhaps remind him that that Act went against the recommendations in the interim Widdicombe Report in one significant respect to which the noble Lord referred; namely, Widdicombe did not think —and we did not think—that the intention of the local authority was the proper test. We have always believed that it should be the effect of the local authority's activity rather than the intention of the local authority's activity because intentions are peculiarly difficult to define objectively and accurately.
The Government are now making exactly the same mistake with respect to local government officers' involvement in voluntary organisations. To assert, as the Minister did in his reply, that the intention of the local government officer in participating in the activities of Shelter, the Council for the Protection of Rural England or the Ramblers' Association is the true test and that party political activity on the platform of those organisations should be excluded seems to us wholly wrong. The minimum that the Minister should have stated in reply was that certain organisations, which, because of their charitable status, are excluded from party political activity—we have all been given examples of those—should be excluded from the provisions in the regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is always an interesting former member of the Thatcher Cabinet. As he is carried away in the flood of Thatcherism, he leans out rather more than other people do towards the shores of sanity. On this occasion I certainly thought that he leaned out a little towards the shore of sanity. He reminded us of an admirable speech that he made to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations when he was Secretary of State, but I do not think that in that speech he ever indicated support for the view that is now being put from his Front Bench; namely, that it is a question of the intention of the individual in supporting a voluntary organisation, not the platform used. He was defending the right of voluntary organisations to take up political issues when those issues were inevitably part of the campaigning objectives. That is a right which, as he rightly said, should be preserved. I gladly give way to the Minister.
Lord Hesketh: There are just two small points that I wish to make. I referred to "activity" rather than "intention". In fairness, it is rather hard to expect the Government to respond by referring to a registered charity which is not even mentioned in the amendment and expect them to take a position on it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In due course, we might have to return to the concept of a registered charity. In the long run, that might be the protection that we shall be forced to seek, but it would be very much a fall-back position. Voluntary organisations, more widely defined, have a valid role even if their activities are campaigning and those activities are occasionally in line with the objectives of one or more political parties.
We do not think that the Government have adequately made the case against the amendment. I regret very much that they have taken a line which bodes ill for the regulations that the Secretary of State will impose. In the circumstances, it is best that I take the view of the Committee.
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 90.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Amherst, E.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mais, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

O'Neill of the Main, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Raglan, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Foot, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Willis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Colwyn, L.

Arran, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bauer, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Belstead, L.

Crathorne, L.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Dundee, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Butterworth, L.

Fortescue, E.

Caithness, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Gridley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hesketh, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hives, L.

837

Holderness, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Pender, L.

Hooper, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Prior, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Reay, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Joseph, L.

Rochdale, V.

Keyes, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Killearn, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly

Kinloss, Ly.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Seebohm, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Layton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stockton, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Lothian, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lytton, E.

Swinfen, L.

Margadale, L.

Teynham, L.

Marley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Thurlow, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trafford, L.

Mersey, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Milverton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Morris, L.

Tryon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Orkney, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.44 p.m.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert —
("(5A) The Secretary of State shall, in framing any regulations under subsection (5) above, have regard to the contents of any Code of Practice covering matters relevant to political activities by civil servants.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee, if the noble Lord, Lord Ross, agrees, if I also speak to Amendment No. 21, which has a very similar effect.
The purpose of these amendments, and Amendment No. 10 in particular, is to challenge the Government to confirm—and confirm effectively—statements which have been made twice this evening by the Minister to the effect that the Government are following very closely the Civil Service pattern in seeking to impose these restrictions on sensitive posts. I am bound to say that that is not the way in which it appears to us. We think that the Civil Service code of practice which has been worked out over a considerable period of time with the collaboration of both the management of the Civil Service and the trade unions of the Civil Service is very different in significant ways from what is proposed in this Bill.
On 14th February the Secretary of State said (it is recorded in Hansard at col. 165) that:
"Civil servants do not take part in political activity".
A little later he added (at col. 167) that:
"we are mirroring as far as possible, the very rules that apply for the Civil Service".
It is simply not true to say that civil servants do not take part in political activity. Many civil servants take part in political activity fully in accord with the Civil Service code of practice. Let me expand briefly on the ways in which we believe that the Civil Service
838
code of practice is different from the Government's proposals and the ways in which we think it is better.
First, when it comes to the cut-off point between politically sensitive posts and those which are not politically sensitive, instead of having a simple salary bar, as is proposed in the Bill, the Civil Service has a sliding scale which is applied by grade rather than by level of salary.
Secondly, the Civil Service code of practice provides the possibility of blanket exemptions for whole departments of the Civil Service. They can be excluded from the restrictions on political activity if it is felt that the entire department is so removed from the mainstream of politics (and after all many Civil Service departments are so removed) that it would be onerous and unnecessary to include them in the codes of practice.
There are many local authority departments which fall into exactly that category. Ministers keep talking about the advice given to local authority members by senior civil servants—and by the way, the Minister cannot know much about local government if he thinks that committee clerks give advice to members because it is not committee clerks but the chief officers who give advice to members—but whole chunks of local government service are completely non-political. They do not have connections with members. They may well have connections with the public as, civil servants do. They are caught both because they have links with members of the public and because a number of them are over the £13,500 limit. So the blanket exemption for particular Civil Service departments would be a very great improvement on the proposed restrictions under this Bill.
The third way in which the Civil Service code of practice is different is in relation to appeals, with which no doubt we shall be dealing far too late this evening. The principle of the Civil Service code of practice is that the appeals procedure is open to all whereas the appeals procedure—inadequate as it is even in terms of drafting—is only available (and is also inadequate here in that sense) for those appealing about the salary levels rather than about the sensitivity of the particular post.
Indeed, the Civil Service code of practice, in addition to having appeals open to all, has a tripartite system of appeal whereby the management and the trade unions are involved in the appeal and if the head of department is not satisfied with the judgment of the appeal tribunal, the matter can be resolved by the Minister.
None of those protections which exist for civil servants is proposed for local government staff. Indeed, the Civil Service proviso that if a post is deemed to be politically restrictive there can be an offer of an alternative post is also missing from the Government's proposals. However, the most fundamental difference is that the Civil Service recognises different levels of political sensitivity and therefore sets three different levels of restriction, whereas, although the Bill's proposals are extremely crude, they are also complicated. They provide only "in" or "out" and the same draconian level of restriction either applies in toto, if an officer is "in", or does not apply if the officer is "out".
The Minister's claim that the Government are following closely the Civil Service model is very wide of the mark. The basis of the Civil Service code is that the public should have confidence that civil servants' personal views do not cut across the discharge of their duties. If that were what is proposed here, then we could argue sensibly about the details of the way the restrictions would apply. The plain fact is that the Bill proposes severe restrictions on very large numbers of ordinary local government officers whose posts are such that political activity could in no way cut across the discharge of their duties. I hope that the Minister will not make the claim again, which has been made by himself and his colleagues, that the Bill follows closely the Civil Service code of practice. I beg to move.
Lord Jay: I should like to reinforce briefly the points made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. In answer to my question earlier today about the relationship between these proposals and the situation in the national Civil Service, the Minister appeared to say that all the Bill is doing is applying to local government rules which are already in force in the national Civil Service. I should be extremely surprised to find it true that in the national Civil Service every officer earning over £13,500 a year was placed on a restricted list of this kind. Can the Minister therefore tell us what is the situation in the national Civil Service and whether there is any limit as low as £13,500?
Lord Ross of Newport: I shall be brief because the amendment covers the whole scene. As the Minister will know, the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Winstanley applies to Clause 2 and not Clause 1; otherwise, they are effectively the same. All we are asking the Minister to do is to have due regard to the Civil Service regulations. When he replied to the last debate he mentioned that. I hope that he will accept the amendment; if not in this form, certainly in some other guise.
Baroness Stedman: Can the Minister tell us whether the codes of practice applying to civil servants here apply also to civil servants in Europe? If we are going into a single market in 1992, there will be freedom to move around from one country to another. Will the Government take any note of what happens to civil servants in other countries and in the European Commission?
Lord Hesketh: The effect of Amendment No. 10 is to require the Secretary of State, in framing the regulations under Clause 1(5), to have regard to the contents of any code of practice covering matters relevant to political activities by civil servants.
Amendment No. 21 would remove the definitions of politically restricted posts from the Bill and leave them to be defined in regulations. In drawing up any regulations, the Secretary of State would be required to have due regard to the Civil Service regulations.
It may be helpful if I briefly remind noble Lords of the rules limiting the political activity of officers in the Civil Service. Civil servants are either
840
"politically free", "intermediate" or "politically restricted" according to grade. Staff in the first group are free to engage in any political activity. Those in the second may apply for permission to take part in national or local political activity, apart from adoption as a parliamentary candidate.
Those in the third group are debarred from national political activities, but may apply for permission to take part in local political activities. At that point I should correct the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and inform him that my right honourable friend was referring to the third group when referring to civil servants not engaging in political activity.
The staff rules which apply to individual civil servants are derived from provisions of the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code. The paragraphs in question are Nos. 9923 to 9957 and departments, such as my own, will have incorporated those provisions from the code into the departmental staff rules.
The reason for resisting the amendment is that there are significant differences between the situation of the civil servant in the "politically restricted" or the "intermediate" group from that of a local government officer within the scope of the restrictions of the Bill. It would be wrong to require the Secretary of State to have regard to guidance which is not appropriate to local government. Each case needs to be dealt with in relation to the particular working environment. The regulations we have in mind will address restrictions of local government officers in politically sensitive posts.
To illustrate my point that you cannot directly transplant into the conditions of service of senior local government officers the conditions of service of civil servants, I will give two examples where the Civil Service model needs amendment to suit local government conditions.
The first is that the distinction between political restrictions at national and local level, which is made in the Civil Service, is not appropriate in local government as there can be no question of activities prohibited at national level being permitted at the local level. Secondly, the restriction on writing or speaking in public on matters of political controversy, which applies in the Civil Service, needs relaxation in relation to local government where chief officers, as part of their job, commonly express local government views on such matters.
The Committee will appreciate that while we have looked to the Civil Service code as a precedent, it would be wrong to place a legal requirement to have regard to it in the way suggested by the amendments. The final comment I make concerns Amendment No. 21. We believe that the definitions of politically restricted posts should remain in the Bill. It is not necessary for them to be dealt with by regulations.
Finally, I have said twice this afternoon, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded me, that there is a close—to use that awful phrase, but I cannot think of a better one—twin-tracking on the basis of the proposals that we have alongside those of the Civil Service. There are many reasons why we cannot have them in parallel the whole time. A simple example is that in the Civil Service we have but one

841
employer, whereas in local authorities we have a profusion. We shall never be able to copy it in its entirety; otherwise we should have done so. That is why we resist the amendments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Why does the Minister persistently keep referring to the Civil Service as an example of what ought to be done? He must be aware of the frequent reports that have foundation, that the present Government have been indulging in the practice for some years of promoting Civil Service officers out of turn, based solely in some cases on their total sympathy with the Government's policy. Why does the Minister keep persisting? Is he telling us that the Civil Service is now holier than thou, when it is not?
Lord Hesketh: I am completely unaware in my experience in Government of the last suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. We are discussing the Civil Service because that is the object of the amendment that we are discussing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: All through the debates on these amendments so far, the Minister has kept on referring to the fact that the Government are trying to base this on the Civil Service practice. If the Minister is not aware that the charge that I have made can be sustained, and that it has been made on more than one occasion by responsible people —the charge being that there have been promotions within the Civil Service based mainly on the sympathy of those officers with Government policy—all I can say is that he has not been in politics long enough.
Lord Hesketh: I hope that I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time. I am well aware of the suggestion. I refute it most strongly.
7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would be dignifying the Minister's reply to my amendment to say that it was disappointing. It was almost wholly irrelevant. He repeated the claim that there is an affinity between the proposals for the local government service and those for the Civil Service code of practice. Yet he did not answer one single detailed and major point of difference that I made. He did not answer the point that the Civil Service makes a distinction by grade rather than by an arbitrary salary level.
He did not answer the point about blanket exemptions for non-political departments. He did not answer any of the points about the appeals procedure; its availability to all staff, its nature, the involvement of trade unions and management and the ultimate appeal to the Minister if necessary. Above all, although he referred to the matter, he did not indicate any understanding that the black or white proposals putting government officers either inside or outside the restrictions are inferior to the graded system in the Civil Service.
I do not claim for one moment that the rules for the local government service should be exactly the same as those for the Civil Service. Of course there are differences, some of which the Minister pointed out. In some cases, the proposals for the local
842
government service could be more liberal than those for the Civil Service. However, that is not what the amendment states. It states only that:
"The Secretary of State shall, in framing any regulations … have regard to the contents of any Code of Practice covering matters relevant to political activities by civil servants".
Where there are inevitable differences the Secretary of State could, under the amendment, make and recognise differences in his regulations. He ought to be dealing with the important ways that I have pointed out in which the proposed regulations are inferior to the Civil Service code of practice but to which no reference has been made.
However, it is clear that we shall not deal with those specific issues by seeking to obtain a better comparison with the Civil Service. We must pursue the matter by means of individual amendments regarding the level of exemption, the appeals procedure and so forth. On the basis that we shall return to the substantive issues, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: Members of the Committee may find this a suitable moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage of the Bill at 8 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Human Organ Transplants Bill
7.3 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Human Organ Transplants Bill did not feature in the Government's legislative programme this Session but was introduced as a consequence of certain incidents in January this year which the Government considered to be repugnant. The Bill has been drafted in order to deal specifically with problems which could arise following allegations that kidneys from paid donors from another country had been transplanted at a London hospital, and to combat the threat of a foreign national setting up an agency in the United Kingdom to recruit live donors for payment.
It is the Government's view that trading in human organs or any other human material is abhorrent in a civilised society and is to be condemned. I am pleased to inform the House that this view is shared by many of those in another place who have taken no side in supporting the principles underlying the Bill which, in my view, transcend party lines. The main purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to prohibit commercial dealings from taking place in Great Britain involving human organs intended for transplant.
The Bill deals with a particular problem which demands urgent action and it is the Government's hope that Parliament will enact the Bill at the earliest possible opportunity. It is also our intention upon enactment that the accompanying regulations will

