Sitting of 6 November 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords]

      UNITED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords]
      Orders for consideration read.
      To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

      CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL ( By Order)
      Order for consideration, as amended, read.
      To be considered on Monday 13 November.

      MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] ( By Order)
      Order for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Monday 13 November.

      BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL
      Motion made,
      That the Promoters of the British Film Institute Southbank Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the 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, 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 shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
      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.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

      REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
      Motion made,
      That the Promoters of the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings there or in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later
      656
      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 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 shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
      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.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Industrial Development
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial resources are available to the Welsh Development Agency during the current financial year for the purposes of industrial development; and what plans he has to increase this sum for the next financial year.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): The Welsh Development Agency has a total budget for 1989–90 of £130 million which will be deployed in promoting economic development in Wales. This represents an increase of over 50 per cent. on the budget for 1987–88. The agency's spending plans for 1990–91 will be announced following the Chancellor's Autumn Statement.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the WDA in Gwynedd has not been able to go ahead with some scheduled industrial site projects because of a lack of finance? At a meeting with me, the WDA attributed this to the effect of projects such as those involving Bosch and Toyota—welcome though they are in themselves—on the overall budget. Budgets for areas such as Gwynedd are sucked in to meet those requirements. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the WDA has asked that additional resources be made available? Can he confirm that major additional resources will be made available to meet the needs of major projects? Will he ensure that the resources from capital sales are available to the WDA for such projects and that it can roll its budget over from one year to the next?
    Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that, partly because of sales and partly because of extra Government funds, there has been a substantial increase in the budget of 50 per cent. In Gwynedd, 23,000 sq ft of WDA floor space is vacant. The WDA plans to start work on an additional 50,000 sq

    657
    ft of factory and workshop floor space in the current financial year. On average, one factory a month has been built in the past 10 years. Much has been done, but I recognise that there is much more to be done.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that now that substantial private sector investment is creating business parks and providing factory space in south-east Clwyd—in Wrexham Maelor and in Alyn and Deeside —the WDA should concentrate its resources on factory development in north-east Clwyd, coastal Clwyd and Gwynedd, so that we can achieve a more balanced provision of WDA factory space in north Wales?
    Mr. Walker: It is important that the WDA concentrates its substantially increased facilities and money in those areas where job creation has the highest priority.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The WDA plays an important role abroad. In the interests of Welsh business, can the Secretary of State tell the House when he thinks that Britain should join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system? Is he hiding behind the Prime Minister's skirts, or is he shoulder to shoulder with the Leader of the House, the former Foreign Secretary?
    Mr. Walker: I consider that careful judgment needs to be given to the exact timing.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the current in-patient and out-patient hospital waiting lists in each of the Welsh area health authorites, by specialty.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): As the answer contains numerous figures I will with permission, Mr. Speaker, circulate the information in the Official Report.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is it not true that while the figures for mid-Glamorgan show a slight improvement, within those figures there is another tale, especially in the Cynon-Merthyr area? Is it not a fact that, over the past five years, the number of in-patients and out-patients waiting for hospital treatment has remained more or less the same? Is that the best that the Minister can do?
    Mr. Grist: First, may I congratulate the hon. Lady on her electoral success and take leave to evince that I do not think that she will ever hide behind her convictions.
    I think that the hon. Lady would like to join me in congratulating her health authority on the 30 per cent. reduction between March 1987 and March 1989 in the number of in-patients waiting more than one year for treatment.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Can my hon. Friend say anything about the proposed treatment centres intended to shorten waiting lists for certain forms of treatment?

    31 March 1989

    Out-Patients Waiting List

    Specialty

    Pembrokeshire

    Clwyd

    East Dyfed

    Gwent

    Gwynedd

    Mid Glamorgan

    Powys

    South Glamorgan

    West Glamorgan

    Wales

    General Medicine

    180

    510

    357

    674

    523

    908

    9

    792

    328

    4,281

    Paediatrics

    39

    144

    85

    121

    62

    205

    27

    448

    103

    1,234

    Chest Disease

    14

    14

    68

    15

    78

    94

    17

    300

    Dermatology

    465

    760

    724

    2,304

    226

    3,174

    41

    2,354

    2,016

    12,064

    Neurology

    114

    176

    16

    33

    23

    9

    634

    705

    1,710

    Mr. Grist: Yes. My hon. Friend knows that Ysbyty Gwynedd will have one of the treatment centres. We debated them fully in the Welsh Grand Committee last week. The centres will speed up operations for people on waiting lists. Although I do not wish to overemphasise waiting lists, the centres will make a major contribution to shortening the waiting lists which we all deplore.
    Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister agree that Powys health authority should be congratulated on its attempts to reduce waiting lists by means of its health education programme aimed at eliminating hydatid disease? Does he further agree that such a programme would be more effective if the Welsh Office fully funded a dog-worming scheme, as has been done in New Zealand where the disease has been practically eliminated? Was it not self-evident on Saturday, from the way in which the New Zealand team performed, that that had been effective?
    Mr. Grist: I did not know that it was a case of a need for worming. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. He will be aware that the Welsh Office funded a worming programme which has now been handed over successfully to the Powys health authority, which has welcomed the programme.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Minister confirm that he has not given us three treatment centres to tackle waiting lists, but merely an extension of the time of three consultants and support staff? That hardly amounts to three centres. Will he further confirm that all health authorities in Wales are having to make cuts and savings in the middle of the current financial year because of the Government's economic failure? What does he intend to do about that? Will he make available a special allocation of funds to tackle the £130 million repairs backlog in Welsh hospitals? Will he now address the problem of waiting lists in Wales, which he has so far failed to tackle?
    Mr. Grist: I can confirm that authorities are expected to raise 1·3 per cent. of their funding through cost improvements and income-generation schemes, as they have successfully done in the past. We anticipate that on top of the 7·3 per cent. increase in funding, that will be sufficient to meet their immediate requirements. On all the other matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, such as upkeep and the £130 million backlog, he might like to take into account that when his party was in office, health authorities did not even know the capital value of their stocks because they did not bother to record them. Of the enormous value of hospital stocks in Wales, £130 million is a small proportion. Every hon. Member knows of old hospitals in his constituency that are due to be changed, modernised or closed and replaced with new facilities. That is included in those figures.
    Following is the information:

    659

    31 March 1989

    Out-Patients Waiting List

    Specialty

    Pembrokeshire

    Clwyd

    East Dyfed

    Gwent

    Gwynedd

    Mid Glamorgan

    Powys

    South Glamorgan

    West Glamorgan

    Wales

    Cardiology

    1

    462

    463

    Phys Med/Rehab

    STD

    Rheumatology

    94

    72

    436

    923

    8

    435

    455

    2,423

    Geriatrics

    2

    30

    14

    24

    32

    50

    152

    Younger Disabled

    General Surgery

    409

    1,301

    849

    1,646

    785

    1,612

    97

    2,847

    1,568

    11,114

    ENT

    920

    1,376

    1,300

    1,572

    834

    2,641

    261

    2,648

    2,363

    13,915

    Trau and Orth

    757

    1,182

    839

    2,721

    708

    3,219

    275

    3,111

    3,169

    15,981

    Ophthalmology

    84

    1,043

    360

    864

    1,302

    1,787

    186

    1,523

    1,377

    8,526

    Radiotherapy

    16

    26

    15

    57

    Urology

    490

    128

    170

    633

    1,524

    2,945

    Plastic Surgery

    206

    39

    208

    26

    26

    169

    674

    Thoracic Surgery

    2

    2

    Dental Surgery

    32

    517

    109

    902

    224

    204

    37

    304

    519

    2,848

    Orthodontics

    20

    230

    260

    330

    86

    87

    92

    1,352

    321

    2,778

    Neurosurgery

    5

    7

    82

    26

    120

    Gynaecology

    196

    826

    605

    1,307

    424

    1,614

    28

    1,233

    1,152

    7,385

    Psych Children

    47

    46

    34

    127

    Mental H'Cap

    Mental Illness

    67

    62

    259

    33

    454

    3

    210

    85

    1,173

    Adol Psych Units

    GP Medical

    GP Dental

    Others:—

    Pain Relief

    50

    6

    6

    13

    75

    Colposcopy

    17

    17

    Obstetrics

    171

    32

    59

    262

    Haematology

    5

    8

    14

    8

    35

    Sex. Dysfunction

    6

    6

    Cardiac Surgery

    56

    56

    Psycho Geriatric

    22

    22

    Total

    3,135

    9,200

    5,890

    13,616

    5,360

    17,223

    1,073

    19,294

    15,954

    90,745

    31 March 1989

    In-Palients Waiting List

    Specialty

    Pembrokeshire

    Clwyd

    East Dyfed

    Gwent

    Gwynedd

    Mid Glamorgan

    Powys

    South Glamorgan

    West Glamorgan

    Wales

    General Medicine

    5

    39

    2

    46

    Paediatrics

    135

    135

    Chest Disease

    Dermatology

    9

    5

    14

    Neurology

    63

    18

    81

    Cardiology

    110

    110

    Physical Medical Rehabilitation

    151

    151

    STD

    Rheumatology

    28

    10

    2

    60

    100

    Geriatrics

    1

    12

    4

    17

    Younger Disabled

    General Surgery

    1,457

    1,118

    940

    1,762

    843

    1,742

    1,299

    1,264

    10,425

    ENT

    1,215

    479

    914

    735

    2,124

    737

    1,057

    7,261

    Trauma and Orthopaedic

    800

    904

    436

    2,043

    119

    1,132

    1,801

    1,079

    8,314

    Ophthalmology

    356

    674

    868

    611

    397

    633

    964

    4,503

    Radiotherapy

    54

    16

    70

    Urology

    568

    651

    66

    822

    81

    2,188

    Plastic Surgery

    2,049

    2,049

    Thoracic Surgery

    Dental Surgery

    267

    266

    354

    140

    255

    418

    1,700

    Orthodontics

    Neurosurgery

    54

    79

    133

    Gynaecology

    232

    706

    229

    938

    272

    862

    470

    706

    4,415

    Psych Children

    Mental Handicap

    Mental Illness

    6

    6

    12

    Adolescent Psych Units

    GP Medical

    113

    113

    GP Dental

    8

    8

    31 March 1989

    In-Patients Waiting List

    Specialty

    Pembrokeshire

    Clwyd

    East Dyfed

    Gwent

    Gwynedd

    Mid Glamorgan

    Powys

    South Glamorgan

    West Glamorgan

    Wales

    Others

    Pain Relief

    Colposcopy

    Obstetrics

    Haematology

    Sexual Dysfunction

    Cardiac Surgery

    119

    119

    Psycho Geriatric

    TOTAL

    2,489

    5,139

    2,776

    9,531

    2,934

    6,630

    117

    6,598

    5,750

    41,964

    Eye Tests
    Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has made a review of the numbers of people in Wales undergoing eye tests since the change in the regulations; and what the corresponding number was for the appropriate period prior to the change.
    Mr. Grist: Most of the sight tests undertaken since 1 April 1989 have been private transactions and statistical information is not available centrally. The number of National Health Service sight tests from April to September 1988 for which payment was made to opticians was 329,925. It is considered too early to review the effect of the change in regulations, but the Government intend to commission a survey later this year on the volume of sight tests.
    Mr. Coleman: Under the new lights here in the Chamber, can I not see a blush of shame on the Minister's face? Is he aware that ophthalmologists acting as consultants to opticians are worried that, as a result of the abolition of free eye tests, they are now unable properly to monitor people whom they suspect to be liable to suffer from glaucoma, even though the disease does not exist at present in the family? Will he impress upon his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health the need to take note of the matter and to restore free eye testing to ensure good eye health for everyone?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman and others describe the average charge of around £10 as rather too much of a deterrent to the ordinary person. It is worth remembering that about 20 million people are eligible for free sight tests, including, as the hon. Gentleman must know from the way in which he put the question, all those who are closely related to people who suffer from glaucoma disease.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that some opticians are offering free sight tests? Does he agree that this is a matter best left to opticians as part of a comprehensive service? Does he further agree that as a result of the Government's changes, opticians are now offering a far better range of glasses and contact lenses at a far lower real cost?
    Mr. Grist: That is absolutely true and bears out the rules of competition in the. market place. As I said in my original answer, we are monitoring what is happening and we shall want to see what occurs. We have no desire, of course, to damage anybody's eyesight.
    Mr. John P. Smith: On the important issue of eye tests, the Minister and other hon. Members would be forgiven for thinking that I am holding a jar of marmalade. In fact, it is drinking water drawn off by a constituent of mine in the community of Craig Penllyne. Does the Minister wish to comment on that?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does this have anything to do with eye tests?