843
be ready for presentation to Parliament as soon as possible thereafter.
The Human Organ Transplants Bill is short—containing just seven clauses—but its brevity belies its importance. The Bill is intended to make a clear, unambiguous distinction between what is and what is not acceptable concerning a particular aspect of health care provision; to protect the vulnerable from becoming subjects of economic, social or emotional pressures; to demonstrate the Government's determination to deal quickly and effectively with a particularly abhorrent practice; and to safeguard the present voluntary organ donor system.
The main features of the Bill lie in its first three clauses. Clause 1 would make it a criminal offence for anyone in Great Britain to participate in dealings involving payment for the supply of human organs intended for transplanting. That applies whether the organ is obtained from a dead or living person, even if the removal of the organ, or its transplantation, were to take place in a foreign country. It would also be a criminal offence under this clause to publish or distribute in Great Britain advertisements relating to commercial trade in human organs. This would include for example advertising by telephone, unsolicited mail, or cable TV.
The Bill is quite clear about payment in regard to supplying or procuring organs, and defines payment as "payment in money or money's worth". However, the Bill would not prevent the reimbursement of legitimate and reasonable expenses incurred in removing, transplanting or preserving the organ to be supplied for a voluntary donation falling with the law. It would also be unreasonable to expect a live donor to incur loss of earnings, or to meet the cost of medical care and other expenses, which were directly attributable to his supplying an organ from his own body and the Bill would allow these expenses to be paid or met.
The maximum penalties specified in the Bill are consistent with penalties prescribed in other legislation for comparable offences; for example, those provided under the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. It may be argued that these penalties are not in themselves a sufficient deterrent. I maintain, however, that in the case of the professions, particularly doctors, the risk to their careers if found guilty of an offence could be devastating.
Clause 2 would prohibit transplants taking place between persons who are not genetically related. This clause is, however, subject to certain exemptions. We have in mind here, for example, the possibility of donations between spouses and between parents and their adopted children. Clause 2 would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations which would provide exemptions to the prohibition in cases where an authority, which would be specified in regulations, is satisfied that conditions, again set out in the regulations, had been complied with before such transplants are carried out. The regulations will provide that in every case the authority must be satisfied that no payment prohibited by the Bill has been made. The Bill provides for these regulations to be subject to affirmative order procedure.
844
The Bill has been drafted to permit organ transplants between close relatives which at present form the great majority of transplants in this country. The existence of a close genetic relationship—as opposed to other forms of relationship—can be supported by laboratory testing. Also, the motives of a donor who is a relative are likely to be altruistic. Genetic relationship are to be determined through tests to be specified in regulations rather than included in the body of the Bill. This is a sensible measure because regulations are more flexible and will enable specific changes to be made in the light of any future developments in the technology of the tests.
Preparation of the regulations under the Bill will be undertaken following consultation with the medical professions and other bodies. Conditions would be specified in regulations, which the authority will have to satisfy itself have been complied with, concerning proposed transplants from live donors into non-related recipients. The work will include reviewing existing guidance and codes of practice prepared by bodies such as the British Transplantation Society (whose guidelines are followed by most surgeons carrying out live donor transplants) the BMA and the International Transplantation Society.
These conditions may also need to be reviewed at intervals so that account may be taken of developing technology and changes in operating the conditions. Once established, the tasks of considering the need for amending the regulations would fall to the authority. We envisage that the authority, which we propose to call the Unrelated Live Transplant Regulatory Authority (ULTRA), would be an independent body which would consider information provided by clinicians where transplantation between non-related live donors and recipients is proposed.
Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring a specified person to supply information about live and cadaveric transplants to an authority specified in regulations and for the same authority to maintain records of such transplants. The authority specified in the regulations related to this clause is expected to be the health authority. It has still to be decided whether this task should be for the regional or district health authority. These activities will be quite distinct from those carried out by ULTRA. Failure to comply with the regulations or knowingly to supply false or misleading information would attract monetary penalties.
These statutory measures were included in the Bill following representation by leading members of the medical profession that a complete record of all organs donated to the NHS should be mandatory.
Clause 4 provides for circumstances in which, if a corporate body is found guilty of an offence under the Bill, individual officers may also be guilty. The effect of this clause is that directors, managers and senior officers of a hospital, for example, must ensure that its staff are aware of the prohibitions under the Bill and take steps to see that the facilities of the hospital are not used for purposes contrary to the Bill.

845
Clause 5 provides that proceedings for an offence under Clauses 1 or 2 of the Bill may not be instituted in England or Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is aimed at preventing frivolous private prosecutions.
Clause 6 will enable the provisions of the Bill to be extended to Northern Ireland by an Order in Council subject to negative procedures.
Clause 7 includes the definition of an organ, for the purposes of the Bill, as,
"any part of a human body consisting of a structured arrangement of tissues which, if wholly removed, cannot be replicated by the body."
This definition is limited to reflect the specific purpose of the Bill. The limitation should not be taken to imply that the Government condone commercial dealing in any other human material.
Finally, I should like to say a few brief words about voluntary organ donation. It is the department's aim to increase the number of organ donor card holders and thus the number of organs so that the need for long term dialysis regimens, for example, will become less and less and eventually dialysis machines will be used to stabilise most patients for only a short time before proceeding to transplant.
The department is active in seeking ways to increase public awareness of the voluntary donor card system and, in particular, to encourage those with a card to discuss their wishes with relatives and encourage people generally to talk about donation and the idea of helping others after death. It takes time, however, before the benefits of these initiatives begin to bear fruit. But allowing trade in human organs to develop, as a means of reducing waiting lists, is an expedient which the Government could never support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Henley.)
7.14 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his clear explanation of the Bill. Secondly, I make it clear that on these Benches we support the measures and do not intend to table any amendments. That is to ensure a rapid completion of the parliamentary stages of the Bill in order that it may become law at the earliest possible moment.
When the Bill came through another place there were no objections from Members of Parliament of Labour persuasion. In fact, the only objection came from the Conservative Benches. Without doubt, the case for this Bill has been clearly made both in another place and in the speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord.
I believe that from all points of view there is something deeply objectionable about selling one's organs for profit. Of course, I take a totally different view in terms of donating organs to assist a relative or anyone else in need. Also, the idea of selling blood is something which I find as objectionable as selling organs. In the United Kingdom the system of blood donation has always been voluntary. In the United States where the private sector is paramount, there is not the same objection to the selling of blood.
This Bill is largely in line with European practice and opinion. It is in general accord with any relevant
846
legislation, agreements or regulations currently operating within Europe. The United Kingdom is party to the Council of Europe's resolution which commends member states to prohibit the supply of human organs for reward. The UK was also party to the agreement at the Council of Europe's conference of European health ministers in November 1987 that commercialisation of organ procurement, exchange and transplantation activities are to be avoided.
My only criticism of the Government—I gave notice to the Minister that I would be mentioning this—is that they have been so slow to take action in spite of calls from the Labour Benches in another place. The Labour health spokesman in another place, Mrs. Harriet Harman, has done a great deal of research into this situation and has drawn attention to the scandal which came to light, not a few months ago, but in 1985.
The 1985 scandal caused public shock and horror. I should like to paraphrase what my honourable friend said about it on Second Reading. A Pakistani man was flown into London from Lahore and was paid £2,000 for his kidney. It was transplanted to a private patient in the private Devonshire Hospital. At the beginning of this year reports emerged of private patients receiving kidneys from Turks who had been brought to this country to be operated on having agreed to sell a kidney. The National Kidney Centre, a private agency under the medical directorship of Dr. Raymond Crockett, provided a Turkish gentleman with a letter to smooth his way through immigration saying that he was visiting a relative in London who was undergoing a kidney operation. In fact, he was coming to sell his kidney so that it could be transplanted at the Humana Wellington Hospital into an Israeli doctor.
An advertisement then appeared in an Egyptian newspaper offering £10,000 to live kidney donors. The advertisement included Dr. Crockett's name and telephone number. Reports then appeared saying that a kidney taken from a British NHS donor had gone not to one of the thousands of British patients on the waiting list for a life-saving transplant but to a Greek patient who had gone to the Humana Wellington Hospital for a transplant.
In view of the fact that kidneys for sale were back in the news following the scandal of 1985, the Government were under pressure to commission reports. The Bloomsbury District Health Authority was asked to investigate the Humana Wellington Hospital. The Department of Health's letter said that Turkish peasants were duped into donating kidneys. The Barnet District Health Authority was to investigate the National Kidney Centre and the Camberwell District Health Authority was to look into the misuse of a kidney destined for someone on the National Health Service waiting List. However, the Government refused to disclose even in general terms the finding of those investigations.
It will not have escaped notice that all these secret goings on were not, I am proud to say, in National Health Service hospitals but in private hospitals. That is not good enough. It is a reflection on the standards observed. I shall not go into the details of the reports which I have briefly touched upon. They have never been published. The contents never appeared until they came into the hands of my

847
honourable friend in another place. It is very unsatisfactory that reports properly commissioned by health authorities on issues which eventually lead to legislation should still be kept secret.
I should like to ask the Minister several questions of which I have given him notice. First, why were these three reports not published? Secondly, why did the Government wait until 1989 to introduce legislation and why were they not worried about this situation, which they knew about some years ago? Thirdly, were there other recommendations in these reports on which action could have been taken and had any of those recommendations already been implemented? Fourthly, will the department now publish these reports as, in my view, they already ought to have been published?
The actions of the two consultants, Mr. Bewick and Mr. Crockett, and the private hospitals involved are now under investigation by the GMC. Can the Minister inform the House of the state of those investigations? Have any charges been brought? Are the investigations continuing? Will a public statement be made about the investigations?
I have one more question. Does the Minister believe that these scandalous cash-for-organs events could have taken place in the National Health Service as opposed to the private sector? Is there not a natural link between a market in health care and a market in human organs? The purpose of the Bill is to see that in future there is no market for human organs, but I should like to have the Minister's view on whether this scandalous situation could have occurred in the National Health Service.
Certainly, like the noble Lord, I warmly support the kidney transplantation programme and I applaud the work over the years of the National Federation of Kidney Patients Associations. Only yesterday, by the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I met many of those who are under treatment. The problems they face are enormous. Those of us who know people who are being subject to dialysis are aware of the misery through which they must go for long periods of time. The facility of transplanting kidneys has given a new lease of life to thousands of people. In so far as we know the suffering of those under dialysis, we also know the joy of those who have benefited from a transplant and who now lead a marvellously open life.
I remember giving a party some years ago—I think when I was Secretary of State—for a number of young women who brought their babies with them to indicate their state of health. It was a situation which could never have occurred without the benefit of transplants. It is a marvellous development. There is also a marvellous development in drug therapy which I believe, eventually, will lead to a much better situation. At present, about 1,500 transplants a year are carried out—which I believe is marginally more than was the case 10 years ago—but about 3,500 people are now waiting for a kidney transplant and there is a serious shortage of donor organs. Dialysis is both costly and unpleasant for patients. It costs the NHS about £15,000 a year. The NHS spends about £60 million a year treating kidney patients.
Like the noble Lords, I warmly support the donor card system. Of course, it requires positive
848
affirmation. I understand that about 14 million cards were distributed in 1988. At Second Reading in another place, on 8th June, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Freeman, hinted at the possibility of legislation in the field of voluntary kidney donation. For myself, I would support legislation which changed the present practice of kidney donation to an opt-out procedure, rather than a opt-in procedure. Therefore, when people die in road accidents, unless they have clearly indicated that they do not wish their organs to be used for the life-saving benefit of other patients, it will be assumed that they are willing to donate their kidneys. That would overnight transform the situation and not for long would there be a waiting list.
I would support such legislation, and we know from opinion polls that many people have indicated support for such a procedure. I would rather be welcoming that legislation than this Bill, necessary though it is. It would produce a massive easing of the plight of those suffering from kidney failure. There would also be a saving of NHS resources and that is an objective in which we are all interested.
There is another legislative approach that would increase the availability of organs for donation, without going as far as I have just suggested. This comes from a memorandum prepared by the British Medical Association on revised ethical guidelines on the transplant of tissues and organs. I refer to two paragraphs. I quote:
"There have been suggestions that the UK should institute a system of 'required request', that is, that doctors should be required by law to ask for the consent of relatives of all suitable potential donors for permission to remove organs. This would not allow the doctor to observe any sensitivity relating to his knowledge of the patient's specific objections, or religious beliefs. We believe that this will cause additional pain and distress to a number of the recently bereaved and should be avoided".
That is one route to be avoided.
"The Association accepts that organs are not obtained from the maximum number of potential donors."
I think we all accept that.
"This is almost certainly due to the difficulty which some doctors experience in discussing the issue of organ donation with relatives."
That is a subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, may touch.
The BMA continues:
"We believe that doctors have an ethical obligation to seek such permission where there is a potential donor and where they know of no reason to suppose that their approach will cause further pain and distress to the relatives. Where the doctor has not the personal knowledge and skill to approach the relatives in person, he/she must ensure that the approach is made by a doctor with those skills."
I have quoted those two paragraphs partly to indicate that there are problems, and partly to indicate that I believe we should not just carry out a closing of the door operation. We have a responsibility, in closing one door, to open another. The department should be considering a range of proposals, including the kind of Bill that I said I would support. I hope the department will look at all proposals, because if we can do something positive then, as I said earlier, we might bring about a massive easing of the plight of those who suffer from kidney failure. That is a responsibility that we should accept in this House. However, I willingly support this Bill, as late and as inadequate as it is.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for introducing this Bill and explaining its provisions with such brevity and clarity. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, may indeed be right in suggesting that there was some regrettable delay before the Government finally decided to take action on the deplorable and scandalous events which came to light and which were described by the noble Lord.
However, this admirable little Bill, the way it has proceeded through Parliament hitherto and the way in which I believe it will continue to proceed on its way to the statute book henceforth, provides an example of the fact that, when necessity so dictates, our political machinery in this country is perfectly capable of acting effectively and extremely rapidly. One sometimes wishes that certain other complicated matters could be finalised with the same rapidity.
On the general matter of transplants and human organs for transplantation purposes, I genuinely believe that the shortage of human organs for transplant purposes is a tragic and unnecessary human problem. It necessarily follows that I would do anything possible to encourage, and make more available, organs for transplantation purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, rightly said that one need only speak to a patient who has been on regular dialysis because of renal failure, to realise all that that involves for the patient, the patient's family, the hospital staff, the vast expense that it involves, and in particular the extremely unpleasant life in being tied to a machine day in, day out, for month after month.
Yesterday many of us had the remarkable experience of talking to some of these patients, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, after the patients had been relieved of a burden by a successful renal transplant. It is enormously encouraging to see a human being full restored to health, vigour and happiness and to recognise that a burden has been lifted from human shoulders in that remarkable way. One regrets very deeply that human organs are not more readily available.
It necessarily follows that I shall support proposals that will possibly lead to them becoming more readily available. However, I am not sure that this is the appropriate time at which to ventilate that subject. I have no wish to raise any controversial matters that could in any way imperil the passage of this Bill, which I believe should reach the statute book as quickly as possible. I do not wish to encourage people to try to amend or alter the Bill in other ways so that it deals with other functions. So far as I am concerned the Bill as it stands is entirely satisfactory.
I have no doubt that if I tried hard I could find some defects in it and possibly suggest some improvements, but I am not going to try to. I am very glad that, in deciding how to deal with this matter, the Government have agreed to deal quite sensibly and liberally with allowable expenses. I am sure that is necessary and proper. Any person who regularly gives blood to the transfusion service would feel deeply upset and outraged if he or she were
850
suddenly deprived of his or her cup of tea, because it is regarded as a proper reward for having turned up. I am very glad that this legislation has been drawn in such a way that it remains perfectly possible to pay necessary out-of-pocket expensers to people who come forward to give this splendid service to their fellow creatures.
Clause 2 deals with genetically-related donors, and I am glad that it is drawn fairly loosely. We are in a situation at the moment in which medical science is advancing so rapidly that had this cluse been drawn extremely tightly with no provision made for exceptions, we should have found that medical advances had overtaken us. It would then have become necessary to make certain changes.
I do not believe that anyone can look other than with horror at the outrageous events which have led to this Bill coming forward. The idea of human organs being purchased in the way that they were is scandalous and macabre. It is something that should not happen in a civilized country. Whether it happens in a private or public hospital or elsewhere I care not. It should not happen. I hope that this Bill will ensure that it does not happen. In addition, I hope that, while we are speeding this Bill on its way, we shall do what we can in parallel to make sure that human organs become more readily available for transplantation purposes. I believe that the impediments to that provision at the moment are much less real than imaginary. I believe that many of them can be overcome. I hope that this small Bill reaches the statute book very quickly indeed.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. I must declare an interest, because this is a field in which I exercise my professional activities. I deprecate and deplore the circumstances that give rise to this Bill. I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that the Bill will help to prevent similar recurrences in the future. I believe it is extremely unlikely that such things could happen in the National Health Service, which is one of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked. I shall not press my noble friend the Minister today on the subject of the reports, because disciplinary proceedings or inquiries are taking place and it would therefore be improper to inquire further into the nature of reports which, if made public, might prejudice those proceedings. It will be a totally different matter if the proceedings are completed shortly, as they probably will be, then to request their publication.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure that he will accept that I would not expect the Minister to give any information that could in any way be in breach of the inquiries now being conducted. I simply wish to know the state of the art at the moment. I shall not be pressing the Minister to go beyond what he has already said.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that because I agree with the noble Lord on that point. I join the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in welcoming the Bill unreservedly. I wish, like him, that I could say that on many other occasions as