    Rail Electrification
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had any discussions with British Rail regarding electrification of the Crewe to Holyhead line or the Western main line from Paddington to Swansea.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend discussed electrification when he met the chairman of British Rail on 12 December 1988.
    Dr. Marek: I have been told that the Welsh Office favours electrification of the line from Paddington to south Wales, as opposed to electrification of the line from Crewe to Holyhead. If that is not the case, I should welcome the Minister's assurance to that effect and I should like him to say unequivocally that he will press British Rail—if in its wisdom it wishes to do it—for electrification of either line. One should not precede the other, for both are important to the industrial development of the Principality.
    Mr. Roberts: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There is no justification for saying that the Welsh Office has pressed the case for one line as opposed to the other. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that the case for electrification is weak on both economic and financial grounds for both lines. There is a tendency to regard electrification as magical. We are really interested in improved journey times and I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that British Rail is considering improving the north Wales line so that the maximum speed could be 90 mph rather than 70 mph, as at present.
    Mr. Sayeed: On the journey between Paddington and Swansea, the train passes through a number of English and Welsh constituencies. As my hon. Friend will know, the average size of an English constituency is 69,533 electors, whereas a Welsh constituency has an average of 57,753 electors. Will my hon. Friend tell us why a Welsh vote is worth 20 per cent. more than an English vote?
    Mr. Roberts: I suppose that the simple answer is that we are. My hon. Friend will be aware of the different sizes of constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales, and of the three, Scotland is the most favoured.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Minister aware that there are two important lines going through mid-Wales, one from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth and one from Shrewsbury through Llandrindod Wells to Swansea. Will the Minister have a word with the chairman of British Rail and try to persuade him to spend more money on those important routes?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will concede that there have been considerable improvements to rail services in different parts of Wales, including mid-Wales. There is an improved frequency of services in north Wales, as a result of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. There are extra trains and coaches on the south Wales line and improvements in mid-Wales as well.

    Welsh Counties Committee
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Welsh Counties Committee; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the representatives of district councils in Wales; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I met representatives of the Welsh Counties Committee and the Council of Welsh Districts at a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 2 November to discuss local government finance matters.
    Mr. Morgan: Perhaps one of the burning topics that will be put before the Secretary of State when he next meets the Welsh Counties Committee will be the appalling bungle that the Welsh Office has made during the past 12 months. It has prevented Welsh counties, including South and West Glamorgan and Clwyd, from submitting to the European Commission applications for grants from the regional development fund to help with infrastructure schemes. Now that the counties are in a position to submit schemes for consideration, the EEC has changed the rules, and large infrastructure projects are no longer available. I should like to hear from the Secretary of State what his own estimate is, but it looks to me as though his Department and his bungling have cost the British taxpayer more than £66 million. Can he comment on that?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I can comment on it. The hon. Gentleman's assertions are mythical and unfounded, and the Welsh counties local authorities have expressed considerable gratitude for all the help that the Welsh Office has given them:
    Mr. Murphy: Did not Welsh council leaders tell the Secretary of State at the meeting last Thursday that his figure of £175 for the Welsh poll tax is a massive underestimate? Will he admit that the implementation of the poll tax in Wales is now a shambles, and that councils face even higher administrative and running costs as a direct result of his Government's policy? Does not all this
    664
    anyway smack of back-pedalling and panic because there is not one friend of the poll tax in the Principality of Wales?
    Mr. Walker: I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not present at the meeting, which was cordial and constructive. There were no complaints along the lines that he describes, and I suggest that he consults local authorities more fully to find out what is really going on.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Did my right hon. Friend discuss the fear of many in Wales that some local councils are using the inevitable confusion arising from the change in revenue raising next April and the fact that many of them do not have to face elections to raise the community charge far higher than is necessary? That will be a decision of the Welsh local councils. What steps does my right hon. Friend propose to take to protect the people of Wales from such councils?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that such actions will not be taken. The background is that Welsh authorities in the main have acted responsibly and that is one reason why we have succeeded in negotiating a community charge in Wales of about £100 less than that in England or Scotland.
    Mr. Flynn: Did the counties committee raise with the Secretary of State the disparity in spending in Scotland and Wales—especially spending on the Health Service? Is he aware that two parliamentary answers today show that the average spending on the Health Service per head of the population is £504 in Scotland, whereas the average in Wales is a mere £445. Why is that?
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman tabled the questions himself, he will know that exactly the same differential existed in 1978 and 1979.
    Mr. Barry Jones: On a matter as important as poll tax transitional relief and revenue support grant in Wales, why has the right hon. Gentleman decided not to make an oral statement? We note that the Secretary of State for the Environment proposes to make such a statement and to submit to oral questioning. Do you note, Mr. Speaker, that on the Order Paper for written answer today are questions tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) relating to the poll tax and revenue support grants? Why is the Secretary of State running away from the House? Why has he decided not to make a statement and answer questions? Why has he elected to behave in so slippery a style? He knows that Wales hates the poll tax and that Welsh local authorities are starved of cash. Why is there no statement to the House?
    Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I intend to make an oral statement as usual—certainly way before Christmas—when I shall give full details of my proposals for local government finance. Following my constructive meeting with local authorities the local authority associations shared my view that it would not be helpful at this stage to publish examples illustrating the likely effects of my proposals on individual authorities. As Wales has done far better in terms of the poll tax than the rest of the United Kingdom, I shall rejoice in making that statement.

    M4
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will invite tenders in 1990 to enable the sections on the M4 between Lon-las and Baglan to be completed by the end of 1992.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Tenders have been invited for the Earlswood Lon-las scheme with a view to letting the contract before the end of this financial year. Work on the two remaining schemes is planned to start early in the period April 1991 to March 1994 as shown in "Roads in Wales 1989". These schemes will take two and a half and three years respectively and will be completed simultaneously.
    Mr. Wardell: The Minister has given a totally unacceptable time scale in his reply involving a three-year span and he is not willing to give a precise date when those two sections will begin. Does the Minister accept that the people of Wales must be deeply embarrassed after 10 years of Conservative Government because the M4 in Wales remains incomplete and that is a major obstacle to the creation of new jobs west of that particular bottleneck which is driving inward investment away from an area which desperately needs it?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard my reply. I said that the two remaining schemes were planned to start early in the period April 1991 to March 1994. We are well aware of the problems with congestion on the M4 and A48 and that is why we are currently undertaking a scheme of road widening and traffic signalling at Baglan roundabout which will be completed early in the new year. We have further schemes to alleviate congestion for Briton Ferry and the Earlswood roundabouts. Those schemes will give us time to complete this very large project which will cost £116 million at November 1988 prices.

    Mid-Glamorgan Health Authority
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of Mid-Glamorgan health authority; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Grist: The Secretary of State and I met the chairman of Mid-Glamorgan health authority, together with other Welsh health authority chairmen, on 30 November 1988. We discussed a number of issues, including the NHS review and resource allocations for 1989–90.
    Dr. Howells: Given the high rates of morbidity and illness in the Mid-Glamorgan health authority area and the dilapidated state of key sections of its most important hospital—East Glamorgan general hospital—does the Minister have any plans to speed up the replacement of that hospital? Given that until now it has been common currency that the site for the replacement hospital will be Ynys Plwm to the north of Talbot Green, will he explain the curious anomaly whereby information has been made public recently stating that the Minister wants that site to be available for industrial and commercial expansion?
    Mr. Grist: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that although a number of planning approval and funding issues remain to be resolved, it is understood that Mid-Glamorgan health authority continues to focus its
    666
    efforts on securing land at Ynys Plwm. That remains the position as of today. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we deferred consideration of the health authority's proposals pending the authority's financial and timing proposals. That remains the present position.
    Mr. Ron Davies: May I draw the Minister's attention to the situation in Rhymney valley and will he raise that issue with the chairman of the health authority the next time he meets him? Waiting lists in Rhymney valley are increasing almost monthly and the quality of the service is deteriorating, but there are no plans to make adequate provision in Rhymney valley and the neighbouring Islwyn valley because of administrative arrangements and disagreements between Mid-Glamorgan health authority and Gwent area health authority. Does the Minister accept that about 150,000 people do not have a district general hospital? Instead of cutting the service and undermining the morale of staff in the National Health Service, should not the Minister be persuading those two area health authorities to get together and co-operate? If he provides the funds, we can have our new district general hospital.
    Mr. Grist: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's local point on this contentious issue which has been running for a great many years now. However, it is ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to talk about cuts when expenditure on the Health Service in Wales has risen from £488 million to £1,600 million. I assure him that our proposals under the NHS review should assist his constituents to have operations and treatment in neighbouring hospitals more easily and flexibly than hitherto.
    Mr. Rowlands: Did the Minister's discussions relate to the problems faced by elderly people in Merthyr, for example, who are awaiting hip operations—people who do not have a lot of time to wait? Was he able to discuss how many such operations were to be conducted at the treatment centre at Rhydlafar, and how many people who are presently on the Prince Charles hospital waiting list will go for that treatment? Above all, why can we not have the facility at the hospital in the community in which those people are living?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the very point that I was making to his hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) about our Health Service review. His health authority had various visiting consultants to the Prince Charles hospital, illustrating that the facilities there could be used at a far higher intensity. That is precisely what would be available under our proposals.

    British Rail
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I last met the chairman of British Rail on 12 December 1988. The discussions covered a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Jones: In view of the Minister of State's reply to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), will the Secretary of State now give the House the whole picture and confirm that British Rail intends to cut expenditure and upgrading work on the section of line between

    667
    Holyhead and Bangor? That information was provided by British Rail only recently. Does the Secretary of State agree that such cuts are utterly disgraceful, bearing in mind that British Rail is prepared to commit millions of pounds to the Channel tunnel project but is withdrawing investment from an important line connecting Ireland and Europe? Does he agree that that priority causes the people of Holyhead to wonder whether British Rail is committed to the future of that line? Will he make our views known to the chairman of British Rail when he next meets him?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that British Rail is spending a great deal of money on improving rolling stock and times in mid-Wales and north Wales. Total expenditure by British Rail in Wales is at a high level, some of which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, must be heavily subsidised, and correctly so. British Rail is doing a great deal of modernisation work, which I welcome.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a justified fear in south-west Wales that British Rail is not interested in anything west of Cardiff? In particular, there is concern that InterCity services will stop at Cardiff. There is concern also that no attempt is being made to provide a direct and speedy link from south-west Wales to the Channel tunnel. When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he get an assurance that InterCity services will not end at Cardiff? Will the Welsh Office, British Rail and the county council try to plan a direct link from south-west Wales to the Channel tunnel?
    Mr. Walker: Rail services to Swansea are exceedingly good by any standards. It is a great mistake for the right hon. Gentleman to imply that they have not been maintained to a high order. There are no plans to reduce that service. There are quite a few plans to improve British Rail's rolling stock and general service.
    On the Channel tunnel, there is a need for better terminal arrangements in south Wales and north Wales. Important as it is to get good use of the Channel tunnel, if it has maximum success it will carry only 15 per cent. of freight from this country to Europe. It is in Wales's interests to look at where the other 85 per cent. is going.

    Toxic Waste (Clwyd)
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from individuals and organisations opposed to the dumping of toxic wastes at sites in Clwyd.
    Mr. Grist: Representations have been received from hon. Members and from a number of organisations and individuals in connection with proposals for new waste disposal sites and the operations of an existing one in Clwyd.
    Mr. Jones: I should not be surprised if the representations include some from residents of Pentre, which is near the Penybont works. Those works will be used for toxic waste. Also, 80 per cent. of the perimeter of the works is surrounded by the River Dee. Will the Secretary of State ask the Government whether an environmental protection agency should be established to protect the residents of Clwyd and of Britain from such a dangerous development?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is going a little far. I know of the concern that is expressed by him and by many residents in the area about the various proposals. However, this matter is still in the hon. Gentleman's county council's hands. That is the right place for it to rest for the time being.

    Employment Training
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what number of males and females were employed on a part-time basis and on employment training for the past 12 months.
    Mr. Peter Walker: In June this year 197,000 females were estimated to be employed in Wales on a part-time basis, an increase of 8,000 on the June 1988 figure. Comparable figures for male part-time employment are not available. Over the past 12 months, 24,894 males and 10,168 females have started employment training in Wales.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware that since the abolition of the community programme training schemes, the ET schemes have failed to keep pace with the number of people employed on the CP schemes? What can the Secretary of State offer the people of Wales in terms of real training and real jobs? He said that male part-time employment figures are not available, but will he tell me, the House and Wales where he stands on the issue of the part-time Sir Alan Walters who was sacked by the Prime Minister and on the question of the dispute between the Prime Minister and the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer because that is what——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is wide of the question.
    Mr. Walker: As, I believe, the one Cabinet Minister who has no advisers, I have none of those problems. One of the most important aspects in developing training is the development of training and enterprise councils. I am pleased by the degree to which Glamorgan is giving the lead in that respect and I hope that the TECs will soon be in place doing important work.
    Mr. Wigley: As one of the 38 full-time advisers to the Secretary of State in Wales, may I ask him whether he accepts that part-time and seasonal jobs often camouflage problems in areas that are heavily dependent on tourism? Will he therefore look sympathetically at grant applications for projects that are meant to extend part-time and seasonal jobs into full-time job opportunities?
    Mr. Walker: Obviously, I would be reluctant to sack the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] That should do him damage. Any application will be considered on its merits.
    Mrs. Fyfe: May I say first how pleased I am to join my sister and brother Celts this afternoon? Secondly, has the Minister any advice—part time or otherwise—on the appalling imbalance between the opportunities for men and women on employment training in Wales, and what is he doing about it?
    Mr. Walker: I am glad that over the past two years there has been a substantial increase in the opportunities for female employment in Wales and I hope that that will continue.

    Salmonella
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Welsh Office inquiry into the salmonella outbreaks in Flint to be completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Grist: The Department is conducting an internal review of the handling of the outbreak to establish any lessons that can be learned for the future. The review will be completed as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the review is completed in time for the Government to write their recommendation into next Session's proposed food Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that in the event of future outbreaks it will be essential that we ensure much more effective co-operation between the local health authorities and local district councils involved, which means putting somebody in charge, preferably the local health authority?
    Mr. Grist: The findings of the review will be considered in connection with the Bill. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the very points that the review will consider co-ordination and co-operation between various authorities during an outbreak.
    Mr. Livsey: Is the Minister aware that there is a two-to-three-day delay in the notification of food poisoning incidents between the Welsh Office and the district councils, whereas in England the Department of the Environment gives district councils the information immediately? What is he going to do to put that matter right?
    Mr. Grist: As I have already said, that is one of the points that the review will consider. There are various points of view about how quickly one should issue warnings.

    New Jobs
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new jobs he has been able to announce for Wales during the summer recess.
    Mr. Walker: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that a number of major industrial investments in Wales were announced during the recess, including projects by Newbridge Networks, Gooding-Sanken and Dow Corning-Cabot. During the same period, more than 40 companies accepted regional selective assistance offers involving total investment of £42 million and the creation of nearly 1,700 new jobs. Between July and September, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Wales fell by some 6,000—from 96,200 to 90,200.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these extremely satisfactory figures are a tribute to the manner in which he has combined the use of market forces, judicious intervention and some pretty ruthless arm-twisting?
    Mr. Walker:: A range of factors are involved in that, but it is pleasing to know that, during the past year, unemployment in Wales has fallen faster than in any other region on the United Kingdom, and unemployment in the valleys has fallen faster than the rate for Wales as a whole.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Secretary of State agree with the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) who said in the House last Tuesday that we were once again in a downswing and that:
    "a dull 1989 is bound to be followed by a difficult 1990"?—[Official Report, 31 October 1989; Vol. 159, c. 209.]
    How long will it be before unemployment in Wales starts to rise again?
    Mr. Walker: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is one of those who have been cheering since the last general election. At that time, unemployment in Wales was 74 per cent. higher than it is now.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Rudolf Hess
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Attorney-General what decision the Director of Public Prosecutions has come to in respect of the Jones report on the circumstances surrounding the death of Rudolf Hess in Spandau prison in 1987.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The inquiries carried out by Detective Chief Superintendent Jones have produced no cogent evidence to suggest that Rudolf Hess was murdered; nor, on the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions, is there any basis for further investigation.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Solicitor-General agree that that is a deeply disappointing answer, if it is the truth? While the Government and the Prime Minister may not have improved their batting average in the veracity stakes over the past weekend, does he agree that, as the Jones report recommended that there were grounds for a full criminal investigation, it is deeply disappointing to find the hon. and learned Gentlemen coming to the House to say that he has done a Stalker on the issue.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman fails to realise that the prosecution process is wholly independent of the Government. It is assessed independently by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the results represent his independent conclusions.

    Kincora Boys' Home
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received asking for a reexamination of the evidence relating to Kincora boys' home with a view to prosecuting some of those involved.
    The Solicitor-General: None, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: What event or series of events prompted or induced so careful a Permanent Secretary as Sir Michael Quinlan to write formally to Sir Robin Butler to ask for a public inquiry into Kincora?
    The Solicitor-General: There have been two inquiries into Kincora. Neither has given rise to justification for any further criminal proceedings, over and above those that took place and led to the conviction of four people in 1981.
    Mr. Maclennan: Why has the Solicitor-General completely failed to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)?
    The Solicitor-General: I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

    Criminal Cases
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General what recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding criminal cases.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I have met the director on a number of occasions in the past month to discuss matters of departmental interest.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Director of Public Prosecutions considering the serious allegations about insider dealing by companies? Arising from that, is it part of the role of the Attorney-General to advise the Prime Minister on the need for rules to be tightened on shares held by Ministers?
    The Attorney-General: The answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. The policy of criminal law is the ministerial responsibility of the Home Secretary. I would gladly give the answer to the first part of the question, if I could remember it.
    Mr. Fraser: I wonder whether the Director of Public Prosecutions, when he met the Attorney-General, discussed the Guildford Four bombing case. Does the Attorney-General agree that, without disrespect to the courts, the acquittal of the Guildford Four was a ritual by the Court of Appeal, in the sense that they were convicted by one police force and acquitted by another? Can the Attorney-General confirm that the DPP, when giving evidence to Mr. Justice May's inquiry, will take a constructive view of his role, not just to secure good convictions but to avoid miscarriages of justice?
    Outstanding cases of miscarriage of justice have often been righted not by the ultimate investigations of the courts but by outside investigations which might be put in hand by the DPP.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman asks whether the acquittal of the Guildford Four by the Court of Appeal was a ritual acquittal. No acquittal is a ritual acquittal and no conviction is a ritual conviction. The acquittal of the Guildford Four followed upon the Court of Appeal's attention being drawn to new information, which in the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, with which I entirely agreed, rendered the original convictions unsafe.
    As to the attitude of the Director of Public Prosecutions to Sir John May's inquiry, I assure the House that the Director wishes to co-operate in the fullest possible way with Sir John May as he pursues the terms of reference that have been given for his inquiry, which could hardly be more widely drawn.
    Mr. Gow: What further steps will be taken by my right hon. and learned Friend or by the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring Mr. Patrick Ryan to trial, either in the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland?
    The Attorney-General: If Mr. Patrick Ryan is located in any country outside this jurisdiction with which we have the means of securing his arrest so that he may be brought to face trial here those steps will be taken. I assure the House that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the prosecuting authorities of this country will take all steps open to them to secure that Mr. Ryan faces trial.

    Appeal Statistics
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the number of appeals against conviction made to the Court of Appeal in the last five years, the number that have been allowed and the number that have been refused.
    The Attorney-General: From 1 January 1985 to 30 September 1989 the total number of applications for leave to appeal against conviction received by the Court of Appeal was 7,964. A total of 2,179 appeals against conviction were considered by the court and of those 878–40·3 per cent.—were allowed in full or in part and 1,301 were dismissed.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the criminal courts and the Court of Appeal can act only on the basis of the admissible evidence before them? Over the centuries the courts have worked painstakingly on admissibility and on the law of evidence to ensure that the best interests of the defendant are served. In those circumstances does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who are urging some sort of new tier in addition to the Court of Appeal, whether it is a people's court or something similar, simply do not understand the nature of the criminal court system or the painstaking efforts that are now taken by trial judges and by the Court of Appeal to act in the best interests of fairness and justice?
    The Attorney-General: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. I have greatly regretted some rather loose imputations that have been made against the courts in the light of recent events. I say that without commenting in one way or another upon the events with which the House has already been concerned this afternoon. The Court of Appeal deals with such matters in a most conscientious way and the work is extremely arduous. I can only suggest to those who are minded to make adverse imputations about the way in which the Court of Appeal does its work that they should go to watch that court at work.
    Mr. Sedgemore: If it is true, as we have just heard, that, over the centuries, the judges have been arduous in t pursuit of justice, how does the Attorney-General explain the actions of Judge Jeffreys after the battle of Sedgemoor?
    The Attorney-General: I do not know how many centuries we are going back, but I would be happy, with the hon. Gentleman, to compare the record of this country's judiciary, century for century and in the light of contemporary standards, with that of any judiciary of any other country in the world. One interesting thing that. I find extremely reassuring is the way in which people who live in other civilised countries speak of our judiciary and police force and about how they feel very much safer in this country than anywhere else.
    Mr. Lawrence: Further to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), is he aware that in only six cases in the past 20 years has the Court of Appeal quashed a conviction because it was not satisfied with the jury's verdict? Would it not be better for public confidence in the ability of the Court of Appeal to correct miscarriages of justice if the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 were amended so that the court had to satisfy itself on the evidence that the jury's verdict

    673
    was correct, as was recommended by a recent Justice committee report chaired by a former Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir George Waller?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend could well make that interesting suggestion, if he were so minded, to Sir John May's inquiry which has the widest possible terms of reference.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    India
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom doing to help improve primary education in India.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): A grant of just over £31 million was approved in September for a primary education project in the state of Andhra Pradesh. It provides for the design and construction of some 1,100 teachers' centres and 4,000 classrooms mostly in remote rural areas throughout the state. It also covers teacher training, in child-centred learning techniques, teaching materials and research and evaluation.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that educational support is a particularly important form of aid, especially because of the long-term benefits that it confers? Therefore, will she tell the House whether, in India, the United Kingdom benefits other than primary education?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we provide more than £3 million towards the development of the Indira Gandhi national open university and other distance learning projects. In addition, there are a large number of English language tuition programmes and numerous collaborative links between British and Indian academic institutions. There is also a United Kingdom training programme which costs about £11 million a year.
    Mr. Vaz: The Minister is probably not aware that Leicestershire county council's director of education has recently returned from a three-week visit to India, where he established important links with Indian schools. Does she join me in supporting such ventures? If she does, what plans has she to enable more resources to be made available for local authorities to establish such important cultural links?
    Mrs. Chalker: Of course I welcome cultural links between local authorities and other countries that can benefit from such links. I should like to learn more about the links between Leicestershire county council and the Indians. If they are worthwhile projects, which fall in with the Indian Government's overall considerations, there is no reason why, in due time, other projects should not follow.