851
regards many other Bills that come before us. It would make life easier all round. But many of them are more complicated.
I do not believe that the brevity of this Bill should allow us to underrate the difficulty of obtaining professional agreement in all fields in producing such a Bill. It is not easy. I know the noble Lord made a point about the time factor. To get everything right on this kind of occasion is terribly important. Working in this field I know that a great deal of discussion has gone into getting the wording and agreement on the basic principles right in order to stop a repetition of recent events and to look to the future as regards the management of transplantation.
I welcome this Bill unreservedly. I wish to raise a couple of points. As regards Clause 2, I believe that the question of genetically-related persons is a very interesting one. It raises as many moral as medical questions. In many respects a doctor is no better qualified to come to conclusions than any other person. These questions concern relationships between people; the rectitude of live donor transplant patients; whether people should or should not be donors and how one operates the mechanism of achieving a live donor transplantation.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was a little more cautious than the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in making his comments about live donors. Perhaps as a doctor he is aware that, for all kinds of reasons, it is not always easy to effect a live donor transplantation arrangement. Not the least of those reasons is the fact that one has to leave an escape clause for a donor who changes his or her mind. That can and sometimes does happen. At the same time one does not wish to destroy the relationship which may previously have existed.
There are a number of social, moral and medical considerations that make matters difficult. I believe that my noble friend Lord Henley dealt with the three questions that I wanted answered. I assume that at the present moment the genetically related will be tested by HLA testing or something similar as well as by blood group. I assume that the Clause is phrased in such a way that future technological changes will allow any other form of genetic matching (whether it is fingerprinting or anything else) to establish the relationship.
I was very glad to see that the clause allows exemptions. There are two particular circumstances not mentioned in the Bill but mentioned by my noble friend. The first is spouses and the second the extended family. The latter is a term that is open to various interpretations. In the changing society that we have, particularly in some of our bigger cities, we shall have to give consideration to this kind of situation in relation to transplants and the acceptability of live donor transplantation.
I welcome Clause 3 and the registration of all NHS activities in this field being made mandatory. On previous occasions I have expressed my total support for the National Health Service. Having worked in this area for so many years I should be horrified if there were any irregularities of the kind that have given rise to this type of legislation.
852
I welcome very much what my noble friend said concerning the programmes and plans that he may have to promote organ donation. Again probably because he is a doctor the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was slightly more cautious than the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. This is not a simple matter. Personally, I am not in any way totally sold on this opt-in type of legislation. I can see many difficulties and hazards. The noble Lord read from the BMA handout an example of the anxiety and distress that may be caused by so-called "required requests". Equally, there are problems with opting in and opting out. However great one's sympathy may be for people in renal failure who need transplants, one must also consider a whole range of other people —their rights, the rights of their families, and so on. There are considerable difficulties.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that there are also problems when one is faced with a patient in an intensive care unit who is a potential donor, or a patient who a doctor may have reason to believe would wish to be a donor but whose relatives cannot be contacted. The patient may have appeared out of the blue. It is a terrible dilemma. Those are the problems that arise on the ground, and, just like the live donor example which I gave just now, those are difficulties which occasionally occur.
I should add for those who are interested that required request—if that is not a contradiction in terms—has been operated with some success on a voluntary basis in various areas. We know from experience in other countries that required request produces an increase in donor kidneys. In certain states in the United States where required request has been introduced the number of donor kidneys increased, although the number may have increased for other reasons. In my view we should look carefully at required request because it is a very much better line to pursue than any of the opt-in proposals. However, we would have to consider exemptions on religious grounds, and so on.
Like everybody else, I should like to see more donors, more transplants and more relief given to the renal services system. One of the largest blocks in this field is the shortage of donors. I therefore support guardedly—perhaps I may be somewhat arrogant and say "with some experience"—statutory intervention in this area. Nonetheless, I would encourage my noble friend to pursue his known interest and support for these programmes.
To return to the Bill, I support it unreservedly and congratulate my noble friend on the clarity with which he introduced it.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, when I expressed an intention to speak on this Bill I thought that I might have to provide some Byzantine way of introducing the single point that I wanted to make. However, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, spared me that in the latter part of his speech. He repeated and paraphrased what his honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State Mr. Freeman, said in Standing Committee A in another place. It is worthwhile quoting what Mr. Freeman said in

853
connection with the point that I want to make. He said (at cols. 16–17 of the Official Report of Standing Committee A on 8th June 1989):
"When the Committee and the House make progress and the legislation is enacted, I shall turn the attention of the Department of Health to a conference in the autumn on the voluntary donation of cadaveric organs to improve supply".
He went on to say:
"I should like to chair a conference later this year in which all parties involved in voluntary donation of organs can discuss what steps need to be taken to improve supply".
All noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have agreed that an increase in the number of donors is needed. My noble friend Lord Ennals quoted figures which were also given by Mr. Freeman. Between 3,000 and 3,500 people are on the waiting list for kidneys even though there are 1,500 transplant operations a year. Mr. Freeman continued:
"Further improvements in the quality and quantity of voluntary donations are my top priority. I shall take all possible administrative steps and, if necessary, make representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the practical and statutory steps that may have to be taken".
I welcome the Bill and hope to speed it on its way. Nevertheless, an important issue seems to have been covered up. Every speaker referred to the need for more donors and more donations. What is in the way? What is the obstacle? I gave the Minister an idea of what I would say on the Bill, and I raised it with his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, some 18 months to two years ago. Is it not the case that of the donations made only a small proportion come from those who wish to give them? Is it not the case that donations from those holding donor cards is not very high when compared with the number of people holding donor cards? What is the obstacle?
We are all agreed that we need an increase in the supply of donations. We are also agreed that we need an increase in the number of donors. This could be achieved and I believe that the Government want it to be achieved, They have certain measures in mind which I do not think are adequate for increasing that supply.
When one becomes a donor one does not automatically know that one's card will be honoured. The card simply requests that a person's organs be donated. I discovered from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that, although the card is a legal document, the practice of the medical profession is to consult relatives. I strongly object to that on two grounds. I object, first, because this reduces the number of donations from those who have expressed their wishes about what should happen to their bodies. Secondly, I object to the whole concept that anyone other than the donor has a right to determine what should happen to his body after death. If we want more donations it should be law that, irrespective of what anybody else thinks, an individual has the right to make those donations. If one believes, as I do as a matter of principle, that one's body belongs to oneself and that what happens to it after death is solely one's responsibility, this reference to relatives should be removed.
I hope that it will be removed either by the Government or by a Private Member's Bill. As the
854
Minister will know, there has been much discussion about this in the United States. My noble friend Lord Ennals put forward a suggestion for an increase in the number of donors and in donations; that is, the opting-out system instead of the opting-in. I support him totally on that suggestion.
However, in my view, one needs to do more. I say that because, if the practice continues that the donation of organs cannot be confirmed without some reference to the relatives, then you are really doing two things. First —and I am sure that all doctors here present would support me on this—in the case of many donations time is of the essence. Unless those donations are made immediately, or very shortly after death, they are of no use. That is especially true as regards certain organs. The reference to relatives delays the availability of that donation.
It is also well-known that we carry donor cards in our wallets. But, in the case of accidents, how many people are examined to see whether they have a donor card? I suggest, in addition to the suggestion of my noble friend as regards the opting-out system, that the Government look seriously at the matter and that they consult with the relevant organisations involved to see whether there is a better way than simply holding a donor card, which would indicate quickly, immediately, that the person killed in an accident had expressed the desire that his or her organs be donated.
For instance, I suggest that one could consider a small tattoo mark on the wrist. That would be permanent and a visible indication in the case of an accident. However, that is only one suggestion and, of course, there may be many others. But, the central issue, to which I should like the noble Lord to address himself when he comes to wind-up the debate, is whether the Government stand by the right of the individual to donate his or her organs, irrespective of the wishes of anyone else; or, whether they will continue with what I understand is the general medical practice of allowing relatives to put a veto on the donation which has already been determined by the individual concerned.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene briefly. I think that he should be aware of the real situation rather than an unreal one. He referred to the right of the individual to determine what happens to his organs. The individual has no such right.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch said that his body belonged to him. It does at the moment, but as soon as he dies it does not. The instructions which he leaves regarding the disposal of his body have no validity whatever under the present law. The decision is taken by his next of kin. One would, of course, expect them to take note of any wish which had been expressed. However, in order for the kind of thing to happen which the noble Lord requests —and I have no doubt it would be immensely helpful—there would have to be fundamental changes in the current law. I merely wished to emphasise the fact that, at present, the law is not as the noble Lord would wish it to be.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for what he said. If he is right—and I do not know whether he is—then he is simply reinforcing my case for new legislation. But, as I understood the answer I received from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—although the conversation took place some time ago now—it suggested that in law the individual had the right to donate organs and that relatives did not have the right to intervene; but that that was, however, the general practice. I hope that the noble Lord can clear up the matter when he comes to reply.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, one of the noble Lord's problems, as regards why donors do not end up donating their kidneys, is this. If the noble Lord wishes to donate, he must die in the right place, at the right time, in the right conditions, of the right diseases, in the right hands and in suitable circumstances. That is the difficulty with regard to the wishes of the donor and donor cards. Forty million cards are carried. One million people may die, but only a few end up donating their kidneys. It is the sheer complication of the situation. It has nothing to do with the relatives' permission, or otherwise. On that latter point, he may think he stands alone. But my view of a man is that he stands in relationship to his family and he should not forget that fact, even in death.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord said. However, I am not just talking about the donation of kidneys. In fact, I went into the matter legally and discovered that the only way in which one can donate one's body for medical research is to put that request in one's will. Again, this is a legal matter and I wish to give the Minister the chance to wind up the debate. Nevertheless, I hope that he will be able to answer some of those questions.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he said. It is indeed gracious of him to give me time to wind up the debate. We had a most interesting Second Reading debate. I welcome the support we have received from all sides of the House for what I call, and what others have called, a small but useful measure. I should probably make the best use of my time—although I think we are likely to continue beyond eight o'clock—if I tried to answer as many as possible of the questions which have been put to me by noble Lords in the course of the debate. Perhaps I may say, in passing, that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I must thank him for giving me notice of various questions he wished to raise.
The noble Lord asked first why we have not published the reports from Bloomsbury, Barnet and Camberwell health authorities. Those reports were passed to us in strict confidence. The matters they deal with are the responsibility of the health authorities. Moreover, we are satisfied that inquiries have been properly conducted.
The noble Lord then asked why there had been this delay between 1985 and 1989 before we introduced legislation. The 1985 allegations concerned people
856
who, as the noble Lord said, came from the Indian sub-continent, bringing live donors with them who were allegedly paid for their organs. It was decided that legislation was not an appropriate course of action as any payment would almost certainly have been made outside the United Kingdom. It would therefore have been impossible to obtain proof of any financial transaction. Alternative action, which was warning the private hospitals by letter that they could lose their registration if they were found to have been involved in such practices, was therefore taken.
The current allegations, which emerged earlier this year, were different as the alleged donors and recipients were not from the same countries and appeared to have been brought together here. It therefore seems probable that at least some financial transactions would have taken place in this country. There is also the concern about the threat by a German national to set up an agency to buy and sell organs in this country. Legislation in that case therefore seemed to be an effective way of dealing with such matters. The Bill was introduced to stamp out such practices.
The noble Lord then asked whether there were other recommendations contained in the reports upon which action could be taken. As I said, the reports are confidential and we cannot reveal their contents. He also asked whether we would now publish the reports. Again, that is a matter for the health authorities because the reports belong to them.
The noble Lord also asked about the state of investigations into the case of Dr. Crockett and Mr. Bewick. As my noble friend Lord Trafford has already pointed out, it is known that inquiries are under way. However, they are a matter for the General Medical Council and the timetable is in its hands.
Finally, the noble Lord asked whether we believed that cash-for-organs events could have taken place in the National Health Service. It is obviously impossible to be certain that no one has benefited financially from donating an organ within the National Health Service. However, we think that is most unlikely, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Trafford.
It must be remembered that the vast majority of transplants are from dead donors. In the National Health Service, all such organs are obtained via the United Kingdom Transplantation Service. The great majority of live organ transplants carried out in the National Health Service are between genetically-related people whose relationship will generally have been established in the course of verifying their compatibility for the purpose of transplantation. The patient and his family will be known to hospital staff. We believe it unlikely that a relative would be involved in a commercial transaction for the organ.
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Hatch, made various suggestions how to increase the supply of organs. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, dealt with what I think we can call opting out. Our position remains that the gift of an organ is an altruistic gift. It is a positive statement of intent. Without a positive

857
statement of intent to donate by patients, an assumption that they are willing for their organs to be removed, because there is no record of them opting out, would be wrong and would add unreasonably and unnecessarily to the distress of their relatives.
The noble Lord also mentioned required requests which were discussed in another place. The Hoffenberg working party advised us that there was a better approach than required-request legislation. We have put the measures that it suggests into action. We intend to give them time to work before we consider other proposals. Several American states have enacted required-request legislation in recent years; there is no clear evidence that such legislation has a sustained impact on donation which cannot be achieved by alternative means.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, went on to the question of the enforceability of donor cards. The problem is that doctors would not insist that organs should be removed from a donor if the relatives objected. Relatives' views should be respected even though, in law, the donor's wishes, as he has made them known by signing a donor card, could be enforced. A further problem arises in that adverse publicity could result from any such enforcement against the relatives' wishes.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord was right, but there seemed to be evidence from his noble friends and my noble friends that once the body is dead the donor's views are no longer relevant. It would be helpful to have a clarification of the law.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my advice is that the donor's wishes could be enforced. My understanding always was that on the death of the individual, his wishes had no further effect. Whatever the position, doctors would rather not start removing organs against the wishes of the donor's relatives, because of the danger of adverse publicity which might in the long term do much greater harm to the whole principle of voluntary organ donation.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, could find a way round his problem by putting clauses into his will, suggesting to his relations that they might benefit only if they perform certain actions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that would be selling them. That is what the Bill is against.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I leave that to him and the advice that he obtains from his solicitors. My noble friend Lord Trafford asked about tests to establish relationship. We are consulting the medical profession about details of the tests that will be used. Those details will be set out in the regulations. We expect them to be a combination of blood tests and DNA tests. As I said in my opening remarks, due to technological changes we feel that they are best put into regulations and not enacted.
I should say a few words about donor cards which were mentioned by several noble Lords. They are obviously important in terms of increased supply, which every noble Lord has mentioned. It is the
858
department's aim so to increase the number of organ donor cards—thus the number of organs—that the need for long-term dialysis, for example, will decrease and that eventually, as I said in my opening remarks, dialysis machines will be used for fairly short periods only.
We are already actively introducing measures to achieve that aim, following the report of the Royal Medical Colleges and the working party under the chairmanship of Sir Raymond Hoffenberg in December 1987. In December 1988, we issued a health circular (HC88/63) asking health authorities to report by the end of June 1989 confirming that their procedures for identifying potential organ donors have been drawn up. The circular also requests that authorities record all deaths in intensive care and submit completed forms for analysis centrally of the potential availability of organs, as well as giving reasons why suitable organs were not used for transplants.
The first results of that two-year audit period will not become known before the end or the year. We have also increased the department's publicity expenditure to £200,000 to increase public awareness of organ donation. In 1988, some 14 million donor cards were distributed, which is 9 million more than the previous year and in collaboration with the Healthcare Foundation we began an initiative to make donor cards available to High Street stores.
We shall shortly be releasing a video and new publicity displays for use by transplant co-ordinators who perform valuable education and publicity work. Some new leaflets are already available.
As I said, this is a small but important measure. I welcome the support that it has received from all sides of the House. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Local Government and Housing Bill
8.6 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(5A) No requirements prescribed under subsection (5) above shall be taken to apply to participation in or support for any campaign or activities not organised by a political party, notwithstanding that the matter to which any such campaign or activities may relate may be politically controversial.").
The noble Lord said: The Minister has previously alluded correctly to the fact that we are engaged in discussing a series of amendments dealing with aspects of the search for truth about those activities and individuals who will be caught by the Government's decision in respect of the Bill. We are trying to coin from the Government something that will satisfy us that it is right and proper to be punitive. We are talking about officers who involve themselves in:
"participation in or support for any campaign or activities not organised by a political party".
On an earlier amendment, I alluded briefly to some of the activities involved. We want the Government to say that they share our view that the activities I intend to list to the Committee are not henious when they are being performed by a local government officer of some seniority and standing. They include the involvement in resident groups concerned with local traffic schemes and planning issues, which may turn political. I do not believe that anyone can object to them. Someone might join the trust to save the Rose Theatre. The activity could well be topical. A local government officer could take part. One can immediately see that, because decisions by the Secretary of State and the local authority will be involved, the local government officer may well be assumed to be poking his nose in where he should not.
One of the distasteful aspects of the Bill is the intimidation, the threat, "You'd better do what you are told. You'd better stop doing what you'd like to do, because we don't think it is right". An example is joining one of the groups currently petitioning Parliament in relation to the Channel Tunnel legislation. I can well imagine some local government officer in Kent who feels passionately about the line of the tunnel, or even the fact that there is a tunnel. We want the Government to tell us that these activities are not of the kind that will be caught by the Bill.
Expressing a view—whether pro-or anti—about some of the issues contained in legislation before Parliament is another aspect. For instance, as concerns tenant groups in relation to the Housing Act 1988, a local government officer could very well live in an area where he is employed by an authority, yet he is a council tenant. He wishes to exercise his rights as a resident on a council estate. We do not think that that should be involved.
There are animal welfare groups currently pressing for the implementation of dog registration. I can see the puzzlement on the Minister's face, akin to suggesting that it would be ridiculous for someone who is a local government officer, and who participates in the agitation for or against dog registration, possibly to be held to be involved in political activity. Yet the outcome of the dog registration issue will not be resolved by politicians in Parliament.
What about involvement in the pro-or anti-abortion campaigns? Although we in Parliament—I think honourably—have striven to make this an issue of conscience and not a political issue, nevertheless many people, of whom I am not one, who are for or against the issue believe that it ranks very high. Therefore an officer ought to be entitled to take part in the arguments passionately, without suffering any hurt.
What about an officer who decides to become a member of the Campaign for Real Ale, against the background of the recent controversy over the sale of monopoly holdings in public houses? Some people would argue that a person might be a member of a campaign such as the Campaign for Real Ale and want to take a prominent part in it. If he takes up a stance for or against the Secretary of State's decision
860
in respect of forcing large monopoly landlords to unload their holdings, that person has, in effect, taken part in some political activity. That is ludicrous, but it is possible.
What about people who are members of a local authority officers' team who decide to become involved in the issue for or against Sunday trading? They are passionately connected with the church and are devoutly and devotedly involved in its activities. Their church might take up a certain stance which could be contrary to the views of the local council. I hope that the Minister shares our view that activities of this kind, which involve campaigning ought to be outwith any net which the Government are likely to cast.
I believe that these are sensible and reasonable questions. I hope the Minister can assure me that, whatever emerges in respect of codes of practice, guidance, conduct or any other proposal on what is or is not included, the kinds of activities I have listed may be enjoyed by an officer in the course of his duty as a local government officer, without infringing his right to be employed. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: First, perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that I never take lightly any matter which involves dogs, having suffered at the jaws of a dog in a previous role a year ago. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that my facial grimace had nothing to do with irrelevance, it had more to do with —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Remembrance!
Lord Hesketh: Remembrance. The noble Lord is entirely correct. This amendment, like Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, would exempt anything done in a whole area of activity from the political restrictions, even if it were directly aimed at an obviously party-political purpose. This one would exempt anything done in the course of a campaign or activities which are not organised by a political party.
My comments on the previous amendments are very relevant here: we cannot simply take a whole area of activity and say "No matter what the officer does, if it is part of a campaign not organised by a political party, it doesn't matter". I ask noble Lords to consider this not very fanciful case. In a particular town the route of a proposed by-pass is a current political topic. There is a campaign against one of those proposed routes. If that campaign starts canvassing for the candidates of one particular party on the grounds that that party shares their views, and if a local government officer who supports the campaign joins in that canvassing, is that not just as difficult as if he were canvassing because he supported the party in question more generally? In my view, it is. All the objections that come into play about officers who are supposed to be impartial going around soliciting votes for a particular party seem to apply with equal force.
I therefore come back to my refrain on this group of amendments: it does not matter in what context something is done. If what is done is a public political

861
activity of a kind that the clauses would control, then it is reasonable that it should be controlled. If it does not have the characteristics of that public political activity, then the clauses will not apply to it and there will be no problem.
That brings me to where the noble Lord, Lord Graham, listed the example of an officer joining a broad spectrum of schemes which ranged —if I may précis it slightly —from the Rose Theatre to the Channel Tunnel, to tenants' groups on housing legislation, to animal welfare groups and dog legislation, as well as to the Campaign for Real Ale. On all these the answer is that they will be permitted as long as they do not become a matter of promoting or opposing a specific political party. The whole emphasis is on what is party political; not what is political itself. It is a party political activity which is unacceptable; it is not the activity itself. I wish to make that very clear. That is why we resist the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has been enormously helpful. He gave the illustration of an officer joining an organisation which was campaigning on an issue. If a political party also decided to join that organisation, ipso facto the officer would be involved in an organisation that was using assistance from a political party as part of its muscle. It could be held that, with guilt by association, he was involved in a political activity.
I was going to take issue with the Minister, but I am happy to rest on the premise of his last few words. They suggest that in this context it is the officer's involvement in party political activity. Activity in any of the organisations on the list here is not party political activity. It could very well be political activity and we should all understand that in the non-party sense that is the organisation of people, the use of people, in the sense of demonstrating their will.
When we read what the Minister has said, we shall find that he has been helpful in defining the tiny little area about which we are worried. I shall read his remarks and perhaps come back later if need be. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(5A) No requirements prescribed in regulations under subsection (5) above shall be taken to apply to activities undertaken for or on behalf of any professional organisation, whether or not such activities relate to any matter of political controversy.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. Again, this is part of the list on which we seek to clarify what the Government have in mind. We wish to exclude from the list of potential activities that can be held to be political such activities as working,
"on behalf of any professional organisation, whether or not such activities relate to any matter of political controversy".
862
I move the amendment in the context of the Minister's recent redefining of party political activity. That is what we are talking about. The kind of activity which I have in mind here cannot remotely be called party political activity. I am talking about professional organisations which often form important consultees in the early stages of framing legislation as well as consulting other organisations. Furthermore, such organisations are often involved in lobbying or briefing MPs and Peers as regards legislation or in commenting directly or indirectly to civil servants on the practical implications of primary and secondary legislation.
The kind of membership I am talking about here applies, for instance, to a council officer of whatever rank who escapes all other bars. However, we want to ensure that he is not caught by the political activities bar. Such a council officer may, for example, be a member of the Society for Education Officers, the Institute of Waste Management, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, CIPFA, the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the Town and Country Planning Association or the Royal Institute of British Architects. All of those memberships are exclusively professional. Yet, at some stage, in acting as a member of those organisations, a local government officer could very well be drawn into taking up a stance or advocating a reaction against an action by a government, either national or local. I merely want the Minister to say, as he said so helpfully with regard to voluntary organisations which undertake campaigns, that membership of a professional body of this kind would not be caught by the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will not be surprised that my answer to this amendment is very similar to the one I gave to the previous amendment. Once again, with fear of repetition, I must remind the Committee of what I have already pointed out. It is not the context in which something is done but what is done that we regard as relevant for deciding whether the restrictions under these clauses should apply. I readily agree that it is difficult to think that anything done for or on behalf of a reputable professional association would be likely to be relevant to these prohibitions. But it is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
I suggest that the basic policy should be as in other fields. If the activity is directed to affecting public support for a political party, then it is objectionable if undertaken by the holder of a politically sensitive post under a local authority. If the activity for or on behalf of a professional association is not of that kind, then it would not be affected in the least by the proposals within these three clauses.
We must look at the context of what is done. We believe the amendment does not do that. I resist it for the same reasons as I resisted the previous amendment, but I remind the noble Lord, Lord Graham, of what I then pointed out. We are not talking about political activity but party political activity.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Again the Minister has been helpful. He says that it is all right if what is

863
done is not party political. However, in taking a stand on an issue by advocating against the policies of a government, whether it be local or national, the person concerned is not taking a political stance or arguing that the Conservatives are bad or that a Labour council is bad, but that the policy that is being carried out is bad. In other words, he is making no valued judgment on whether the people of his community are well or ill-served by a Labour council as compared to a Conservative council; he is arguing that the people of the area are disadvantaged by the policies that are being carried out. When issues are not directed against politicians, but against the decisions and activities of politicians, is that in order?
Lord Hesketh: I can only repeat what I said in connection with the previous amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In which case, I shall save the time of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 13, at end insert —
("(8A) Subsection (1) above shall have effect after the making of an order by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 164(2A) below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 16, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 180, 181 and 189. The purpose of all these amendments is the same. They seek to ensure that the Secretary of State seeks an affirmative resolution in Parliament before making orders under this part of the Bill.
It is relatively rare for us to seek an affirmative resolution. We constantly seek that regulations be laid-before Parliament but usually by the negative resolution procedure. However, on this occasion we are dealing with a fundamental change in employment law. The Secretary of State is being empowered by this part of the Bill to impose an absolute disqualification on people holding politically restricted posts. It empowers him to change the terms of appointment or conditions of employment of every person holding a politically restricted post. This is in effect almost retrospective because it applies even if they hold the post before the Bill becomes law; in other words, their existing terms and conditions of employment are to be changed by regulation made by the Secretary of State.
We take the view that terms and conditions of employment set down in employment contracts are a significant part of the civil liberties and the protections which are due to ordinary citizens and employees in this country and that they should not be changed by regulation made by the Secretary of State and imposed both on the employee and the employer.
It is argued sometimes that affirmative resolution procedures are more appropriate when we are dealing with financial considerations. However,
864
there is a precedent in this Bill for an affirmative resolution procedure where there are no financial considerations. Clause 30 of the Bill which is concerned with the national code of local government conduct, is subject to an affirmative resolution procedure, although there are no financial implications and although the national code of local government conduct already exists. However, the revision of the code is to be submitted to Parliament. I am not underestimating the importance of Clause 30, but I am saying that if the affirmative resolution procedure is appropriate for that clause, how much more appropriate it is for this part of Clause 1 where, as I say, there has been a fundamental change in the employment law which affects the civil rights of ordinary citizens in the part that they can play in politics. I hope the Committee will agree that this is one of those occasions, perhaps relatively rare, when parliamentary time should be devoted to the consideration of the regulations which the Secretary of State proposed to make. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of these amendments would be to make the introduction of the ban on twin-tracking conditional upon a draft order having been approved by an affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said. The prohibition concerning twin-tracking in Clause 1(1) is stated clearly on the face of the Bill. These amendments seek to delay the introduction of Clause 1(1) and (5) and bring them back for consideration by both Houses at a later date. Now is the occasion for the Chamber to discuss the issues concerned.
It does not seem sensible to the Government to legislate in this way: to adopt a measure and then put off its implementation until a further vote. I am reminded of the prayer in his youth of that notable doctor of the church, St. Augustine who said, O God make me virtuous, but not yet. Unlike St. Augustine, the Government wish to opt for virtue now. For those reasons I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was a peculiarly specious argument, quite apart from the fact that St. Augustine of Hippo said: Make me chaste, but not yet.
The point about the affirmative resolution procedure is that the regulations would be before this Chamber in order for it to make a decision. We have no regulations before the Committee. We do not even have draft regulations. We are not in any position effectively to argue about the content of the regulations. I find it extraordinary that the noble Earl can stand up and say that we can hold a proper debate here without having seen draft regulations and without knowing what is in the Government's mind. We have to rely on scraps which fall from the lips of Government Ministers. We are not treated with the respect that this Chamber and this Committee deserve. We are not given a proper opportunity to learn what is in the government's mind.
This is clearly not a matter for a Division at this time of night, but it is something to which we shall

865
have to refer at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Remuneration of councilors
. (1) Section 1 above shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) The Secretary of State shall issue regulations for the purposes of establishing a comprehensive scheme for the remuneration of councillors, having regard to consultations with the local authority associations and any other body representative of elected councillors.
(3) The Scheme referred to in subsection (2) above shall be established for the following purposes —

(a) to maintain and improve the opportunities available to citizens to serve the local community as an elected councillor;

(b) to avoid undue financial hardship to persons elected as councillors; and

(c) to reflect the importance to the community of the provision of local services.

(4) Any scheme made under subsection (2) above shall include provision for the annual adjustment of remuneration levels in line with the Retail Prices Index and for such periodic review of remuneration by such independent person or persons as the Secretary of State may determine.
(5) The power to make regulations conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) Except in respect of any person falling within any description in sections 2(1) (a) to (e) above, no person shall be regarded as holding a politically restricted post before a date specified by the Secretary of State, and no such date shall be specified which is less than one year after the coming into force of this section.").
The noble Lord said: This may appear to be a complicated amendment in the sense that it proposes the insertion after Clause 1 of a new clause, which is of necessity somewhat complicated. However, there is a very important gap in the Bill which makes necessary further elucidation of the Government's intentions. Of necessity this must be only a probing amendment. I do not suggest that it represents the final word which can be reached on the remuneration of councillors. I am perfectly aware that the local authority associations are at the moment involved in negotiations with the department about the remuneration of councillors. The purpose of the amendment and the reason for putting it down now, is to draw out the Government's intentions more clearly than they at present appear and to state the views which I think I can safely say are those of all the local authority associations, whether under Labour or Conservative control.
The background to the amendment involves a certain amount of statistics about the money required for the remuneration of councillors. The Widdicombe Report of 1986 was based on research which indicated that the total expenditure on councillors' remuneration would be of the order of £27 million. There are two ways of calculating the
866
resulting amount to date. The actual take-up, taking account of inflation, would be £33 million; the potential take-up if all councillors who performed duties actually made claims for those duties would be of the order of £37 million. In relation to the total amount of local authority expenditure we are clearly not talking about a very large sum.
The Widdicombe Committee survey looked in some detail at the number of hours which councillors spend on their duties. It is clear that although there has been an increase since 1964 there has not been a significant increase since 1976, I remind the Committee that, despite all the controls placed on local authorities by government, the responsibilities placed on local authorities to act as agents for central government are nevertheless increasing very rapidly at the same time. Indeed, they have increased further this week with the community care obligations which are being placed on local authorities. So the average figure of 74 hours a month spent on council business is not extraordinary. The amounts claimed are not extraordinary in relation to that amount of work.
The amounts claimed by councillors, even in large authorities and with substantial levels of special responsibility, are minute in comparison with the payments to part-time members of government-appointed quangos, such as, for example, the regional water authorities. An individual might receive £7,000 to £10,000 a year for working one day or one and half days a week as an ordinary member of a regional water authority, whereas a person working full time as a committee chairman in a major council would almost certainly receive less than that for a full year's work.
I do not want to go in detail into the components of councillors' remuneration. I think that everyone is aware of the balance between loss of earnings and attendance allowances. The Government propose that there should be only a flat rate and a special responsibility allowance. That might be fair for committee chairmen or those with special responsibility in large authorities, but it is certainly unfair on the considerable number of local councillors who put in an enormous amount of time doing what might be thought to be humdrum jobs. They serve on local licensing panels or on the kind of committee which requires them to visit the establishments of the social services. It is not glamorous or political work but it is required of local authorities by government. We think that there ought to be some continuing attendance allowance.
We recognise that in a very small number of authorities there has been abuse of the attendance allowances. We recognise that it is necessary to have proper control of what are and are not approved duties. Perhaps the approved duties ought to be redefined. We should not object if there were to be a maximum attendance allowance for any one councillor so that a councillor could not pile up attendances many times a day and many days a year. Subject to those precautions, we believe that there ought to be some form of continued attendance allowance, separate from the special responsibility allowances and regularly updated.
I remind the Committee that, when the allowances were first established in 1972 at £10, they were set