    Wildlife Conservation (Africa)
    Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Britain is providing through the aid programme to help with wildlife conservation in Africa.
    Mrs. Chalker: Britain has long been helping African Governments with their wildlife conservation efforts, and we are always ready to consider new requests for help. I have placed a list of recent and continuing activities in the Library of the House.
    Miss Widdecombe: Following the recently imposed ban on the international ivory trade, have the Government any intention of helping specifically with elephant conservation in east Africa?
    Mrs. Chalker: We have been providing help to the Kenya wildlife department for many years, and expect to continue to do so. Following a request from the Tanzanian Government, we are about to appoint consultants to look at possible ways of helping that country with its conservation efforts. We shall look at all the ways in which we can reasonably help with conservation.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Government are not doing enough. Will the Minister commend President Arap Moi for destroying millions of dollars worth of ivory which was confiscated from poachers? Will she give an undertaking that Governments such as the Kenyan Government and others that wish, and are willing, to destroy poached ivory stocks will be fully compensated by the British Government? That is what the people of this country want.
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman takes the issue further than many in the House and country would do. Of course, President Moi gave the world an important signal about poached ivory stocks. It is also important that we should help African countries to conserve and preserve their elephant stocks. However, we must eliminate ivory poaching. That is why we have long been engaged in helping countries that have an active programme against poaching, and we shall continue to do so.

    Ethiopia
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the value of food aid given to Ethiopia since 1985.
    Mrs. Chalker: According to World Food Programme statistics, total food aid from all sources to Ethiopia since 1985 is some 4 million tonnes of cereals and more than 300,000 tonnes of other foods, including dairy products. Figures for the total cost of this aid are not available to us.
    Mr. Baldry: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House the value of United Kingdom food aid during that time? Is she aware that all the reports from Ethiopia from such organisations as the Disasters Emergency Committee suggest that the drought in Ethiopia this year is as bad as, if not worse than, it was in 1985? Is not that position made worse because the areas being hit hardest are those where civil war is raging? Is it not true that there will be no solution to the problems of Ethiopia until the civil war comes to an end? Should not the international community, including Britain, make every effort to bring together the parties in Ethiopia in an attempt to end a terrible civil war which is costing many hundreds of thousands of lives year on year?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right to condemn the way in which the civil war in Ethiopia adds to the terrible problems of drought suffered by the Ethiopian people. We

    675
    have been doing our best to help, and since 1985—the period under consideration—not only have we directly given more than 150,000 tonnes of food, valued at almost £23 million, but we have helped to the tune of £9 million through European Community help. In the past year alone, and additional to those figures, we have given a total of £3·3 million in bilateral aid to Ethiopia, and an additional £2 million of food aid through the non-governmental organisations of the European Community.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that unless the civil war is brought to an end it will be difficult to get food to those who need it most—the people living in the rebel-held areas. We are very conscious of that and are discussing with our European partners ways in which we can get the food to those most in need.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that, apart from wars and politics, the underlying problem of the famine in Ethiopia is environmental deterioration? In those circumstances, does she not think that there is some inconsistency in the Government's policy, especially as at the Hague today the Government intend to block an international fund to help Third world countries improve their environment? It is not even more glaring hypocrisy that the Prime Minister, later this week, will strut the world stage at the United Nations as the champion of the environment?
    Mrs. Chalker: I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box in her new role. I note that she has not lost any of the fire that she showed in her previous incarnation.
    The hon. Lady is misreading what is happening at the Hague today. Wherever there is environmental degradation, this country will never take a position that will make
    676
    it worse. However, we will carefully consider the means by which we can stop that environmental degradation. If we believe that the means that are about to be deployed are unneccessarily bureaucratic and really do not do the job that we intend them to do, we will argue for a far better way of doing it.

    South Africa
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government give aid to help the housing of the black population in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes. We intend to contribute up to £500,000 towards the Urban Foundation of South Africa's loan guarantee fund. The fund will trigger the release of about £230 million in loans from South African building societies for low-cost housing. Over the next five years that will result in the construction of 40,000 homes for a quarter of a million black South Africans.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that black people in South Africa have an increasing stake in that country? Could not the programme be expanded in the future?
    Mrs. Chalker: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. We must make a start with the Urban Foundation programme, to provide families having household incomes of between £200 and £400 a month with housing that is not currently available to them. If that programme is successful, as we trust that it will be, it is to be hoped that the foundation will undertake a further programme for families having household incomes of below £200 a month.

Ambulance Service (Pay Dispute)
3.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning the use of additional personnel and vehicles during the ambulance dispute.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Government's overriding duty in the industrial dispute affecting the National Health Service ambulance service is to maintain an adequate accident and emergency service for the general public.
If action is taken that threatens the adequacy of that service in any part of the country, the NHS will call upon the services of the voluntary bodies, private ambulances and police. If the threat to accident and emergency services is sustained for any length of time, the Government will be obliged to use military ambulances and personnel wherever necessary to maintain those essential services to the public.
The sole intention of the Government in asking police and military personnel to prepare themselves and their vehicles for ambulance duties if necessary is to protect injured or seriously ill members of the public. I hope that common sense will prevail and that NHS ambulance staff will not take action that threatens the emergency services.
It is entirely a matter for NHS management to decide whether, and to what extent, to use voluntary or private sector personnel and vehicles to provide non-emergency services for patients affected by industrial action. I expect the management to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the NHS provides as full a service as possible to all its patients for as long as industrial action persists. I hope that the staff sides will quickly decide to take up the management side's offer to resume negotiations in the relevant Whitley councils to settle the outstanding issues between them.
Mr. Spearing: That is not a reassuring answer. Does the Secretary of State recall the trauma in London exactly a fortnight ago today and tomorrow, when the ambulance management diverted all 999 calls from ambulance personnel who were standing by with vehicles to respond to them? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that as a consequence, in Canning Town a Mrs. Lander of Berwick road and a Mr. Lambert of Fox close waited more than one hour for an ambulance and that Mrs. Lander has since died? Will he assure the House that wherever ambulance crews in the United Kingdom are ready and willing, and are standing by, to respond to emergency calls, their services will not be dispensed with, and neither will calls be diverted? Will he also assure the House that any additional personnel and vehicles that he may have assembled will be used in such a way that the services of ambulance crews will not be dispensed with?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the problems in London were discussed in the House about 10 days ago. I pointed out then that the unions had drawn up 14 points of their own, which were designed to damage the ambulance service. Some of them were put into effect in such a way that it was impossible to guarantee an accident and emergency service. As a result, for 36 hours or thereabouts the police and voluntary bodies had to
678
provide the service. Fortunately, on that occasion the unions also withdrew some of their points—in particular, their refusal to use radio telephones and to crew up emergency vehicles, with the result that the accident and emergency service could be restored. As the unions continue to say that they have no intention of threatening or withdrawing accident and emergency services, I hope that they will stick to that intention in all parts of the country.
Dame Jill Knight: May I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that his action in making certain that our emergency ambulance services continue to function has strong public backing? Will he do all that he can to pursue the ideal that those who hold the lives of others in their hands do not go on strike?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Obviously, no one wants to use the police, the Army or any other unsuitable service to carry patients to hospital, but it is plain common sense that when industrial action threatens to go too far and puts the services at risk it is necessary to ask the police—or, in extremis, even the Army—to step in.
I certainly dislike the whole concept of industrial action in the Health Service. We all feel great respect for what the ambulance men do, and I think that it is high time that the action was stopped and the dispute returned to the Whitley council, where I am sure that it can be negotiated. So far, the management has made offers—including a two-year deal bringing forward some of next year's money—to try to help to resolve the dispute. As yet, however, the unions remain intransigent, and are taking action against patients in support of a double-figure percentage pay claim.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Is it not about time that the Secretary of State took positive action to resolve the dispute? It is no good his telling the House that it should go back to the Whitley council, when he is preventing the council from meeting the demands that the amulance men are quite rightly making. They say that they want to go to arbitration. Why will the Secretary of State not allow that?
Mr. Clarke: About 95 per cent. of Health Service staff have settled this year, and all those whose pay is negotiated in the Whitley council have reached agreement, with the exception of the ambulance men and a few other small groups.
The ambulance men are asking to be allowed either special arrangements by way of arbitration or a much higher settlement figure than other groups, and in support of that claim are pressing their industrial action, mainly against patients. I entirely understand why the management does not find such action in pursuit of a double-figure pay claim acceptable, when the rest of the staff settled for much less at the relevant time—last April. I see no reason why a settlement should not be negotiated sensibly, if only the union would settle down to talks and stop believing that threatening the well-being of patients will somehow gain them an advantage.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage the negotiators to regard the ambulance men and women of London as providers of an emergency service for which they should be properly renumerated if account is to be taken of the often dangerous job for which they undergo substantial