867
at a level which would now be of the order of £40, instead of which the amount is more like £16. They certainly have not risen in line with inflation. We think that there ought to be some provision for automatic uprating, as there is for allowances for secretarial expenditure, etc., for Members of your Lordships' House. What is fair for us ought to be fair for councillors in local authorities, who in most cases do a great deal more work for their country and work that is probably of a greater value than most of what we do.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would require and enable the Secretary of State to set up a new system of remuneration for councillors by regulation, subject to three main criteria. These are that it maintains and improves the opportunities for people to become councillors; that it prevents undue financial hardship for councillors; and finally that it reflects the importance to the community of the provision of local services. The levels would be required to be uprated each year in line with inflation.
I am glad to be able to agree with the noble Lord on one point —that a new system of councillors' remuneration is needed. I am also able to agree with the noble Lord on two of the criteria he would set for the new system. Indeed they are set out in paragraph 3.5 of the White Paper responding to the Widdicombe Report, which sets out the basic principles that should underlie any system of remuneration. It concludes that:
"the purpose of paying allowances to councillors is principally to ensure that they do not suffer financial hardship, and to ensure that a wide range of different types of person is able to stand for membership".
I am not clear about the meaning of the noble Lord's third criterion for the new system —namely, that it should reflect the importance to the community of the provision of local services.
Does he mean that the more the community values its local government services, the more councillors should be paid —a sort of performance bonus scheme? It is an intriguing idea, but not, I feel, a practical one, nor one I think the noble Lord's "community" would endorse.
The amendment also has another interesting feature. It would make the provisions of Clause 1, restricting political activity by council officers, conditional upon setting up this new system of remuneration. The aim seems to be to ensure that councillors who are currently able to finance their full-time activities as a member of one authority from the ratepayers of another continue to be so funded by their own authority. This is the sort of abuse we are trying to prevent.
The amendment also seems to imply that the levels of remuneration under the new scheme should be significantly higher than under the present system. The Government take a different view on the basis of two important criteria which the noble Lord has omitted to include in his amendment; namely, that council membership is based on the principle of voluntary service to the community and that councillors should not expect to be financially better off as a result of carrying out their duties.
868
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have already proposed an alternative system of remuneration for councillors based on a flat rate allowance which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew to the Committee's attention. My right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government has met leaders of the local authority associations twice to consider the general principles of such a scheme.
A working group of officials has been investigating the level of allowances received and working out illustrative schemes for a flat rate allowance and an enhanced special responsibility allowance. It has taken some time for local authority associations to come forward with concrete proposals, probably because there seems to be a considerable variety of views not only between the associations but also within them. We all agree that it is a sensitive subject about which many councillors feel strongly.
I had hoped that as result of these discussions we would have been able to bring forward appropriate amendments for your Lordships to consider in Committee, but my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government was anxious to give the local authority associations an opportunity to make alternative proposals which would be acceptable to at least a majority of them and which would meet the basic principles which we have outlined.
On Monday this week we received from the main English and Welsh local authority associations —the AMA, and ADC and the ACC —the outline of a joint proposal based on a basic flat rate allowance combined with a substantial element of attendance allowance. The associations' letter suggested that the potential for abuse which is inherent in any attendance-based allowance could be limited by restricting the range of approved duties or by placing a limit on the total payable by each council and/or to each councillor. In the Government's view, this represents a constructive approach and, subject to further consideration of details, we believe that it could form the basis of a scheme that would deal with the problems of a pure attendance allowance scheme which led the Widdicombe Committee to propose the flat rate alternative.
I should also mention that the Government have not yet received the views of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities representing local authorities in Scotland but have received further elaboration of the scheme suggested by the main English and Welsh associations from the Association of District Councils.
These are important and helpful developments. The Government need to look at them carefully and to discuss the details further with the local authority associations, perhaps initially at official level. We hope it will be possible that the outcome of that further consideration and any further discussions is that the Government will be able to bring forward proposals to reform the present system in a way that is broadly acceptable to local government in Great Britain, although it would be foolish to pretend that on such a sensitive subject there could ever be 100 per cent. unanimity

869
I should also say a word about the level of allowances. The White Paper gives the Government's view that the total available under any new scheme should not represent an overall increase on what is presently being paid. The local authority associations have just completed a new survey of the expenditure involved in councillors' allowances and have concluded that it is running at a level of £33 million per annum with a potential expenditure of £37 million if non-claiming councillors claimed on a similar basis to the majority who do claim. There is no question of increasing the overall amount available for distribution in any new scheme to the figure of £75 million, which represents what the Widdicombe Committee recommended, updated to current prices. However, the Government will examine carefully the results of the survey that is being carried out and will respond to the views put forward by the local authority associations as soon as is practicable.
I hope that that goes some way towards answering a number of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his amendment which he described as essentially a probing amendment at this stage.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I rise to question why we need even think about restricting local councillors' allowances, which is effectively what we are talking about in the Bill.
I have worked out some rough figures. I should tell the Committee that I have recently been elected a local councillor and I am trying to sort out how to claim my allowances. It seems to me that, if I were to work an eight hour day on local authority business, I could claim just under £20 per day. I am talking in terms of an attendance allowance rather than claims for out-of-pocket expenses. If one compares that figure with the allowances available to Members of this House—I admit that it is difficult to make an exact comparison because of the element of expenses included in our allowance—the rough equivalent figure is £40. If one compares that figure with the figure that a Member of the other place may claim on the basis of a day's labour, one is probably talking in excess of £100. So local councillors who are engaged in the business of overseeing enormous sums of expenditure of a political nature are being remunerated, roughly speaking, in the proportion of less than half of our remuneration or less than a quarter or a fifth of the remuneration of Members of the other place.
I wonder whether discussion on the subject is warranted in view of the minimal amount of money that we pay as a nation for the maintenance of our democratic institutions and procedures. I must object to the emphasis that the Government place on this. If the Government care to challenge my figures, I shall be happy to listen to them, but I do not think that they can do so in a realistic way.
Perhaps I have a vested interest in raising this point, although I try to think not. I believe that we are asked to consider in far too much depth a restrictive element in the mechanisms of democracy that operate in our country. It is just another example
870
of the denial of our democracy. The Government seem to be nibbling away at that democracy year after year and it does no credit to this House, our parliamentary institutions or this country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Monkswell who is a serving councillor. If my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford were here, he would no doubt echo what my noble friend said. I know that the Minister's mother is a serving councillor and I have no doubt that he is well informed about members' allowances.
However, the Minister's reply was only partly encouraging. It is good to know that the Government's immediate response to the local authority associations' letter is that their approach is constructive. It is far less encouraging to know that, although it is constructive in terms of the structure of the allowances, the Government are already determined that there is no chance of updating the Widdicombe recommendations and producing the £75 million which would then be required.
Thus, although the basis of the approach of the local authority associations—a completely non-party approach—is accepted by the Government, it is clear that there will not be enough money to meet what I am sure they would consider to be necessary, and certainly what Widdicombe considered to be necessary, to do what my noble friend Lord Monkswell rightly describes as proper justice for hard working councillors.
We shall have to await negotiations between the local authority associations and the Government. If we have any confirmation of either good news or bad news, we can return to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Politically restricted posts]:
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 26 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("subsection (2) below or with").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 27, by a judicious piece of filleting we have solved any problem about interlocking amendments. With this amendment we come to the heart of the issue with which we started to deal earlier today when talking about the basis of the restriction.
In addition to Amendment No. 27 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35. Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are perhaps the most wide-ranging in the group. They would remove the salary bar altogether. Amendment No. 29, and Amendment No. 30 which carries the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, have a similar effect. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will wish to speak to those amendments in due course. Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 tabled in my name and the name of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, arise from a suggestion from Hampshire County Council, of which the noble Earl is a

871
distinguished member and to which he has already referred in debate today. The proposal is that instead of taking a figure of £13,500, which is not linked to any point on the local authority scale, there should be a level approximating to spine point 44 on the APTEC scale, which, as I understand it, is of the order of £18,000. That is the advice we have from Hampshire County Council.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 34 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, would have a very similar effect linked to the Civil Service grades and to the grade of Principal in the Civil Service rather than to a local authority grading. On reflection, of the two I prefer the Hampshire proposal to my own amendments. Therefore, when we come to that point, if the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, agrees, I shall not be moving my amendments.
I have dealt with all the amendments apart from those in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord Winstanley. Behind all the amendments lies a series of essential issues. I referred earlier to the difficulty in which local authorities and the local government service would find themselves if there were restrictions linked to a salary level. There are technical difficulties. It would be difficult to know what to do about the proportion on part-time posts. There would be problems dealing with overtime, bonus payments and London weighting. All those issues would cause enormous practical difficulties when imposing a scale of £13,500 or such higher figure as the Secretary of State may determine.
There are also human resource development difficulties, if I may put it that way. People who reach a certain level as a result of moving up on increments on an existing scale without changing their jobs would suddenly find themselves with the political restrictions biting. That would be through no decision of their own but simply because that is the way in which local authority pay structures work. Even worse off, I think, would be those who are politically active in various ways and who very often, indeed in most cases, are doing jobs which do not involve any other connection with the public, the press or policy-making than did the job that they were doing before but whose next natural step on the career ladder would be to go for a promotion which would bring them over the limit. That seems wildly unreasonable.
It is very damaging to the career structure in local authorities and to the ability of such people to seek the advancement they deserve. For those reasons we do not think that the £13,500 rule is in any way acceptable. In Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 we should prefer to remove it altogether. If the Government were to indicate support for Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 in particular, to which the name of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, has been added, I think that we should be content with that. However, I hope that we can make some significant progress. This matter has been aired previously but it needs resolution now. It is for the Government to make significant concessions if the Committee is to be satisfied. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 standing in my name and the name of the noble
872
Lord, Lord Winstanley, basically were linked with the earlier amendment, Amendment No. 21. Therefore I do not propose to speak to them and will not be pursuing them at the appropriate time because Amendment No. 21 was withdrawn earlier. I should like to speak in favour of Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 which seem to make some progress on what is quite obviously the totally unworkable and arbitrary figure of £13,500. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have indicated those we are excluding if that figure is written into the Bill. There was some argument about the matter in Widdicombe and the Government seem to have changed their mind along the way. I am sure that they ought to change their mind again.
We have always had very close relations with Hampshire. We have always felt that Hampshire was one of the counties that got it right. I think that it has got it right on this occasion. I hope that the Government will look very hard at these amendments and give the Committee some favourable response tonight. The situation is absolutely daft; it cannot work as at present proposed. There have already been comments from both sides of the Chamber on that issue.
I recall from my time in the other place the annual ritual of debating Members' salaries. It arose year after year. It was always very embarrassing: eventually, however, salaries were tied to a Civil Service scale. It may be argued that they are now too high. Personally, I do not think so, and I am not getting the benefit. Nor do other colleagues in this Chamber who were formerly in the other place. I am quite envious of what we achieved for those who followed us. It must be right that we do not have to discuss that situation. These matters ought to be fixed before and not after elections. Now every member of the general public knows exactly the salaries that are paid to Members of Parliament.
In the same way let us make absolutely sure that there is a scale about which we do not have to argue and debate time and again or put down Motions to get the minimum raised if the Government do not tie it to the cost of living index. And we do not yet know whether they will even do that. I therefore very much support Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 and hope that the Government will take them on board.
The Earl of Carnarvon: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to Hampshire County Council. It is really an association of county councils which is recommending this point on the principal officer scale. I believe that it would be a much simpler handling of the issue if it were dealt with in that way. I strongly recommend the Government to consider putting it on to a point of the salary scale and although 44 may be the wrong point it should be in that range.
I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the amendment. It would save many people many problems on what is a very sensitive subject. I support Amendments Nos. 33 and 35.
9.p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I have some sympathy with the point at issue —the naming of a sum of money of

873
£13,500. It will not take many years before that sum will cover very large numbers of people whom we would not want to include in the category of restricted posts. Therefore I support the principle of not having a sum of money named in the Bill. I believe that spine point 44 on the national scale is too high. In the past few weeks, I have only just left local government. I take issue a little with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in that I think one receives advice from a number of people who may be at point 44 and above. One also receives information and advice from people below 44 on the active scale. Therefore there is a debate concerning where the level should be.
I believe it will be better to tie this proposal into a level on the scale so that the same people are taken along into the future, as opposed to having constantly to update a sum of money. I have some sympathy with this, but I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn so that the local authority associations and the Government can think again about substituting another scheme for the £13,500.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 27 would end the inclusion in the list of politically restricted posts of those who were listed by the authority as meeting the criteria in subsection (3). Amendment No. 28 then removes consequentially the duty to prepare a list of the posts which meet the criteria in subsection (3). Amendment No. 30 is consequential upon Amendment No. 31, which would retain the duty to prepare a list but remove the descriptions of posts to be included in it. In effect, it would leave the descriptions to be specified in regulations.
I should like to try to persuade your Lordships that it is not sensible to omit any of the posts which are covered by the lists maintained by the local authority. I should like to take the Committee through the criteria to be applied.
First, there are those who regularly advise members. This is perhaps the simplest case. If an officer is regularly advising members, how can he simultaneously be an active politician, local or elsewhere, and preserve a claim to be regarded as an impartial adviser: Many people have asserted that they know paragons of virtue who manage to act schizophrenically and keep both capacities completely separate. I believe that there will always be doubts about their success, and in any event I do not think that we should legislate for the few who can achieve such miracles, but for the many more ordinary mortals who are not likely to be able to persuade us all that they can.
Secondly, there are those who regularly deal with the media on behalf of the authority. It is obviously important that those who speak for the authority in such a high profile way should be seen to be politically impartial. We could not accept a situation where such an officer was publicly identified with one political party or a known point of view on politically controversial matters.
Thirdly, there are those who regularly deal with the public in circumstances which might lead them to believe that the officer is in a position to influence the decisions of the authority. Again, it is important
874
that such an officer should not be identified with a particular political view.
The tradition of the impartial local government officer is one which took us a long time to establish. It has given us excellent local government. It is fundamental to our system. We should take steps to retain it. That is what the clause does, and that is what these amendments would undermine.
Amendments No. 32 suggests replacing the salary level of £13,500, above which posts are subject to the restrictions on public political activity, with the salary level of a Civil Service principal or an equivalent or higher grade. Since the salary of Civil Service principals is a little higher than £13,500, this would reduce the number of posts covered by the provisions. Amendment No. 34 would make an equivalent amendment in relation to part-time posts. Amendment No. 33 would replace the salary level of £13,500 with a reference to spine point 44 on the national scale for administrative professional, technical, executive and clerical staff, for an equivalent or higher grade. This is a point two-thirds of the way up the principal officer grade in local government. Spine point 44, as has already been pointed out to the Committee, is presently £18,078. This amendment would also reduce the number of posts covered by the provisions. Amendment No. 35 would make an equivalent amendment in relation to part-time posts.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 34 seem to misunderstand the parallel that they seek to draw with the Civil Service. The band of posts which is covered by the full restrictions on public political activity in the Civil Service runs much lower than principal, as the Widdicombe Committee recognised.
The grade of principal officer in local government is not the same as that of principal in the Civil Service. It was the grade of principal officer in local government that the Widdicombe Committee chose as the basis for their recommendation that all staff at or above that level should be subject to political restrictions. We have thought it right to adopt as the cut-off point that proposed by the independent Widdicombe Committee.
This evening I have listened with interest to the arguments that have been deployed, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. At this hour of the night I cannot make a commitment, but I am happy to take away his two amendments to consider them again if he feels fit to withdraw them. I hope that that may, in part, satisfy noble Earl's quest for improving the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have listened very carefully to the Minister's reply. What he has said to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, is not totally hopeless, but he has not really addressed the fundamental difficulty on which I was concentrating when I moved the amendment. He has not addressed the issues raised by the two linked amendments, Amendments No. 27 and 28. The fundamental point is that the Government are seeking two different but overlapping criteria for imposing restrictions on local government officials. One is a series of criteria about the nature of the work and the other, which

875
operates in addition to the criteria about the nature of the work, is based on salary.
That is fundamentally inconsistent and fundamentally unacceptable. It is Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 which recognise the unacceptability of the salary bar. It was not proposed by Widdicombe, which talked in terms of grading. It is not a feature of the Civil Service code of practice, which also works on the basis of grading. All the evils which I see in the sum of £13,500 would apply even if the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, were pacified by being told that the £13,500 were to be up-graded in line with inflation or with pay awards, as I am sure she would be told if she asked that question.
I do not believe that, in the very modest move he has made towards the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the Association of County Councils, the Minister has effectively addressed the issue. On Amendment No. 27 I feel that I must seek the opinion of the Committee.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord seeks the opinion of the Committee, I ask him to consider the fact that my noble friend has offered to reconsider. I have listened to the arguments and I, too, should like to reconsider all the amendments. I hope that, in view of the fact that we have reconsidered many things in the past, and that we have now offered to reconsider the matter, the noble Lord does not wish to seek the opinion of the Committee at this hour.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The offer of reconsideration was strictly limited to two amendments which propose a change to a different salary level. I have heard nothing from either Minister to indicate the fact that the Government recognise the fundamental unacceptability of having both the criteria in terms of job and salary.
If the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will stand at the Dispatch Box and tell me that the Government recognise the justice of the case for limiting these restrictions to the type of job rather than to the salary, then I might reconsider my position.
The Earl of Caithness: I cannot give the noble Lord that assurance. However, I can assure him that I should like to look again at the whole matter, including his Amendments Nos. 27 and 28, in the light of the circumstances and in view of the arguments which Members have put before us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister must do so in the light of the opinion of the Committee on the fundamental issue.
9.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 43.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Airedale, L.

Blease, L.

Ardwick, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

876

Briginshaw, L.

Molloy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Donoughue, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Falkender, B.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Scanlon, L.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stallard, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stedman, B.

Hughes, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jay, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Willis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Joseph, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rochdale, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Trafford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Young of Graffham, L.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.17 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 34 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Politically restricted posts]:
[Amendment Nos. 35 to 38 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment remove the provision whereby an officer of any de giving any type of advice to his authority, its committees or sub-committees falls to be designated as holding a restricted post. The provisions of Clause 2(3) are drafted in such broad terms as to be both unhelpful and unworkable. Local authorities will want to act within the law but the provisions of this part of the Bill will not assist them to do so.
Elsewhere, the Government have rejected amendments which would have restricted this clause to those giving policy, as opposed to technical, advice. Another amendment would have restricted the application of Clause 2(3)(a) to the officer mainly responsible for such advice. Neither of the amendments was accepted and the Government were not particularly enlightening as to how this clause should be applied.
The Government White Paper refers to advising members rather than giving advice on a regular basis to the authority, any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or to any joint committee on which the authority is represented. Widdicombe also referred to advising councillors but the Bill takes a broad brush approach in suggesting that officers giving advice at any level on a regular basis would be caught. Again, the Bill has tried to blur the distinction which Widdicombe sought to make whereby political restrictions applied only to those senior local government officers part of whose job it is to advise councillors and to adjudicate on matters of propriety.
While not accepting the point at which Widdicombe strikes this balance, the underlying principle is more sound than the principle on which this clause is based. There are sufficient constraints elsewhere in Part I to render this restriction superfluous. If the Bill is allowed to stand unamended, junior officers will be reluctant to gain experience of committee procedure by, for example, giving an update on progress on a particular construction project. Councillors will lose contact with officers dealing with matters on a day to day basis.
Widdicombe suggested a,
"simple rule with no exemptions but applying to fewer staff",
than in the Civil Service. The Government have effectively adopted Widdicombe's bar, which had been dropped from the White Paper, including the proposal to designate sensitive posts, which was the White Paper's alternative. There is also a ban on political special assistants and the ban is extended beyond the local town hall. This amendment goes a small way towards rectifying the balance and preserving the rights of junior members of staff who would otherwise be effected. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would leave out the first of the criteria against which councils and the adjudicator are to judge whether a post is politically sensitive. This criterion is whether the holder of the post regularly advises councillors. We find it quite extraordinary to propose excluding this category.
878
There seems to us no doubt whatever that officers who are regularly advising members are those with conflicts between their duties as an impartial officer and as an active political figure. They are most likely to be seen by the public and to be in potential conflict. I do not believe that any person with experience of local government will have any real difficulty in applying the criterion.
I repeat that those who regularly advise councillors seem to us to provide one of the clearest cases for applying the political restrictions. That is why we do not believe that this amendment is justified.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry that the Minister was not more convincing in his reasons for rejecting this amendment. I believe that the case has been made out and the Minister has not answered the points that were made. I believe that, on the basis of the case that has been made for the exclusion of the persons concerned, the amendment was worthy of consideration. However, in view of what the Minister has said and bearing in mind the way in which some of the other amendments are interlocked, I have no doubt that we shall come back to the matter at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 8, after ("broadcasters") insert ("where the postholder concerned carries management responsibility for the presentation or dissemination of the views of the authority, and gives advice on such matters on a regular basis to the authority themselves, to any committee of sub-committee of the authority or to any joint committee on which the authority are represented.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to qualify the very wide inclusion of press officers and those working with journalists or broadcasters within the scope of political restriction by virtue of Clause 2(3)(b). The clause states that any person,
"acting on behalf of the authority on a regular basis for communicating with journalists or broadcasters",
will be a person included within the politically restricted category without appeal. That is a very wide provision which Ministers have implicitly accepted would cover the most junior press officers, whose duties involved the sending of press releases to journalists or dealing with routine press inquiries. In another place Ministers sought to make a virtue of this wide coverage by arguing that this provision would protect junior press officers from any hint of partiality in dealing with elected politicians.
The inclusion of press officers formed no part of the Widdicombe recommendations. Widdicombe recommended that senior officers (defined as those above the level of PO1) should be subject to political restriction. The inclusion of press officers arose at the stage of the White Paper, and was put forward as part of the Government's explicit rejection of the scope of the Widdicombe proposals. I refer to paragraphs 5.2a to 5.22 of the proposals.
Here it was argued that defining the relevant group as principal officers went too wide. Therefore the Government proposed to move for a blanket ban only in relation to more senior posts. They proposed

879
to elect for a selective ban in relation to certain categories of officer below the most senior level, including press officers. What has now happened is that both categories of restriction have appeared in the Bill; namely, restriction by salary or grade and restriction of particular types of post such as press officer.
The first thing that Ministers should do in this debate is to explain why both the blanket and selective approaches are included within the same set of proposals. It almost appears that in their approach the Government want the best of two worlds. The second point that Ministers should be asked to explain is why this provision is so apparently wide and to what activities the Government expect it to relate. The wording is extremely wide. In his or her daily work, no officer does other than act on behalf of the authority. The Bill does not define "regular basis", although it may be assumed to mean something that is a standard and recurrent feature of a person's or officer's job. The word "communicating" is also undefined in the Bill and can clearly cover routine dissemination of information—for
example, faxing press releases or even ringing round to arrange press conferences on behalf of the authority.
Confronted with wording of this breadth, a local authority might easily and properly conclude that even the clerical staff in its press section should be covered. Furthermore, junior staff involved in events organised by local authorities which involve the press —for example, entertainment events, mayoral functions, the work of committees and sub-committees or social events —may easily be the people who deal on a routine basis with local journalists to notify them of the events and make this information available to the public. The wording is presumably not intended to cover the very junior committee clerk who mails agenda to local newspapers on a week by week basis. Yet there is nothing in the wording which actually states that such a person might not be covered.
Thirdly, the Minister should state why this provision is included when no equivalent provision is contained within the Civil Service code of practice, of which the Committee has heard so much this evening from the Government. The code includes a sophisticated set of definitions of what are called "sensitive posts"—for example, those which are normally banned from engaging in national or local political activity—although there is an appeal in all such cases. There is no ban on staff dealing with journalists and broadcasters. They are not mentioned in the code of practice.
The nearest equivalent provision is the inclusion within "sensitive posts" of staff who regularly speak for the Government or a department in dealing with outside bodies which may appear to these organisations to have influence in the application of government policy affecting them. This is clearly a far tighter definition than that contained in the Bill. It is not geared directly to press and public relations, but seeks to locate the degree of responsibility exercised by the official concerned. This is clearly a
880
more responsible approach than a blanket ban whose scope is left undefined.
The disparity between the Civil Service code of practice and the provisions of Clause 2(3) is thrown into sharp relief by figures. These figures, first published in the Observer on 26th February 1989, show that in the financial year 1988–89 government spending on advertising was estimated to amount to about £100 million. This includes spending on the Enterprise Initiative and 1992, Open for Business, both substantial government publicity campaigns. The way local authorities have been treated and are to be treated in the publicity they disseminate to, and on behalf of, their ratepayers is in stark contrast to the enormous sums of money which the water authorities appear to be spending on promoting the privatisation scheme; money which belongs, as they are public bodies, to the water users and not to the providers. As it suited the Government's politics and schemes, they have allowed it to continue.
Whatever view is taken of the political content of such campaigns, or of the role of officials involved in promoting them, the fact remains that officials involved in substantial national publicity may escape restriction, whereas the most junior local authority press officer, or committee clerk, may well be placed in the politically restricted categories. That is treatment which we consider to be grossly unfair. It simply does not make sense and it directly contradicts statements previously made by Ministers.
For example, Mr. Gummer, speaking in another place on 14th February on Second Reading (at col. 245 of Hansard), described the regulations as imposing,
"a rather lighter regime on local government officers than there is on civil servants".
Could anything be more of a mis-statement of what will really happen than what the Minister said on that occasion? In the same debate the Secretary of State, Mr. Ridley, who I understand is very near the point where he will depart from that office, said at col. 167 that,
"we are mirroring, as far as possible, the very rules that apply for the Civil Service".
The facts, of course, completely belie those particular statements: no such thing is happening in this particular Bill.
The disparity is further underlined by the Government's own legislation in the Local Government Acts of 1986 and 1988. Those measures, as Members of the Committee are aware, have substantially curtailed local government's publicity powers. Section 3 of the 1986 Act limits those powers to the provision of local government information on local government functions and services, as opposed to matters relating to local government, or local government matters affecting the particular area, under the original Section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972.
Having narrowed local government's powers in that way, Section 2 of the 1986 Act provides that even this publicity must not,
"appear to be designed to affect the support for a political party".
Section 27 of the 1988 Act then tightened the test of prohibition even more. The Government have

881
already, by their own account, legislated to prevent party political publicity. No such constraints exist in relation to central government publicity. Yet it is local authority officers, potentially at a very much more junior level than their Civil Service counterparts, who will be subject to political restrictions and their basic freedoms in this particular case denied them.
The amendment seeks to tie a restriction to those press and publicity officers who carry "management responsibility" for the presentation or dissemination of the views of the authority. An officer who is restricted should advise members on a regular basis on such matters. The formulation for the giving of advice on this particular basis is adopted from paragraph (a) of the same subsection. The purport is to propose that senior press officers or other officials who are responsible for devising and presenting a particular aspect of policy or of the council's activities should be those to be brought within the ambit of political restriction.
While speaking to this particular amendment, I have attempted to indicate where I think some of the unfairnesses lie and the very large numbers of junior staff who could well be caught up under the provisions of this Bill, and, as I said, denied what really is a basic freedom to which we submit they are entitled in the name of justice. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment seeks to restrict the number of officers who will fall into the politically restricted category by virtue of the criterion which includes those who speak to the media for the authority. It would restrict the criterion to those who carry management responsibility for such communication and give advice on representation matters.
The second limb of this restriction would reduce the criterion to a sub-category of the criterion about those who regularly advise the authority. It would therefore make the paragraph pointless. Leaving aside that defect, however, I would suggest to the Committee that it is wrong to restrict the criterion in that way.
As drafted, the criterion refers to those who communciate regularly on behalf of the authority to the media. Such officers prepare press releases and speak on behalf of the authority to the media and the press. They are like other local authority staff appointed to serve the council as a whole. It is important that when they are making their public utterances on behalf of the authority they should be, and be seen to be, politically impartial. It is important that councillors, the public and the press should have confidence that the views they are receiving are the views of the council that the officer represents and not his personal political views.
We all know how easy it is, even when reading a prepared text, to give some added emphasis, without
882
adding anything so formal as a gloss. We think that all those who actually do the communicating should be regarded as holding sensitive posts. That does not mean the typist who types, or faxes, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, a press release, or a machine operator who produces a glossy hand out. The crucial words are,
"on behalf of the authority for communicating".
The person concerned must therefore be in a position to represent the authority's views, and must be doing it on behalf of the authority. That is not a blanket ban. It is a specific ban. That is why we will resist the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I naturally expected the Government to resist the amendment, but the way in which it was resisted and the reasons given indicate clearly that there are two sets of rules. The Minister will have to leave the brief which he has been given by his civil servants, on instructions from Ministers in another place, and tell us the reasons, because there is no comparison between the way local authority officers and civil servants are being dealt with.
Highly paid civil servants make press releases, inspired releases and leakages, even from No. 10, when it suits them. No one places a restriction on them. I wonder what much of the argument is about, having spent a considerable amount of time in local government. One of our senior officers happened to be a Conservative councillor with a local authority outside Manchester. We never had any difficulty. We never tried to bulldoze him or put the thumbscrews on him. He knew where he stood and he carried out his job.
There are contradictory cases. There was a man who managed a direct works department in the "red republic" of South Yorkshire. He was a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I must admit there were not many of them as it was South Yorkshire. Nevertheless, he was allowed to carry on so long as it did not impede his judgment and his job. He was seen to help his political party at elections occasionally.
The premise contained in this part of the Bill is taking us down a dangerous road. I received a similar answer to that given earlier to my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I do not intend to delay the Committee, but I should like to see what the Minister has said. I have no doubt that this is one of the points that we shall wish to raise at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 42 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 43.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("any post as teacher or lecturer, excluding Headteachers, Deputy Headteachers, Principals and Vice Principals, of a school, college or other educational institution or establishment which in England and Wales is maintained or assisted by a local education authority or, in Scotland, is under the management of or is assisted by an education authority").
The noble Baroness said: It is a personal view of mine that I should have been much more radical and bold with my amendment, in that I believe it is inappropriate and not right for any teachers to become involved in local politics. From my contact with local parents, which is considerable, I believe that view is shared by many. Involvement in local politics or party politics is incompatible with the professional job of a teacher.
Many of the arguments that were deployed earlier today by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding on previous amendments, referring to the professionalism of local government officers, apply also to my amendment. I believe that it protects the professionalism of teachers. After all, they have a great influence on our young children. They are in the front line of moulding young people. Therefore the highest degree of objectivity and impartiality is important when dealing with them.
The National Association of Head Teachers has written to me. That is the only letter I have received objecting to the amendment, as set against the hundreds of approaches which I have had in support of it. That association has asked for a list of abuses, but that is not the point. I shall not catalogue abuses, because I do not think this is about professionals abusing their position.
While it is legal for teachers, head teachers and deputy head teachers to become involved in politics, I believe that while it is not an abuse of their position they create a perception of themselves which is damaging to their professionalism.
I shall give two examples of perfectly legitimate situations where I believe the perception of the people concerned was damaging to their professionalism. These are real examples, but for obvious reasons I shall not name the people. The first example is that a deputy head was a leading member of a political group on a neighbouring authority which took up about half of her teaching time. The other half was, of course, spent as a deputy head in the authority. Half of her time was spent being overtly political. It was not unnatural that the parents had a perception of that deputy head teacher and about her ability to be objective. I am not accusing her of not being objective in her role as deputy head at that school, but I believe that she put her own reputation at risk.
The second example is of a head teacher who was in the habit of writing to the press. He wrote a highly political letter to the press inviting people to think in a particular political way, signing himself as the headmaster of a particular school rather than Joe Bloggs of 55, Acacia Avenue. Therefore he brought his own professional status into the political arena.
884
Again, I believe that that affects people's perception of that person carrying out his duties as a head teacher.
As was said earlier about local government officers, when people enter the police, the armed forces, the Civil Service and—one hopes in the future—local government and teaching, choices are made. I believe that in the choice of the vocation of teaching, the requirement for professionalism, objectivity and impartiality discounts travelling into the world of party politics. Choices need to be made and I should like to think that people entering teaching will make a choice to pursue an apolitical career.
My amendment is on the side of teachers. A large number of people who have approached me have been teachers and work alongside colleagues who are very active in the political field. I believe that they would be pleased to see the amendment succeed in this Committee. It goes a long way to enhance the professional status of teachers which has been damaged in recent years. I would be the first to say that I wish to do anything possible that I believe will enhance the professional status of a teacher. It is in that vein that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the noble Baroness help me immediately? The purport of her amendment is to move within the area of proscription two categories of people who are currently excluded—heads and deputy heads. However, other teachers are not touched. I see the noble Baroness nods her head.
Baroness Blatch: I think I confused the noble Lord in saying what my personal preference would be. My personal preference would be to include all teachers in the provision. However, I have deliberately restricted the provision because I think it would disenfranchise a very large number of people in the country as a whole, and I am not sure that it would succeed in obtaining the support of the Committee. I also believe that one needs to start with the two posts that set the tone for an institution; that is the head teacher and the deputy head teacher.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I believe that her case is outrageous. She has made a vicious, underhand attack on a group of public servants who do not deserve the apparent good will of the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness stated at one point that she was on the side of teachers. She has certainly fooled me. I should like very much to examine the evidence on which the noble Baroness says that her case is based. I understood her to say that hundreds of people had written to her in support of the amendment, and that only one person had written to her to oppose it. I am intrigued to know how those people knew about the amendment. Apparently, thousands of people were told of the amendment and 101 people wrote to the noble Baroness. Of