679
training? Will he use his influence not only to bring about an acceptable solution to the problem, but to incorporate in it a no-strike agreement?
Mr. Clarke: The ambulance men of London are at present turning down a 9·3 per cent. pay offer. That was part of the April 1989 offer and is a higher percentage increase than the police received in the relevant settlement, and a much higher increase than those granted to most other NHS staff—including nurses, who received 6·8 per cent. I therefore feel that it is not an unreasonable basis on which those who represent the ambulance men might consent to continue to negotiate a way out of the dispute.
Unfortunately, at a time when the management did not regard the negotiations as being at an end, the National Union of Public Employees decided to turn the whole thing into industrial action. The sooner the union decides against continuing such action and goes back to holding sensible talks in which it takes a flexible line, the sooner the whole worrying problem can be resolved.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Surely the Secretary of State must recognise that progress will not be made if he keeps talking about NHS management as though holding it at arm's length, and adopts a Pontius Pilate role in his office of Secretary of State. Is not the central question—which follows from what was said by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby)—that of resources being made available by central Government to enable a fair settlement to be achieved? How can it be fair to say—and how can any hon. Member avoid skating on thin ice if he says it—that the figures being suggested are justifiable, especially in the light of the firemen's settlement? How can we say that, when we enjoy comparability with the Civil Service—and, indeed, when we read in the newspapers that we are to be awarded a pay settlement above the rate of inflation? How can that be justified when the Secretary of State will not talk positively about the ambulance dispute?
Mr. Clarke: The Government make the resources available, but in any sensible world it must then be for the Health Service management, through the Whitley councils, to decide how to distribute those resources between the various groups and also how to distribute the resources between pay increases on the one hand and the development of patient services on the other. It is wrong to claim that a Minister should be answerable to the House for the pay of nurses, clerical staff, electricians and ambulance men and should negotiate each pay claim in detail. A sum of money has been given to the Health Service, out of which it is meeting perfectly reasonable pay settlements for all its groups of staff. This attempt to politicise the dispute will undermine the mangement and the proper adminstration of the Health Service. It will also threaten patient services if people take industrial action, turn it into a political issue and get money that had been regarded as being for patients.
Comparisons are now being made with firemen. To make a proper comparison, one has to compare the pay of ambulance men with the pay of firemen after the two pay settlements that the ambulance men will get. They have to be counted before that comparison can be made. We are talking about the April 1989 settlement. If one wants to compare ambulance men's pay with the relevant fireman's pay, it is no good counting the current settlement. One has to look back to what the firemen got last year. Ambulance
680
men compare quite reasonably with firemen. The reason that comparisons are made with fifth-year fire fighters is because they are paid a higher hourly income than third and fourth-year fire fighters.
As for the pay of Members of Parliament, again we are looking at this year's proposed settlement for the House of Commons, which is tied to civil servants with London weighting. What we are talking about is last year's ambulance men's settlement of 9·3 per cent. I must admit that I cannot remember what on earth Members of Parliament were given last year, but London ambulance men have been given 9·3 per cent. That is not a particularly unfavourable comparison to draw with Members of Parliament, either. All these matters should be resolved by discussions. They cannot be resolved by strikes.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Would it not be reassuring for the future of our country if just once, if on just one occasion, one Labour Member of Parliament could be found to support the public against outrageous pay demands and restrictive practices? What does this say for the grim reality behind the facade of the new model Socialism? Labour Members of Parliament are still in the pockets of the trade unions. When will they start to stand up for the public?
Mr. Clarke: If any group of staff in the National Health Service decided to take industrial action tomorrow in support of any pay claim, the Labour party would give them its wholehearted support. That has been its consistent policy for years. The Labour party has no regard for patients or for the safety of the public. It has no responsibility on the subject at all.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that there is overwhelming public support for the ambulance workers in their pursuit of decent pay and that there is a full understanding that at no stage have any ambulance workers refused to answer radios in respect of 999 calls or to respond to 999 calls? Instead of this awful gap of £60 a week between firemen and ambulance workers and instead of heaping abuse on ambulance workers, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should ensure that they are properly paid and properly staffed and that there are sufficient vehicles to maintain a proper ambulance service rather than threatening to bring in the Army to try to destroy the dispute in that brutal way.
Mr. Clarke: I know of no member of the public who has yet approached me in support of an increase of over 11 per cent. for ambulance men, which is the claim that is being pressed by the unions and from which they do not appear to me to be prepared to resile. Most members of the public would prefer the dispute to be settled by negotiations, not by industrial action. It is not true that the unions did not threaten the accident and emergency services in London. They did. They drew up 14 points that were designed to do damage to the service. Some of those points made it impossible to guarantee a reliable accident and emergency service. There is no question whatever of using the Army or the police to break any industrial action, but if the unions are so irresponsible as to take action that puts the safety of the public at risk, the Government must obviously put the police and the Army in a state of preparedness so that injured or desperately ill people are not left without the help that they need.
Mr. Tony Favell: Is it not clear that a lot of skilled ambulance men's time is being wasted? Is it not time, therefore, for us to start to contract-out the service?
Mr. Clarke: The managements of ambulance services up and down the country are having to make other arrangements to carry non-emergency patients. They are using taxis, hire cars and private ambulances and there is no reason why they should not do so. In some parts of the country unions are refusing to take non-emergency patients unless they satisfy some fancy criteria drawn up by the unions. It is no good for individual patients to be told by the union convener that their appointments are not necessary or urgent for their health, and it is quite right that managements are looking for alternative methods of getting the patients the treatment they need.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question, which is an extension of Question Time. I shall take two more questions from each side and then I shall call the Secretary of State for the Environment to read his statement.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Secretary of State recall that when I was Home Secretary the last Labour Government were faced with problems concerning police pay which resulted in Edmund-Davies recommendations designed to make them a special case, and equally big problems with the firemen which resulted in their being treated as a special case and their pay being tied to the upper quarter of manufacturing wages? Is there not a case for the ambulance service to be treated as a special case, and if there is, whose job is it to see to it?
Mr. Clarke: That was a long time ago. My first recollection is that the then Government treated everyone who went on strike as a special case, turn by turn. But it was not quite so straightforward. It is not true that the last Labour Government recognised the claims by the police. They rejected the Edmund-Davies recommendations which were implemented by the present Government. The Edmund-Davies recommendations went out of their way to distinguish between the police and other emergency services and said that they were not comparable. We implemented the Edmund-Davies recommendations on that basis.
It is certainly true that the last Labour Government gave the firemen a special formula; they backed down in the face of industrial action by the firemen, and we shall not go back on those long-standing arrangements. The last Labour Government refused claims from the ambulance men to tie their wages to those of either the police or the firemen or any other emergency services and allowed their pay to go down compared with inflation in three of Labour's last four years. The last Labour Government let the ambulance men's claim go to the Clegg commission which reported that there was no comparison between police, firemen and ambulance men and that they all had some emergency duties, but in each case the emergency duties took a comparatively small proportion of their total time.
I certainly would not wish to emulate the record of the last Labour Government in regard to any of those groups. It gives no foundation to the right hon. Gentleman saying
682
that he has now suddenly decided that ambulance men should be treated in a special way because they are taking industrial action.
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that although many ambulance men in the north of England are just as upset by the Government's position as those in London, perhaps an offer of 9·3 per cent. outside London might settle the dispute? Are not the Government and those negotiating missing the opportunity being offered by the ambulance men of solving the present dispute and entering a long-term agreement for no strikes in the ambulance service in future?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an irony that the most militant ambulance men appear to be those in London who have already secured a 9·3 per cent. pay offer. Ambulance men throughout the country are being offered the possibility of a two-year settlement with some of next year's money being brought forward; discussions on local flexibility on pay, which might help local ambulance services; a re-examination of the deal with the unions entered into in 1986, because they are now discontented with the way that affects overtime; and generally an invitation to talk. We all wish to avoid strikes in the ambulance service. To the best of my knowledge and belief, NUPE and the other unions concerned will make promises but will not enter into no-strike agreements with any credibility. More to the point, they are demanding a double figure pay settlement this year.
Mr. David Young: The Minister's excursions into history may be interesting, but they are hardly constructive. We require a just settlement that will not only resolve the present dispute but will ensure that we have a service in years to come. That requires examining the situation impartially. Why is the Minister afraid of submitting the claim to ACAS? He may wish to see himself as Pontius Pilate, but the public is beginning to see him as Lady Macbeth.
Mr. Clarke: I know that I am not famed for my sartorial elegance, but I am not accustomed to appearing in drag. On the serious parts of the question, Duncan Nichol and his management team held discussions at ACAS, and made various propositions but were faced with total intransigence by the trade unions. I have already said that I have every desire to see the dispute settled. Health Service pay will not sensibly be resolved by getting a third person from outside to make a ruling on the pay of groups that have taken industrial action against patients. Countless Whitley councils determine the pay and conditions of different grades of staff. It is not fair to the staff if one group is given special treatment by a chap who is called in to split the difference because that group has been prepared to take action against patients when other staff have not.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he has effectively given a guarantee that 999 calls will be answered whatever happens in the dispute or under any other circumstances? Will he use the present position to try to improve the London ambulance service so that patients are not kept waiting hours to be collected for treatment or left for hours

683
at hospital before being returned home after treatment, which has happened all too often as a result of bad management?
Mr. Clarke: The steps that we have taken should enable us to maintain an adequate emergency service should ambulance men be so misguided as to take action that threatens it. Obviously, I hope that they will continue to provide a 999 service. I agree that the sooner that the service returns to normal the better. "Normal" includes continuing efforts to improve the quality of the service given by the London ambulance service and others.
Dr. John Cunningham: May I apologise for the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has a long-standing engagement elsewhere? Are we to see another premeditated management escalation of the dispute with the connivance of Ministers? Is that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking the House to accept? Is not the obvious lesson of this long-running dispute the fire crews' acceptance last Friday of a deal of 8·6 per cent. after only two hours of talks and negotiations? Should not ambulance crews be given the same treatment?
As the Secretary of State gave us an excursion into history, does he recall that when the Prime Minister was the Leader of the Opposition in 1978 she was sending letters from her office recommending that the pay of ambulance crews should be treated exactly the same as fire crews? I have a copy of the letter here. If she believed that in 1978, why does she not believe it now, or has she done another U-turn over the past few days?
Why are the Government persisting with their mulish obstinacy when all reason and common sense point to comparable treatment with fire crews for ambulance workers or independent arbitration to resolve the deadlock? The Secretary of State has made some unpleasant comments about ambulance crews. If he is so convinced of his case, why is he terrified of independent arbitration, which ambulance crews are perfectly willing to accept?
Mr. Clarke: In 1978, the letter was written by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a Government who were maintaining that there was no case.
Dr. Cunningham: No, it was not. It was written to members of the public.
Mr. Clarke: It was written to two members of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel, but at the time the Government were resisting any such arrangements. We have fought three general elections in which neither our manifesto nor that of the Labour party has returned to a formula for linking ambulance men's pay with the pay of anyone else. The only reason why the hon. Gentleman is arguing for it is that he believes that we should give in to a strike. I have dealt several times with comparisons with firemen's pay. This Government, the last Labour Government and the Clegg commission have all said that the job of a fireman is not exactly comparable. However, the comparison that is being made by the ambulance men's union is with fifth-year firemen. The hourly rates for ambulance men are better than those for first, second, third and fourth-year firemen. An arbitrary selection is being made.
I resent the hon. Gentleman's allegation that I have said anything against ambulance crews. I have not done so, today or at any time during the dispute. We have no desire to have a dispute with the ambulance men. We wish to see them resume their good normal service as quickly as possible.
On escalation, it is obvious when we look back over the past six or seven weeks that NUPE and the other trade unions have found their action ineffective. They keep finding fresh ways of trying to tighten the screw on the public in order to hype up the Labour party to give them more support, or to gain an advantage for their union. Every change in the dispute has come about because NUPE has decided on some new and dangerous action at the expense of the patients. I wish that it would stop that and return to the negotiating table.

Local Government Finance
3.55 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the local authority grant settlement for England for 1990–91.
I am today sending a consultation paper to the local authority associations setting out my proposals. Copies are being sent to each local authority, and are available in the Vote Office. The consultation paper summarises the various reports which will be made later this year. Drafts of two of the reports, dealing with the distribution of grant and the calculation of relevant population, have also been circulated. There are also exemplifications showing the amount of grant and the community charges which, on certain spending assumptions, would result for each area. In this first year of the new system a number of basic definitions and principles have to be set out, and that accounts for the large amount of material. It may help the House if I outline the main features of the proposals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) proposed in July that the total of external support, known as aggregate external finance, for local government services next year should be £23·1 billion, an increase of 8·5 per cent. over the figure for this year on a comparable basis. That support comprises three elements the yield from business rates, specific grants, and revenue support grant.
To calculate the yield from non-domestic rates, I have now made a firmer estimate of the national non-domestic rate multiplier for 1990–91. On the basis of the most up-to-date information available about the effects of the 1990 rating revaluation, I estimate that the multiplier for 1990–91 will be 36p for England. That figure will be provisional until I have final information about the effects of the revaluation, which will be available before the revenue support grant report is laid before the House; but I would expect it to vary only very slightly, if at all. It also includes a small allowance for reductions in rateable values in cases where the initial valuations turn out to be high.
Using that multiplier, I estimate the yield from non-domestic rates in 1990–91, and hence the amount to be distributed to local authorities, will be £10,428·5 million. That estimate represents the total amount which I expect charging authorities to receive in respect of rates paid by private businesses, by the nationalised industries, and by local authorities themselves, together with a contribution in aid in respect of Crown property. I have made allowance for a number of factors, such as rate income forgone as a result of empty properties and of charitable or discretionary relief, and for losses in and costs of collection. The amount estimated to he collected from private businesses and the nationalised industries is in line with the Government's commitment that the yield from these sectors will be broadly the same in real terms as in the current year, 1989–90.
I anticipate that specific grants and transitional grants will amount to £3,182 million. Further details will be available at the time of the Autumn Statement.
I am proposing that revenue support grant should be £9,490 million. Our principal objective in distributing grant is to ensure that, in general, if each authority spends so as to provide a common standard of service, the
686
community charge could then be set at the same level in every area before allowing for the transition arrangements. My right hon. Friend announced in July that the Government consider that it would be appropriate for local authorities to spend £32–8 billion in total in providing services, an increase of 11 per cent. over the amount which, on a comparable basis, we thought it appropriate to spend this year. In order to distribute grant, we shall need to calculate an assessment for each authority of what it would cost to provide services locally to a common standard, consistent with that total.
The proposed method for making these assessments, known as the standard spending assessments or SSAs, is set out in the documents published today. SSAs replace grant-related expenditure assessments in the present system. In summary, the SSA for each authority will be based on an assessment for each of the main services for which it is responsible. It will be calculated using information for each authority about factors which lead to differences in the costs of providing services to a common standard. In this way, we can take account of variations between authorities in the costs they face. These proposals take account of recent research, extensive discussions between officials over the last year and the views of the local authority associations.
SSAs are central to the new grant system. Apart from the transitional arrangements, the relationship between an authority's budget and its SSA determines the community charge for that area. If spending is higher than the SSA, the community charge will be higher than the national community charge for standard spending, and vice versa. It is therefore important that the methods used to calculate these assessments should be fair and right.
If authorities were each to spend at the level of their SSA, the community charge in each area would be about £278. The final figure will not be known until we know the number of people on community charge registers. This figure, the community charge for standard spending, will be the benchmark for accountability. It will appear on the bill which each chargepayer will receive and will help chargepayers to assess the policies and performances of their authorities. In this way, councils will be made accountable to those who must pay for their activities.
The existing system of grant-related expenditure assessments had become over-complex and difficult to explain. We have therefore introduced a simpler, more understandable method.[Interruption.] I appreciate the fact that all these things are relative. As now, the method is applied to each authority, using objective measures of the cost of providing services such as the number of pupils to be educated and the number of miles of road to be maintained. There has been discussion about the factors to be taken into account and the weight to be attached to each, and the associations have put forward a range of alternative suggestions. In my view, the proposals that I have made represent the fairest judgment between the various viewpoints. I believe that they provide the best basis that can be devised for distributing grant.
In place of the 63 separate assessments in the present GRE system there will be 13 components: 11 covering the five major services—education, social services, fire and civil defence, police and highway maintenance—another covering all other services and one reflecting the financial costs of capital expenditure. In general, the method proposed involves fixing a unit cost of providing each service and multiplying this by the number of clients for

687
that service. Our original proposals were placed in the Library last December. For some services we have amended these proposals after discussion. In particular, in response to representations, we are proposing to include an allowance for overnight visitors—to reflect the demands that tourists make on local services—and to recognise separately the costs of flood defence and coast protection work. I know that these matters are of particular concern to hon. Members from the areas affected.
The consultation paper also describes the transitional arrangements. As my noble Friend Lord Hesketh announced on 11 October, it is intended that the area safety net will be for one year only. For the following three years the Exchequer will pay for protection for areas that lose as a result of introducing the community charge and related changes. In 1990–91 chargepayers in these areas will he expected to find the first £25 of any loss to their area, but above that there is full protection. Gaining areas will receive about half their gains in the first year, and the full gain in the second year. It is right that the new system should he phased in, but gainers will still see substantial gain from the start.
My right hon. Friend proposed in July two transitional grants to provide extra help for chargepayers for inner London boroughs, and in areas with very low domestic rateable values. These grants will significantly reduce community charges in some areas.
I have included with the consultation paper exemplifications showing the amounts that each area would receive under these proposals. I stress, however, that figures for authorities are provisional at this stage, and will change, though in most cases only marginally, when local authorities notify me in December of the number of adults that they have included in their community charge registers.
The exemplifications also show what the community charge will be in each area if local authorities spend at the same level as their income from rates and grant in 1989–90, adjusted for changes in function, and increased to be consistent with spending of £32·8 billion in total. It is these charge levels which it is intended should form the basis of the transitional relief scheme announced last month to help principally those former ratepayers, pensioners and the disabled who would otherwise face increases of more than £3 a week. This relief scheme will cost about £300 million in 1990–91. In addition 9·5 million people will receive help through community charge benefits. Many individuals will, therefore, see their bills substantially reduced.
I have asked the local authority associations to respond to these proposals by 4 December. I hope to lay the formal documents before the House in early January for debate later that month. The proposals amount to a substantial package of support for local authorities. The amount of external support has increased by 8·5 per cent. If authorities budget sensibly and spend in line with the Government's assumptions, the average community charge next year should be about £278. If they can do better, charges will be lower. But if their spending increases faster, charges will be higher. Local authorities are now answerable to their chargepayers for their decisions.
Mr. Bryan Gould: The Secretary of State knows that we and many others have long attacked the poll tax proposals as being inherently complicated and
688
unworkable, and fundamentally unfair. He and his predecessors have tried to deflect that attack by taking refuge in misleading generalisations, and false and unrealistic assumptions. I am sorry to say that we have heard no improvement today. The mixture is much as before and the more additions that the right hon. Gentleman makes to the whole ramshackle structure, the more unconvincing and unstable it becomes.
At the heart of the illusions that the Government have sought to create is the fairy tale that the poll tax average is or could be £278. That figure is a hopeless mirage. It has increased with remarkable rapidity. The Government's estimate in 1986–87 began at £170. By 19 July it had risen to £275. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, even in the interim, it has risen by a further £9 from £269—the true figure on 19 July because of the £200 million transitional specific grant—to £278? Does he agree that there is plenty of room yet for growth? Will he confirm that even if the figure were halfway accurate, local authorities could not be expected—indeed, he does not expect this of them—to meet that figure immediately or even in the foreseeable future? If that were the case, scores of Tory authorities would be pilloried by him as overspenders.
Will the Secretary of State confirm—and this is the most fundamental point—that the figure is an invention because it is based on an invention? He estimates a level of local government spending of £32·8 billion, but that figure is based on an assumed level of spending this year rather than the actual level of spending. Does he acknowledge that all the local authority associations, irrespective of political control or allegiance, agree that that basic error leaves local authorities £1·6 billion adrift?
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the basic error is compounded by a further error on inflation? One assumes that the inflation rate has been calculated at the forecast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 4·5 per cent., rather than the actual retail prices index figure. When that is taken into account as well, it leaves a shortfall of £2·5 billion. Will the Secretary of State further agree that every last penny of that shortfall will have to be financed out of poll tax, as it is not covered by grant or aggregate external financing, and that means that the figure of £278 is hopelessly out of touch with the reality, which is far in excess of that figure?
Does the Secretary of State also recognise that his basic errors on the side of optimism are added to by the view that he and his officials have taken in making their calculations? They believed that they could safely assume 100 per cent. registration and collection. Will he confirm that everybody who has studied the issue knows and understands that that is hopelessly optimistic? Those errors invalidate the figure of £278 which the Secretary of State described as the "benchmark for accountability".
The consequences of those errors are serious. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that for local authorities, with their obligation to deliver services, the errors mean that they are faced with Government-sanctioned pay increases to teachers, firemen and policemen far in excess of the actual inflation figure, let alone the Chancellor's fairy tale, and that they will have no option, therefore, but to cut services further? In view of that shortfall, will he tell local authorities this afternoon where he expects those cuts to be made? Should local authorities employ fewer teachers, social workers or home helps? Will he concede that, if his benchmark is so hopelessly wrong, so too are all the other calculations that flow from it?

689
It can already be seen that the transitional relief scheme, for example, will fail to help most single people, those who will be liable to pay for the first time or those who do not own or rent their homes and who will most need help. However, it will miss its target by an even wider margin because it proceeds on the basis of a ludicrously low notional poll tax figure. Many who believe that they qualify for transitional relief will find that they are paying far more than an additional £3 a week and many of those who will pay more than £3 a week will not qualify for transitional relief.
Is the statement not typically uninformative about the needs formula used, and is not the formula itself, in so far as we know what it is, open to detailed objections? Why, for example, are overseas visitors excluded from the overnight visit figure that is included in the formula? Does not the statement keep up the long and unfortunate tradition of telling us nothing we need to know about the business rate? Is not the 36p figure useless and wholly uninformative for individual business men until they know the effects of revaluation? Is it not equally clear that the Confederation of British Industry has been rebuffed in its request for a £2 billion reduction in total business rate? Will the Secretary of State confirm that in saying that the business rate will be kept at the same level in real terms he is using a figure for the RPI different from that used to calculate local government spending? Is it not an astonishing inconsistency to use two different inflation rates in the same statement?
Is it not sad to see the Secretary of State so bogged down in a morass not of his creation and from which he cannot extricate himself, but is it not even sadder to contemplate the future of local government and the services for which it is responsible and the future of those millions who depend upon and pay for those services when they, too, become the victims of this Government's obsession?
Mr. Patten: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to his new responsibilities. I can say without qualification that I hope that he enjoys his new job for as long as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who we hope has enjoyed doing it for the past six years.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to base his questions on the principle that, whatever the level of local authority overspending this year, we should validate it. That is not remotely the Government's position, and nor, I imagine, would it be the position adopted in the new-look Monklands, East financial policy that the Opposition are pursuing. We are allowing for an increase of 11 per cent. in spending by local authorities next year—over what we believe they should have spent this year. The Audit Commission has suggested savings of £900 million that local authorities could make. The authorities have made about £350 million of those savings, so they still have some way to go.
Our central support for local authorities will increase next year by 8½ per cent., and I think that that is a fair settlement. It is a challenging settlement. If all Government Departments received equivalent settlements, I think that they would be quite pleased.
The hon. Member referred to the standard community charge figure. That figure represents what local authorities
690
would have to charge if they were spending at a reasonable level. The figure has increased from £275 to £278 since July because of the increase in the number of exemptions. The hon. Gentleman is netting off the grant for the Inner London education authority and for low rateable value areas and so is not comparing like with like. I repeat that the community charge of £278 represents the figure that local authorities should have to charge to provide a reasonable service.
The hon. Gentleman referred to registration. So far registrations are going very well. I cannot guarantee that they will go quite as well as in one local authority area in Scotland where the registration figure was 106 per cent., although we can aim for that and we hope that registrations will be as successful as they have been in Scotland.
The hon. Member referred to the needs formula. As he knows, we have set out in considerable detail in the distribution report the basis on which the new needs formula is based. It is a simpler and better formula than the last one, taking into account, as it does, the cost of providing a service to the client and the number of clients. It is based on substantial research and lengthy discussions with local authorities, but perhaps in the next few weeks the hon. Gentleman will have suggestions to make about how we could modify it. He may, for example, think that we have been wrong to provide so well for the education needs of young children in Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and inner London, although I rather doubt it. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions about how we can improve the needs formula, we shall look forward to hearing from him in due course.
The hon. Gentleman's main argument was that we were wrong to replace domestic rates, or, to put it more correctly, wrong to introduce the community charge. There is at least one thing on which hon. Members on both sides of the House agree the domestic rating system is inequitable and it should go. The difference between us is that the Government have advanced proposals for replacing the domestic rating system, whereas the Labour party, I am afraid, has not. The Opposition periodically make a proposal and then take it away again. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have read the motion tabled by the Dagenham constituency Labour party at the Labour party conference, which called the party's proposals "unacceptable electorally and administratively". I assume that those proposals have now been dumped. However, we look forward to a time when the Opposition will be prepared to make the change from domestic rates and also meet the challenge of suggesting an alternative.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is a very complicated statement, but we have a busy day before us. The Front-Bench spokesmen have taken about 30 minutes, I will give a comparable time to Back Benchers. May we have brief questions please?
Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Haringey is still at the top of the league, with a community charge of £554? In the poorer areas of my constituency where rateable values are low, the £3 threshold will be insignificant for my constituents. It is absurd that