885
those 101 people who wrote, 100 said, "Three cheers for the amendment" and only one said "Boo". I am absolutely intrigued by that process. Quite frankly, that process is very farfetched.
The noble Baroness talked in terms of protecting the professional integrity of heads and deputy heads. Other than the noble Baroness, no one has challenged the professional integrity of heads and deputy heads. The noble Baroness has put up an Aunt Sally and has proceeded in a disgraceful way to challenge the Professional integrity of a lot of people.
The noble Baroness is quite right. She knows of many individuals in posts of responsibility in the teaching profession who hold political views. She gave us two illustrations to support her case. I hope she will tell us which one of those two illustrations referred to a member of the Conservative Party. The noble Baroness gave us two illustrations, and, if she is fair, she will have used one illustration from a member of one political party and one from another. We cannot believe that she has been able to find only two illustrations, both of which concerned members of the Labour Party or of active left-wing parties.
The noble Baroness gave us her preference when she said she would much have preferred to apply the provision to the whole of the teaching profession and not just to heads and deputy heads. However, she felt she may be going a little too far in that. I hope the Minister will defend his Bill. The noble Baroness is seeking to amend paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 2(8). I very much hope that in this instance the Minister will not see fit to extend the scope of the proscription which has been laid upon what I consider to be very important individuals.
The noble Baroness says that she wants to see apolitical teachers. There is nothing to stop someone who teaches apolitically from holding political views. I find it absolutely astounding that the noble Baroness, and many of her friends, somehow or other believe that it is impossible for someone who holds political views not to be able to hold firmly to a code of conduct or ethics which states that what he says should be either wholly non-political or should be balanced politically.
My wife was a teacher and I have been a teacher of sorts in various institutions. I know hundreds of people who are involved in teaching, many of whom are of my political persuasion; but I can assure the noble Baroness that there are many who are not. All of them are fine teachers. Perhaps the experience of the noble Baroness in Cambridgeshire is wholly and singularly applicable to her view. But that has not been my experience.
I believe that the Government have been wise to exclude the post of head teacher or principal of a school and any other post of teacher or lecturer from the proscription in respect of holding politically restricted posts. I believe that the noble Baroness, for a reason which I cannot divine, has sought to besmirch the name of hundreds of thousands of teachers who do a first class job, and do it not only to the best of their professional ability but also, I believe, to the satisfaction of the overwhelming number of parents and ratepayers. They are not fools. They know that teachers have political views.
886
I read in the papers from time to time of individuals or groups of individuals in schools who are criticised for having allowed their politics to overcome their professional integrity. However, those cases are very few and far between. We certainly do not want the kind of amendment that the noble Baroness has moved this evening, which I believe will be bitterly resented by the teaching profession and fair-minded people everywhere.
Baroness Seear: I should also like very strongly to oppose the amendment. I speak as an ex-lecturer who fought I forget how many elections while still working as a lecturer. I was not, it is true, a principal or vice-principal, but I take it that the principle is much the same.
Surely people want teachers to be people who have all-round interests and who take an active interest in the community in which they live and therefore, inevitably, have political views. The idea that teachers should go through their lives without holding or expressing political views is absurd. When they express their political views they are open to challenge, and they should be challenged by people who think that there is bias.
I can also say from my own experience that the few people who abused their position politically did not do so openly as political activists. They were not political activists but managed nonetheless to use their position on occasion to impart doctrine which I should have thought the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would find a great deal more objectionable than the views expressed by people who took an active and open part in political affairs. I very much hope that the amendment will not be accepted.
Lord Hesketh: It is always a pleasure to find the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, defending a Government Bill and helping it to emerge from this Chamber unchanged.
The amendment would have the effect of making head teachers and deputy head teachers, principals and vice-principals of colleges, subject to political restriction while still excluding other teachers and lecturers.
That is an aspect of the Bill which the Government have considered very carefully. The Widdicombe Report considered the possible exclusion of teachers and came down against it, largely on the grounds that so many of them served as councillors that such an exclusion would be a major restriction of democracy. The research associated with the Widdicombe Report showed that 16 per cent. of councillors were local government employees and of those 58 per cent. were school or further education teachers. The consultations which the Government undertook on Widdicombe's recommendations showed an almost universal welcome for not disqualifying teachers. In the light of those consultations the Government's White Paper of July 1988 concurred with Widdicombe's view.
The essence of the matter is that teachers, including head teachers, are doing a quite different sort of job from those local government officials who

887
are concerned with providing political advice to councillors as the essence of their job. Indeed, the effect of recent legislation in the education field is to increase the distance between heads and other teachers on the one hand, and their governing bodies and local authority committees on the other. Heads and other teachers cannot be given jobs for improper twin-tracking purposes; they have to run the schools concerned. Nor will the head of any one school, in relation to his or her governing body, be able to exercise decisive influence over the local education authority's resourcing of schools or policies on staffing matters.
For those reasons the Government do not accept that there is a case for the political restriction either of all the teachers and lecturers or of the heads, principals and their deputies, as envisaged in the amendment. Perhaps I should say to my noble friend Lady Blatch that I do not accept that the purpose of the amendment is to besmirch the reputation of teachers. I understand, although I do not agree with, the reasons for the amendment. Therefore we shall resist it.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend for that reply. His reference to the amendment being a restriction of democracy is no greater or lesser a case than that of the local government officers whom we have been discussing for most of today. Perhaps I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that I have spoken publicly about the amendment for a long time, including at the local government conference of the Conservative Party in March when the press, including both television and newspapers, were present. I said then that I intended to do something about the matter when the Bill came before the House. Whenever I have been invited to speak in various parts of the country, I have also mentioned my concern about it.
Many people are concerned about politicking in classrooms and schools. I could have gone much further than my amendment goes, but I have not done so. The amendment was not an attack on the integrity of teachers, although I do not know whether I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Graham, of that. I greatly admire teachers and the job that they must do. I was in two first-class schools yesterday—St. Peter's in Huntingdon in my area; and a small junior school, Brampton Junior School. They are excellent schools doing a marvellous job. The amendment casts no aspersions whatever on the integrity and professionalism of the people working in those and many other schools that I know. I believe that it would go a long way towards protecting them. The illustrations that I gave were just two examples because the NAHT asked for examples. It called them examples of abuse; I called them legal examples, but they are examples which, I believe, create a distortion.
I am grateful for the 1988 Act which for the first time allowed me as a school governor to ask such questions when appointing staff, as my LEA had not
888
allowed it. It is now possible to ask a prospective member of staff, particularly a head teacher, whether he or she intends to become involved in local party politics. It is important for a governing body to know the kind of person whom they are appointing to a school. I am grateful for the freedom that the Act allows.
I have not only received letters on the subject, but have been questioned in person and telephoned. People have approached me at meetings. Some of those who have approached me have been teachers, but most have been parents. The only letter that I have received opposing the amendment was from the NAHT.
I understand from my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, who is not in the Chamber, that my amendment is technically incorrect regarding Scotland. I understand that in Scotland there is a different terminology for the people who work in Scottish schools. For that reason, I shall withdraw my amendment. That will at least allow us the summer months to think about it and will enable those people with a good case for opposing it to put forward their case. I accept some of the points made by my noble friend—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I must say that I am grateful to have the opportunity to accept her assurance that her motives were entirely pure. Although I had the impression that she was attacking the integrity of teachers, I am pleased to hear that that was not part of her argument. I completely accept what she says.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his generous comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("as a teacher or lecturer").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to seek clarification which may be helpful to the Committee. Under subsection (8)(b), those posts which escape the ban are:
"any other post as a teacher or lecturer in any such school, college, institution or establishment".
The burden of my amendment is to leave out the phrase,
"as a teacher or lecturer",
so that the subsection would read:
"any other post in any such school, college, institution or establishment".
There are others whom I think ought to be excluded, for instance school secretaries, media resource officers, school and college librarians, caretakers, technical staff and technicians. In our view all those people should be equally entitled to exemption. Therefore I ask the Minister: why are only the teachers and lecturers involved?
I have made my point. I hope that the noble Earl will see it and either accept the amendment or say something helpful about it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: This amendment would extend the exemption of teachers and lecturers from possibly being in the politically restricted category to all those employed in schools and colleges. This again would be to introduce an irrational element into the definition of a politically restricted group.
The Bill's proposals exempt teachers and lecturers because they are doing a job which is different in kind from those of other local authority staff. Provision is already made in the education Acts to cover questions about their using their position to promote particular political views. However, this amendment would extend that exemption to anyone else working in a school or college.
We admit that it is unlikely that those other than teachers are in politically sensitive jobs. However, there may be such cases as a bursar or administrator who regularly advises the local education committee on some matter. We do not think it is right to make the place where an officer happens to work decisive on whether he or she could be in the politically restricted class. An administrator working in a school would be exempt under this amendment whereas someone doing exactly the same job elsewhere would not be exempt.
That seems to us to introduce an element of irrationality into the definition of a politically restricted group; by that we mean the chance that the decisions about the local organisation of the service would determine whether or not someone was liable to be included in the restricted group. We think that the tests should be the kind of work that the officer is doing; not where he or she happens to work. We think that a definition that relies simply on the place of work, like one which relies solely on the level of pay, could well be criticised.
In the light of those comments I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has taken the Committee through the inconsistencies and what, in my view, are the stupidities of the application of the Bill. There are some individuals who work in a school, namely, the teachers and others who are doing important jobs. They are not only teaching; they are also having face to face discussions with parents and in many other ways doing important work. And they are able to carry on their political activity should they so wish—which we applaud. But a caretaker is not able to do so. Nor are those who work in the schools meals service.
I know how important the school caretaker is. I have heard it said that the caretaker is even more important than the head teacher. He has so much to do with whether the school is available and the conditions in which it operates. Surely it is ludicrous to include individuals who are very careful and play their full part in the ethos of the school. The Minister used the phrase, "it is in the nature of the job". The nature of a caretaker's job means that he is in a politically sensitive group. But a headmistress or a
890
headmaster is not in a politically sensitive group. My case is not that they should both be included but that they should both be excluded from that group. To put it frankly but politely, it is an anomaly and a nonsense of which I am sure those outside this Chamber will remind the Minister more than once. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Scope of political restrictions.
—(1) Regulations made under section 1(5) may prescribe requirements in relation to the following and no other matter—

(a) candidature for public elected office (other than to a parish or community council);

(b) holding office in a political party;

(c) speaking and writing in public (other than in an official capacity) in a way that might be regarded as engaging in party political debate; and

(d) canvassing at elections.