691
community chargepayers must still make a contribution to the safety net. Is there nothing more that my right hon. Friend can do to help my constituents?
Mr. Patten: I suggest that my hon. Friend's constituents should press their local authority to spend more sensibly. I believe that my hon. Friend will agree that the main reason for the impact of local authority spending on his constituents is the level at which that spending is pitched by the council. I believe that our interim relief scheme, the transitional relief scheme, should assist many people who would otherwise be paying more than £3 a week in additional charges. However, there is another way in which we may be obliged to help individual chargepayers. If local authorities insist on budgeting in a ludicrous way, and if they insist on budgeting at far too high a level, we will have no alternative but to cap them.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: May I first point out to the Minister that he promised me a copy of the statement at 2 pm and I did not receive it from his Department until 3.10 pm, in spite of a telephone call. The seventh paragraph of the statement refers to common standards to which every local authority must adhere. The statement contains something new, based on the common standard. What is the common standard of service?
Mr. Patten: I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that he did not receive a copy of the statement at the time that it was promised. I hope that other statements on local government finance—who knows, there may be some—will arrive with the hon. Gentleman on time.
The common standard is set out very clearly service for service. For example, we establish for education what the costs should be for each child and what particular factors should be taken into account. Similar considerations apply to personal social services and to other local authority services. The basis of those different assessments is included in the distribution report which I hope the hon. Gentleman will find helpful. Although we have reduced the number of individual assessments, I hope that we have not lost any of the necessary sophistication in order to produce a comprehensive and fair settlement.
Mr. Robin Squire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the few months since the previous statement was made by my right hon. Friend's predecessor my constituency has moved from being a contributor to the safety net to a recipient? In the short-term, my constituents will undoubtedly be grateful for that, as indeed is their Member of Parliament.
Will my right hon. Friend not hesitate to use the reserve powers that he has in law should we find at the end of the first year that there are such big rises in the uniform business rate, particularly in London, that many businesses would be threatened if they had to face similar increases in the second year?
Mr. Patten: On my hon. Friend's first point, there are several reasons for the differences between the figures that my hon. Friend saw in July and those that he sees now. The most obvious change is that the figures that he saw in July were based on this year's spending rather than on next year's assumed spending. There are several other reasons for the change, including the movement from the grant-related expenditure assessment formula to standard
692
spending assessments, and the decision to ring-fence the housing revenue account. Those and other factors have a bearing on the figures for hon. Members' constituencies.
On the uniform business rate, we have introduced reasonable transitional arrangements. They include particularly generous treatment for smaller businesses, and we have doubled the threshold definition for smaller businesses. I hope that we will be able to ensure that the UBR is introduced smoothly and without some of the dislocation which my hon. Friend understandably fears.
Mr. Max Madden: As some Bradford schoolchildren are being sent home because their temporary classrooms are considered to be too dangerous for them to use, and as the Conservative chairman of the city's education committee says that £100 million is needed to put schools into a good state of repair, does the Secretary of State think that the spending limits for Bradford set out in his statement are realistic?
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman will find that provision for additional educational needs in Bradford includes extra expenditure on education. I have great confidence that Bradford council, which is led outstandingly well by councillor Pickles and others, will continue to provide the people of Bradford with a better deal than they have enjoyed in the past. One of the consequences of that Conservative council coming to office is a substantial attraction of new private investment to the city.
Mr. John Lee: Despite my right hon. Friend's considerable charm and the transitional relief that has been announced, many people in low-rated areas such as Pendle will suffer substantial increases because of the community charge. May I make it clear to my right hon. Friend in the nicest way that my campaign and those of hon. Members with comparable constituencies will continue?
Mr. Patten: I understand the particular problems faced by my hon. Friend in representing a constituency in which rateable values are low. As my hon. Friend knows, we have tried to give additional assistance to cope with that problem. I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not feel that it is sufficient. I look forward to discussing the matter with him further. I hope that we can come nearer to satisfying him and his constituents.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, for metropolitan authorities, the figure in the seventh paragraph of the statement includes the extra poll tax for the police and fire authorities which is listed separately? Why are Birmingham citizens expected to pay a poll tax surcharge of £60 a head to pay for high-spending Tory authorities such as Blackpool? That will not wash, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a couple living in an average-rated property in Birmingham will still lose more than £2 a week?
Given the added complications of this matter, which is made more complicated as the weeks go by, would it riot be a good idea to delay the introduction of the poll tax until 1991 and avoid the problems of the first year of safety nets, or, better still, put back the poll tax until after the general election?
Mr. Patten: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. The answer to his second question is that,

693
as he will have recognised from the figures, Birmingham is one of the major beneficiaries of the move from grant-related assessments to standard spending assessments. The hon. Gentleman will surely have the honesty to accept that. The largest beneficiaries from the changes, in one year only, are the largest contributors to the safety net. That is the position that existed in July and it still exists. They were talking about a one-year contribution only. Thanks to the move from GREAs to SSAs, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the long-term his constituents will be better off. Recalling what the hon. Gentleman said in July about the likely level of the community charge for his constituents, I am sure that he will be delighted that the figure now is a good deal less than he feared in July.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is not as bad as we had feared in July? Will he further explain the business grants, which look like a mystery wrapped up in an enigma, and how they will ultimately affect businesses because the business rate is particularly important in Birmingham? According to those figures—which we have had two minutes to look at while the Minister has had three months—it seems as though businesses will be confused about whether we in Birmingham will be reasonably off or two or three times worse off than many other areas.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend knows a good deal about business problems not only in the west midlands, but well beyond as well. If my hon. Friend consults some of those representing businesses and business organisations, he will find that the 36p poundage figure is a good deal less than many were predicting. It enables us to continue to raise broadly the same amount of money as has been raised this year. I think it is a fair figure. As my hon. Friend knows, one consequence of the move to the uniform business rate is, on balance, a shift of resources to the midlands and the north. I hope that that will help some of the parts of our country that are so important to our manufacturing future.
Mr. John Fraser: Does the Secretary of State realise that, no matter how much he tries to stamp on the fuse, the poll tax time bomb will still explode in the Tories' faces next year? Lambeth has now had varying figures for the poll tax per head of the population, varying from £287 to £547. That is a wide variation. Which figure is likely to be true?
Mr. Patten: The lower figure would be nearer to being true if the Lambeth local authority spent its money and administered its affairs as competently as many other local authorities in London, such as nearby Wandsworth. Given the additional resources that Lambeth is receiving from the ILEA grant and the additional assistance it is receiving from the shift from GREAs to standard spending assessments, I very much hope that Lambeth will find that it has adequate resources to do a good job without penalising its chargepayers. Of course, that hope might represent a triumph over experience.
Sir George Young: Is it not clear from table 2 that some of the high exemplifications that we saw a few months ago for some of the inner London boroughs have now been avoided and many chargepayers will be
694
grateful for that, but is it not also the case that many will be protected by the transitional household protection? However, what will happen in year two, when the interim household protection begins to unwind and when many authorities lose the benefit of the safety net? Is there not a risk that, having secured low increases this year, there will be some high increases in year two?
Mr. Patten: I believe that I am right in saying that the largest single loss for a London borough from the unwinding of the safety net is just over £1 per week. We are announcing today that the interim relief scheme will be unwinding at a rate of 25p in the first year. I do not think that my hon. Friend will find the situation as difficult as he had feared. In the second year of the interim relief scheme, we shall still be spending about £230 million of the nearly £700 million that we shall be devoting to the scheme in all.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, because of the changes that he has announced today, the poll tax in Burnley will be £184 per head, which is exactly the same as the average rate per head at present? However, the majority of people in Burnley will pay more than they do now because they live in properties with low rateable values which means that the wealthiest people will be the ones to benefit from the change that he has announced.
Will the Secretary of State make it clear that when the safety net and the transitional arrangements are ended people will be able to see the full folly of the poll tax and how difficult it is to try to make it fairer when the basis of the system is totally unfair?
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that poorer households will benefit from a more generous rebate system than that which exists for ratepayers. We will spend about £2·5 billion on rebates and increased income support. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members should not overlook that. Their constituents would suffer far more from the Labour party's policy—although I understand that it may not be the Labour party's policy any more and I look forward to seeing what it will do when it brings its next policy along.
Mr. John Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some major cities Labour-controlled local authorities will be determined to overspend regardless of the methods by which they raise revenue? Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that he will not hesitate to use the expenditure-capping mechanisms as they will be the only protection for my constituents and for the poor constituents of Coventry where municipal Socialism is being built on the backs of ratepayers?
Mr. Patten: I recognise the problem that my hon. Friend has identified. I shall once again make it clear, as I tried to do in my response to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), that if local authorities insist on budgeting excessively, or spending too much money, we will have no hesitation about charge-capping them. I hope that local authorities will behave more sensibly, and I hope that their electors, as chargepayers, will ensure that they behave more sensibly.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the Secretary of State recognise that in the standard spending assessment there is no acknowledgement of the

695
needs of the under-fives? Given the additional duties that have been laid upon local authorities in the Children Bill by the Government, will he explain the extraordinary removal of the under-fives from the calculations?
Mr. Patten: We have considered general additional education needs. A range of factors have to be taken into account in the next assessment. I think that the hon. Lady will find that all aspects of education provision have been taken into account. I am sure that she will be particularly pleased by the emphasis we have placed on the needs of children in some inner city areas.
Mr. Barry Porter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), before he left the Chamber, initimated that these documents are incomprehensible? He is not alone. I can read the bottom line. For some reason that is unclear to me, the community charge with safety net for Wirral is £371, whereas that for Sefton, which is a not dissimilar area, and is represented by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), and that for Liverpool, where the council spends like a drunken sailor, are a good deal less. Will my right hon. Friend let me know, in simple terms, how I may explain that to the people of Wirral? At the moment I cannot.
Mr. Patten: I think that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is better placed than I am to explain that situation to my hon. Friend. Perhaps the existing council has inherited a good deal of Labour overspending, which it has to deal with. My hon. Friend says that the documents are incomprehensible, but I hope that the consultation period that we have allowed will be helpful to hon. Members and to local authorities. Normally we would not make an oral statement on documents that were to be the subject of consultation at this time of the year. Normally we would make an oral statement when we agreed the distribution report, but, this year, since we were going over to a new system, I thought that it was important to make an oral statement to give hon. Members as much opportunity as possible to see what we were doing.
Mr. Derek Conway (Shewsbury and Atcham): My right hon. Friend's statement displayed marked clarity. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will recall that under table 2 the average rate bill for my constituency is anticipated at £255 per head whereas the long-run community charge will be £247. Although that is clearly good news for my constituents, can my right hon. Friend tell me what advice I could give them on whether that charge would go up or down if the alternative proposals for a capital value and local income tax system, as advocated by the Opposition, were to be adopted? [Interruption.]
Mr. Patten: I believe that I am right in saying that the figure for the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be more than £600—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, he should table a parliamentary question and we shall give the answer. We would be delighted to cost any Labour party policy which it puts on the table. Admittedly that means that we would have to answer for a different policy virtually every month, but we would do that.
Mr. Allen McKay: Looking at the figures for Barnsley and Penistone, it
696
appears that some of the problems that we discussed with the right hon. Gentleman's colleague have been taken into consideration. After the safety net is removed, it appears that there is a £150 per head difference between the figure suggested by the Secretary of State and that suggested by our local treasurer. It is important to take into account the local problems. If the figures are worked out again, and if the same figures are arrived at, that will mean that my area will have to take £2·5 million out of its education budget, which it cannot afford to do. Is the Secretary of State willing to come to Barnsley to discuss the situation and to see for himself our exisiting problems?
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about Labour party policy. I was in Canada last week and I had the opportunity to study how that country raises its money. It operates a federal tax, which is similar to our income tax, a sales tax and a tax on the capital value of property. That system has worked for the Canadians.
Mr. Patten: It may well be that the hon. Gentleman's advocacy will encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends to pick up a policy which I thought they had dumped, but shall find out in due couse. The major reason for any substantial difference, such as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman, between the exemplifications in the tables and the sort of figure he mentioned is the decisions taken on spending by his local authority. Decisions on spending must, at the end of the day, be met by chargepayers. That is the point which Opposition Members——
Mr. McKay: The right hon. Gentleman is missing it again.
Mr. Patten: If that is the case I shall look forward to further discussions with the hon. Gentleman. As for discussing such matters with local councillors and local Government officials, I am looking forward to spending a lot of time doing precisely that in the next few months.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: In the past Bassetlaw district council never received any rate support grant from the Government as it had a high concentration of industry which brought in a massive amount of rates. That revenue came from the power stations and two or three pits, which are now closing. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has taken the rateable income away from those massive industrial complexes to put it into a national fund, and that what he has given back to Bassetlaw district council and to the rest of Nottinghamshire in no way compensates for the loss of the rates that they receive from those heavy industries? Is he aware that the safety net contribution he has decided upon is far too low and that the people of Bassetlaw will have to pay a massive increase in their poll tax not because their authority is high spending—it is certainly not a high-spending authority—but simply because an enormous amount of income has been taken away from that authority by the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Patten: I believe that the hon. Gentleman will accept that Bassetlaw is getting a fairly substantial contribution from the business rate pool. Obviously I shall look at the specific figures to which he has referred. In all, however, the contribution from the uniform business rate and from the revenue support grant—the total aggregate external finance—should ensure that local authorities are able to provide standard services at the price to chargepayers that I mentioned earlier. I very much hope