(2) In particular, no regulation made under section 1(5) shall prescribe any requirement in relation to—

(a) forms of political campaigning and activity other than canvassing or speaking or writing in public; or

(b) speaking or writing in an official capacity.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the scope of political restrictions. The purpose of the new clause is to insert into the Bill the scope of activities which will fall within those which may be regarded as politically restricted. The list is modelled directly on the recommendations of the Widdicombe inquiry which the Government say they intend to enshrine in the regulations. However, no details have been forthcoming concerning the regulations, let alone any draft regulations.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh, more than once this evening, has bitterly referred to that aspect of the Bill. The new clause is an attempt to deal with two important issues. First, it prevents the restrictions on political campaigning and activities from extending further than canvassing, writing or speaking in public. Secondly, it attempts to preserve the rights of officers to write or speak in public in an official capacity, notwithstanding that the issue concerned may be controversial.
The list of activities in the new clause which will be subject to restrictions is modelled directly on the recommendations of Widdicombe in paragraph 6.217 of the report. The Government have already said in their White Paper at 5.24 that they wish to give effect to the recommendations.
It will be recalled that the politically restricted grades of civil servants, which broadly speaking are higher executive officers and upwards, are disbarred from national political activity defined in the code. Staff in the intermediate group may participate in such activities with the permission of their departments. It will be seen that the Civil Service code operates a more sophisticated and flexible system by avoiding a simple blanket ban applicable to a wide range of grades, including junior staff.
The evening is late. This is a genuine attempt to assist the Government in including in the Bill matters which we genuinely believe will be helpful in the interpretation of these issues. When we are talking about holding office in a political party, we must remember that by analogy to local politics it might be thought that the area of greatest concern would be the holding of office within a political party, which relates directly to its public campaigning in the local area. Thus the constituency press officer might be thought to have a public profile. But it is more difficult to see how a branch treasurer, a constituency social secretary or the premises officer for a political party are likely to be individuals of whom the public will be remotely aware.
There are a number of other illustrations which, if the night had been younger, I should have been pleased to tell the Committee about. But I am sure the Minister and his advisers have their brief ready and I look forward to hearing it. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This new clause would limit the scope of the regulations defining the political restrictions which are to form part of the conditions of employment of officers in the politically restricted group to certain aspects. These aspects are exactly for what the Government intend to use the power. I am happy to give an undertaking that we shall not be proposing any use of the regulation-making power outside the four corners of these items.
By the time that we reach Report stage we shall have put to the local authority associations our firm proposals for the use of these powers. Everyone will be able to see that this is what we intend. If any noble Lords have any doubt about what is proposed, we can return to the question at that stage. I hope that with that undertaking the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to hear that we shall be confined to the subheads, as the Minister said—the four corners, as I understand the illustration to mean. I understand also that we shall be in possession of a lot more flesh on the bones by the time we reach the Report stage in the overspill period. I am happy to wait until then to see it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 3 [Exemptions from political restriction]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 5, line 19, leave out ("person") and insert ("panel").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 54, 58, 60, 63 and 65 to 71. The burden of all those amendments deals with the appeals procedure. The purpose is to make the procedure for determining appeals by local authority staff more analagous to the procedures of the Civil Service.
In pleading support for his case, more than once the Minister rested his case on the good evidence that exists for the various procedures, including appeals, with the Civil Service. Throughout the Bill, the Government have taken the line that the provisions proposed for local government employees are far less onerous than those imposed on civil servants. During the Second Reading in another place, the Secretary of State said that the Government were mirroring as far as possible the very rules which apply to the Civil Service. The Minister described the Bill as imposing a lighter regime on local government officers than exists on civil servants.
The Government chose not to raise those arguments during the Lords Second Reading. Nonetheless, it is important to challenge those misconceptions. A key example of the difference between the way in which civil servants are treated and that to be accorded to local government officers is the procedure for appealing against political restriction.
The Civil Service appeals board comprises a chairman or deputy, one person drawn from a panel nominated by the official side and one person drawn from a trade union panel. In addition, the Civil Service code of practice specifies the procedure and time-table for appeals.
This amendment, and those grouped with it, seek to ensure that local government officers can similarly appeal to a panel. It also proposes a more practical system whereby the burden of thousands of appeals will not fall on two sole individuals; one for England and Wales and one for Scotland.
That is the burden of the amendments. They mirror precisely the arrangements which apply to the Civil Service when the issue of political restriction cannot be resolved at a departmental level. No matter how competent, one single adjudicator can embody only so much experience. That person will be undertaking a completely new role. This amendment proposes a sensible alternative which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of these amendments is to substitute a panel of persons for the person appointed under Clause 3(1) to consider applications for exemption from political restriction. The panel is to consist of three members—an independent person who shall be the chairman, a representative of local authorities, and a person representative of trade unions with members affected or potentially affected by the political restrictions proposed under Clause 1(5).
Our purpose in the Bill is to set out certain clearly defined categories of senior local government staff who should be prevented from taking part in public political activity. One of these categories included in Clause 2(1)(g) is different from the others, because it is defined according to officers' salary level rather than the nature of their duties. Because of that we believe it is right that a further mechanism should be provided, enabling the independent person to be able to grant exemptions for persons in that group.

893
It would be the Secretary of State's intention to appoint someone with suitable experience as the independent person. The issues which the independent person would have to consider are, we believe, fairly clear-cut and we feel that it is unnecessary to establish a full-scale panel as suggested.
One of the main advantages an independent person would bring, as compared to a panel, is that he would be truly independent and not a representative of interest groups. We do not think it appropriate that trade union representatives should sit in judgment on this question. We are talking of the implementation of a clear set of criteria determined by Parliament. It is for that reason that we feel that the answer proposed in the Bill is the most satisfactory solution, and we resist the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Why is it that the Minister picks and chooses between Civil Service practice, which he tells us is good, sound and pure; and yet when we say that what is good enough for the Civil Service should be good enough for local government, he says that we should forget about that? He says that what the Government propose is better. If that is so, why does he put up with an inferior system for the Civil Service? What is different?
The Minister says that it would be wrong to introduce an element of selective pleading and bargaining. However, what happens in the Civil Service arrangement? That exists now. The basic question which the Minister must ask is: is Widdicombe fair? I do not believe that it is. If the Minister wants to convince people outside the Committee that he is serious, then he must explain why the practice and procedures which apply for appeals in political matters in the Civil Service should not apply to local government.
Lord Hesketh: We come back to an argument which we have covered several times today. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, likes to insinuate that the Government's position is that these proposals are in every way similar to those of the Civil Service. Quite clearly, this is a matter of horses for courses, and we are talking about two different situations.
We have tried to mirror the fine example to be found in the Civil Service. However, there will always be occasions, as I pointed out this afternoon, where it will be different because the Civil Service is a single employer. The situation is quite different when one is talking of local authorities. Therefore, there will always be areas of difference, and that is the Government's position. I explained that before and I am happy to do so again.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 5, line 20, after ("made") insert ("on appeal").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 47, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 49, 52, 53 and 64. Before doing so, I should observe to both the Minister and my noble friend Lord Graham that the debate on the last series of amendments was conducted on the basis that there will be an appeals procedure. If one looks at subsection (2)(a) of Clause 3, one sees that the basis for the appeals procedure is where:
"a local authority have specified or are proposing to specify any post under the authority in a list maintained under subsection (2) of section (2) above".
There is now no subsection (2) of Section 2 above as the Committee in its wisdom has removed that from the Bill. Therefore, the question seriously arises as to whether the appeals procedure has any meaning.
The remaining qualifications in Clause 3(2) are additional and not alternative. Before taking up too much time of the Committee on appeals procedure, I should like to seek the Minister's opinion, as a result of the passage of Amendment No. 28, as to whether the appeals procedure set out in Clause 3 has any meaning at all.
On the supposition that the appeals procedure has meaning without Clause 2(2), then the amendments to which I am referring are relevant and have some significance. At paragraph 5.22, the White Paper stated that the restricted posts were to be:
"nominated locally on the basis of statutory criteria".
That implies that there is an element of local decision-making although the Secretary of State has overriding power. If that is to be the case, surely local authorities should have to establish, as our major amendment states, a procedure for initial applications so that they can notify the staff affected of those applications and curtail what would otherwise be a protracted and unnecessary national procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I am skating on thin ice but I believe that he is correct in saying that it is otiose, in which case we would have to look at the position before Report stage. I believe that is the case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister is right. It is obvious that the acceptance of Amendment No. 28 has made necessary a large number of consequential amendments, not only to Clause 3 but to later parts of the Bill. I accept that it is my responsibility, having moved the amendment, to attempt to put the Bill right before it comes before the House on Report. In the meantime, it would be better if I withdrew this amendment, did not move other amendments, and opposed the Question, That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert ("after the failure of any initial application for such exception to the local authority concerned").
The noble Lord said: It may assist the Minister if I speak long enough for him to seek advice on this matter. My understanding is that the important part of Clause 3 is subsection (2)(a), which is a fundamental criterion for the appointment of,
"a person for the purposes of this section to consider applications made … for exemption from political restriction".
The reference to Clause 2(2) is an essential part of subsection (2) and the rest of Clause 3 depends on that reference to Clause 2(2) which no longer exists. If my analysis is correct, Clause 3 is either impossible or so badly drafted that it needs to be taken back and reconsidered. Therefore I beg to move Amendment No. 49 in order to give the Minister an opportunity to reflect on that point.
Lord Hesketh: It is my understanding that two points should be made. First, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is correct in his summation of the situation concerning Clause 3. However, I am also advised that I should draw the Committee's attention to the fact that when the noble Lord moved his original amendment which has so affected Clause 3 he did so without informing the Committee of the consequential effect of it. I should put that on record. However, we accept his suggestion for the moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that. I accept the rebuke that it would have been better if, in moving Amendment No. 28, I had indicated that there were further consequential amendments. This is a failing that has happened when the Government have introduced amendments at a later stage consequential on amendments introduced at an earlier stage. There is nothing remarkable or unusual about it. I do not feel guilty that I failed to do what I should have done. However, it is an omission for which I apologise to the Committee. In the circumstances, I give notice that I shall not move any of the amendments standing in my name; namely, Amendments Nos. 50 to 71 inclusive. We can therefore proceed to the Motion that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 71 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wish to oppose the Motion that Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill for the reasons already explained.
Clause 3 negatived.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 11.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 10.32 to 11.30 p.m.]
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 12 midnight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 11.30 to 12 midnight.]
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 12.30 a.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 12 midnight to 12.30 a.m.]
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1 a.m.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1 a.m.—(Viscount Long.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the Question is put, I wonder whether the noble Viscount the acting Whip on the Government Front Bench can indicate on how many more occasions he thinks we may have to go through this procedure. The House will be interested to know whether he has any idea how long it may be or how many more times we may have to adjourn.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of what is going on tonight. The proceedings in another place will shortly be coming to a conclusion. Therefore, by about 2 a.m. if not before, we shall probably be able to conclude.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, if the noble Viscount says that we shall not finish these proceedings until 2 a.m., would it not be wise to adjourn for a longer period?
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Davidson): My Lords, the Question is that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1 a.m. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content?
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, Not-Content?
Lord Hacking: Not-Content.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the Contents have it. Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 12.30 to 1 a.m.]
1.7 a.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I think it is quite in order to raise the question of the Business of the House before the noble Viscount, Lord Long, moves the Motion. I understand that he wishes to make a Business Statement, which I am sure noble Lords will be interested to hear.
Tomorrow we are to consider Commons reasons on the Social Security Bill. It will be an interesting debate.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip will, I am sure, wish to continue speaking in a moment, and we should like to continue listening to him. However, I think that the noble Lord ought perhaps to speak to a Motion. Therefore, if my noble friend Lord Long moves a Motion for an adjournment, we can then give way to the noble Lord and he can continue speaking. That is the correct procedure and the noble Lord will then be speaking to a Motion.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should hate to quarrel with the Leader of the House at this early hour on Thursday morning but it is my understanding that, if the noble Viscount the duty Government Whip moves a Motion for an adjournment, it will not be possible to receive the Message. The House will then have to resume to receive the Message. If the Message arrives from the Commons before the Motion to adjourn the House is actually moved, we can receive the Message. Once the Motion has been put to the House, we cannot receive the Message at that time. Therefore I was in a sense anticipating the Business Statement which I understood the duty Whip was about to make concerning the progress as he saw it of the matter which we are about to have under consideration. If I am wrong, no doubt the Leader of the House will correct me.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I know that I am going over the same ground, but if my noble friend Lord Long moves the Motion for the adjournment, that Motion can then be spoken to. We shall not conclude until the noble Lord has satisfied himself that he has said what he wishes to say and has received a reasonable answer. It is just a question of having a Motion before the House. Unless a Motion is moved, neither the noble Lord nor any other noble Lord ought to be speaking.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1.20 a.m.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1.20 a.m.—(Viscount Long.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I understand that it is possible for this Motion to be withdrawn at a later stage. The noble Viscount may wish to withdraw the Motion if a certain event, which we all anticipate, takes place. It has been
898
confirmed to me through the usual channels that the Motion can be withdrawn so that we may receive the Message which we shall debate during tomorrow's Sitting of Parliament, in some thirteen and a half hours' time. This will no doubt be an interesting debate. My noble friend Lady Jeger has left me a message to say that she has been listening to the debate in another place.
Following that debate tomorrow we shall return to the Committee stage of the Local Government and Housing Bill. We had interesting debates on the Bill today. Indeed there was a government defeat earlier in the evening, though I had not intended to mention that fact. I hope that it does not cause undue embarrassment in any quarters, but it was quite an important amendment. Having considered that Bill tomorrow, we shall then move on to the Third Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill. That Motion is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, from the Northern Ireland Office. A number of interesting matters will arise during consideration of the Bill. It is intended that those proceedings will start at about 8.30 p.m. I have no doubt that a number of Northern Ireland Peers will wish to speak. Certain contentious issues will be raised and I see that arrangements have been made for the House to sit late. However, tomorrow being Thursday, the House will not be able to sit after 11 p.m. I see that arrangements have been made for dinner to be available, which is most suitable when the House is sitting late.
On Friday, 21st July, we shall have the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Continental Shelf Bill. I wonder whether I may be speaking slightly faster than may be necessary. We passed a Motion earlier this week to enable all stages of a Bill to be taken at a single Sitting. The Continental Shelf Bill comes into that category. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will speak for the Government and that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos will deal with it for the Opposition. Twenty minutes are to be allowed, which is probably about right. The Second Reading of the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill will also be taken. That will be a rather more contentious matter. It is to be handled for the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. My noble friends Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Macaulay of Bragar will handle it for the Official Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will speak for the Social and Liberal Democrats.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord on having got the name of my party right for once. Many people try to find other ways of describing us. He is indeed quite right that my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie will be dealing with this most important proposition from these Benches and I am sure that he is at this present moment busily at work in deepest Angus poring over the pages of the Bill. I am quite certain that we can all look forward to a most excellent debate when it takes place. However, I have to say that many of us regret that Scottish business on important matters of this kind has to be taken on a

899
Friday. The Scottish Members of this House like to get back to their northern fastness and I know that there is some irritation when the Government are forced by pressures of time to bring forward business of this kind on a Friday.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, that is very helpful indeed. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for advising me about these matters. It is of course true, too, that the Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Bill Committee stage will also be taken on that day. Surprisingly, that has caused some degree of contention and I understand that a number of amendments have been put down. The Committee will no doubt give due consideration to those amendments and, indeed, I understand that some interesting propositions are to be put forward concerning methods of dealing with the problem of teenage drinkers in Scotland.
Those proceedings will last for some two hours, which will, I hope, take us to approximately 3.30 p.m., when we shall reach the Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I see that this matter is to be handled by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the Government and by my noble friend Lord Peston for the Opposition. This Question concerns the redeployment of two history teachers who were formerly employed at Lewes Priory Comprehensive School. This again looks like being an interesting debate and I can assure noble Lords that I shall be in attendance at that time.
I see that we are then to wind up with the issue of Royal Assent—something which it is most interesting to deal with on a Friday afternoon.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for having moved the Motion and to suggest that he may perhaps now wish to withdraw it.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Social Security Bill
Returned from the Commons with one of the amendments agreed to and with the remaining amendments disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement; the reasons ordered to be printed.
Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Bill
Returned from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

King's Cross Railways Bill
A message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders:
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament,
900
provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the word 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Opticians Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; the Bill ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past one o'clock.

  ARGENTINA: RELATIONS WITH UK
  ARGENTINA: RELATIONS WITH UK
  MACAO: ISSUE OF PORTUGUESE PASSPORTS
  MACAO: ISSUE OF PORTUGUESE PASSPORTS
  HONG KONG CITIZENS: UK UNDERTAKINGS
  HONG KONG CITIZENS: UK UNDERTAKINGS
  A.4 HAMMERSMITH/CHISWICK SECTION: LITTER
  A.4 HAMMERSMITH/CHISWICK SECTION: LITTER
  NEW ROAD SCHEMES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  NEW ROAD SCHEMES: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  AIR TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION: CAA ADVICE
  AIR TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION: CAA ADVICE
  CRIME SCREENING
  CRIME SCREENING
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS SERVICE: REPORT
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS SERVICE: REPORT
  LEEDS PRISON: NEW FACILITIES
  LEEDS PRISON: NEW FACILITIES
  HEALTH EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS
  HEALTH EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS
  RIVER BOLLIN: LINDANE POLLUTION
  RIVER BOLLIN: LINDANE POLLUTION
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: COMPARATIVE DATA
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: COMPARATIVE DATA
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: VALUE OF ORDERS
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: VALUE OF ORDERS