697
that that is possible in Bassetlaw as elsewhere, but I shall certainly look at the specific figures mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret that I shall be unable to call all the hon. Members who wish to put a question. I shall call two more from each side. We then have a Standing Order No. 20 application to follow and a long day ahead of us.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the failure of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) to launch the expected onslaught on the level of RSG for Bradford may be an eloquent tribute to his success in getting a rather better deal than the Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches were expecting? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the result for the metropolitan districts, such as Leeds, is rather more neutral than option 3 for which they argued? I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that the rate for the unwinding of the safety net would be at a quarter rather than the expected one third. Is that rate for the safety net and the transitional arrangements, as that is critical for industrial areas with older properties?
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right to point out that Bradford and a number of other local authorities with considerable urban problems have done substantially better than the Opposition prophesied. The safety net will be unwinding at a rate of £25, or 25 per cent., which ever is the higher, and the interim relief scheme will be unwinding in the first year to the tune of 25p.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Is the Secretary of State confident that his standard spending assessments are computed sensibly? One of the indices that the right hon. Gentleman has used relates to the proportion of children or families born outside the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States of America or the old Commonwealth—I presume that in this context that means the white Commonwealth. If that index is meant to refer to the number of black children and black families, the Secretary of State should be aware that that figure will be hopelessly out. In my community, in common with many others, many of the black children and many of the black families are second or third generation British citizens. If the number of black people in the community is an index of need, why does not the right hon. Gentleman use an accurate index?
Mr. Patten: The hon. Lady has raised an extremely important point. When she looks at the way in which that assessment was calculated she will see that, as a proportion of the educational assessments, we have increased that covering additional educational need—that revenue is precisely directed at, among other things, the problem she has identified—from 11 to 24 per cent. of the total amount available. That is one of the main reasons why a number of inner city areas—I mentioned Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester as well as London earlier—have done very well out of the move from GRE assessment to standard
698
spending assessments. It is important that the hon. Lady's point is met, and I hope that I have done so reasonably well.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a statement which can only be categorised as magical. Can he reassure me that the bias hitherto in the RSG system against the south-east generally and against East Sussex in particular has now been eliminated and that proper allowance is being given to the vast numbers of elderly people in my constituency and the general area, to the large road building programme that must be constructed to join up with the Channel tunnel, and to meet the worries of the small business men in the south-east?
Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend is right in implying that we have moved to a fairer system for his constituents and those of many other hon. Members. We have ended the hidden subsidy which, for 30 years, transferred resources from high rateable value areas to low rateable value areas. In the standard spending assessments, which we have set out, we have made particular allowance for labour costs in London and the south-east which should also be of some assistance to local authorities in the area. On both those counts, as well as the greater generosity of rebates and the interim relief scheme, his constituents and those of other hon. Members have reason to believe that we have treated then extremely fairly.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Minister accept that it is staggering that, even according to the unrealistic figures that he has offered this afternoon, the average rate bill in my constituency is predicted to go up by 8 per cent. and that people in low rateable value properties, such as Tyneside flats, face an increase—even those affected by the relief scheme—of about £4·50 a week rather than £3? Will he have the courage to ask for more money for a better interim relief scheme and for that scheme to be permanant so that people who live in low rateable properties can look forward to a life of sense rather than the indecency which he offers?
Mr. Patten: I would not get very far by arguing that an interim relief scheme should be made permanent. The point about the scheme is that it should help us to smooth the introduction of the changes in the way in which we raise funds for local authorities. The main reason for some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred is overspending by local authorities. That will be the main reason why, if it turns out to be the case, some people will face larger charges than they would like.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have not been able to call all the hon. Members who wished to participate. It may be possible with ingenuity, for them to raise some of their points during the debate on the Local Government and Housing Bill.
Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, not yet.

Teacher Shortages
4.53 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the escalating crisis in filling teaching posts in our schools."
The House is well aware that we have recently had a debate on teacher shortages. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, of which I am a member, is currently in the last stages of preparing a report on the matter. It is an important matter, requiring urgent consideration, because on this very day the six major teaching unions in this country have, for the first time, joined forces to produce a survey on teacher vacancies which shows that the number of vacancies is double that which those at the Department of Education and Science think it is on the basis of the evidence that they produced for the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay.
It could be argued that this matter could be left for the interim committee to discuss at its leisure in time for the pay award next April. However, instead of there being about 4,000 vacancies, the figure is closer to 8,000 and that affects between 200,000 and 300,000 pupils attending schools today. The Government should say that they are willing to accept this new survey, which is far bigger than previous ones, and, as a result, remove the restrictions limiting the interim advisory committee on the pay award, which is about £650 million. Therefore, instead of taking action next April, when another full academic year will have passed, the Government can consider this new evidence and announce an interim award this month, thereby enabling schools to attract teachers. There are 400,000 qualified teachers who are not teaching at the moment. An immediate impact could be made on the huge number of vacancies in our schools if the Department of Education and Science were to act immediately to deal with this problem.
Therefore, I sincerely hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will allow the Adjournment of the House so that this urgent matter, which is of importance to all schoolchildren, can be discussed this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the issue of teacher shortages."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have to decide whether his application comes within this Standing Order and, if so, whether the debate should he given priority over the business already set down for today or tomorrow. The matter he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
4.56 pm
Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will be aware, the shire counties, with the exception of the Isle of Wight, are represented in this House by between five and 15 Members of Parliament. It has always been my experience that you, Mr. Speaker, have always been most generous in allowing me to put my point of view on behalf of my county. I hope that you will appreciate that when announcements such as we have had this afternoon are made there are at least five chances for the views of the constituents of every other county represented in the House to be made.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman. I have listened to what he has said but he will perhaps have other opportunities to raise this matter later today.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On previous occasions, particularly on Scottish questions, you have allowed English Members to intervene in the contributions of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the basis that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. In the Secretary of State for the Environment's statement he alluded to Scotland, but you, Mr. Speaker, did not call any hon. Member from anywhere outside England during a statement which affected Scotland. Therefore, would you reconsider your views on Scottish Question Time?
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman knows that today's statement did not apply directly to Scotland. There were a large number of hon. Members with English interests to whom it did apply and who, sad to say, were not called.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter which is of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. You may remember that last week there was a dispute over whether United Kingdom military aid was being given to Cambodian guerrillas fighting side by side with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), the Minister said that he had no further comment to make on the question. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Leader of the House effectively blocked that question. The answer is important because I am told that, at this moment, according to the Chinese——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a matter of order in the House? What has it to do with me?
Mrs. Clwyd: It is a matter of the question being blocked. It is important because a Chinese report states that 17,000 people have already been killed in Cambodia. The military aid which it is alleged we give is not the sort of aid which we want to give. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will assist us to raise the matter of the blocking of this question because lives are at stake.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has had her say, but this is not a matter for me. There will be other opportunities for raising this important issue.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members whom I have unfortunately been unable to call will not persist in rising.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week I tabled a question to the Ministry of Defence to ask how many members of the British armed forces were engaged in training Cambodian guerrillas, where they were based, what their rank was, when the programme commenced and what the cost was to public funds. On 30 October I received an answer stating that it was not the practice to provide information of this nature.
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I am not responsible for answers to questions. That is not a matter for me at all.
Mr. Mullin rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me. I repeat that I am not responsible for the answers that are given to questions.
Mr. Mullin: It is.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman referred to an answer that he had received——
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It was a blocking motion.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) wishes to have the rules changed, he must approach the Procedure Committee. I am bound by the rules.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you have a difficult job. In common with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), I wish to point out that I have spent the past two hours jumping up and down like a demented jack-in-the-box. Do you honestly think that that time was usefully spent?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must make that decision for himself. I called other London Members.
Mr. Mullin rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking the hon. Gentleman's point of order because it is not a matter for me.
Mr. Mullin rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
Mr. Mullin rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will hear the hon. Gentleman, but it must be a matter on which I can adjudicate.
Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that British taxpayers' money is being spent on military aid in Cambodia. My understanding is that the Government are accountable to Parliament for the expenditure of taxpayers' money. It is not good enough for the Government blandly to decline to account to Parliament for that expenditure. Will you, Mr. Speaker, use your influence to ensure that a Government Minister comes to the House and explains what is happening?
Mr. Speaker: I have no authority to bring Ministers to the House. The hon. Gentleman had his say, so perhaps he has done the job for himself.

BILL PRESENTED
  SECURITY INDUSTRY
  Mr. John Wheeler, supported by Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg and Mr. Ivan Lawrence, presented a Bill to require the creation of an inspectorate to regulate the employment of uniformed guards and personnel in the security industries; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 214.]
WAYS AND MEANS

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING BILL
  Resolved,
  That any Act resulting from the Local Government and Housing Bill may provide for sums to be paid to the Secretary of State in respect of non-domestic rating—[Mr. Dorrell]

Orders of the Day
  Local Government and Housing Bill

    FIRST DAY
    Lords amendments considered—[Prince of Wales's consent. signfied]
    5.6 pm
    Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during the passage of the Housing Act 1988 I raised the concern of the House about the number of amendments that had been tabled by the Government—more than 400. I did not think that that would happen again because there was considerable agreement that there had been an abuse of the procedures of the House. I am now asking for your assistance in what we consider to he a continuing abuse.
    You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that no fewer than 606 amendments have been tabled, many of them only last Wednesday. No Back Bencher, on either side of the House, has had the opportunity to consider those amendments or to prepare any points that he might wish to make. I checked with Officers of the House and with hon. Members, and no one can remember so many amendments being tabled to a Bill. No one can recall such an abuse of the procedures of this House.
    If I wanted to have a Bill of this nature taken on the Floor of the House, there would have to be a vote to that effect. Yet what is happening with this Bill is, in effect, a Committee stage being taken on the Floor of the House without any adequate safeguards. I ask you to draw to the attention of the House, through whatever measure is available, the fact that that is utterly unacceptable—not only because the procedures are being abused, but because Back Benchers on both sides cannot properly contribute to the debate because there has been so little notice of the amendments. I object strongly to the Government saying that only 70 of the 606 amendments are major. Seventy is bad enough in itself, but the suggestion that the other 536 are not important is based on their judgment, not the judgment of the House.
    Not only have both Front Benchers and Back Benchers had difficulty sorting out their briefings, but in all fairness to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) I must point out that, for my hon. Friend, those amendments must be translated into braille. I have asked my hon. Friend to deal with these amendments today, yet he received them only towards the end of last week. All of them have had to be translated into braille, yet he is expected to deal in depth with them today.

    Schemes for basic attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members
    .—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations authorise or require any such relevant authority as may be specified or described in the regulations to make a scheme providing for the payment of—

    (a) a basic allowance for every member of the authority who is a councillor;

    (b) an attendance allowance in relation to the carrying out by any such member of such duties as may be specified in or determined under the regulations; and

    (c) a special responsibility allowance for any such member who has such special responsibilities in relation to the authority as may be so specified or determined.

    That is an appalling abuse of the procedures of the House, which I thought had been satisfactorily dealt with after the passage of the 1988 Act.
    I strongly urge you, Mr. Speaker, to exert whatever pressure you can on the Government to ensure that they never again bring a Bill to the House that is so ill-prepared that we end up having a Committee stage on the Floor of the House without any of the usual safeguards being imposed.
    Mr. Speaker: I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am aware that there is a very large number of amendments. I am sure that his remarks will have been noted by the Government. All that I could do was to try to be as generous as possible in selecting the hon. Member's amendments, in the hope that that might help him and the House.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are well aware that there is a separate legislative process for Scottish legislation. We have a separate Act—the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987—that deals with poll tax in Scotland. The Bill before us is riddled with amendments to the Scottish Act—an Act that Scottish local authorities are trying in vain to administer. Indeed, we are trying in vain to keep track of it. This is a disgraceful way to deal with Scottish legislation and it is a disgraceful way to treat this House.
    Mr. John Maxton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The amendments that affect the Scottish legislation introduce four new aspects that have not been debated previously in this House. They have never been debated in relation to Scotland and the Scottish poll tax system. They have suddenly appeared on the Amendment Paper and, under your selection, Mr. Speaker, have been put in a group of almost 200 amendments,. Somehow Scottish Members have to try to debate the Scottish amendments within the context of a whole series of other amendments. Even at this late stage, is it not possible for there to be a separate Scottish debate?
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is unhappy with the grouping of amendments, he must raise that matter with the Government.
    Ordered,
    That the Lords Amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 12, 1 to 11, 514 to 581, 583 to 601, 603 to 606, 256 to 264, 328 to 424, 13 to 19, 309 and 310, 81 to 111, 20 to 80, 311 to 317, 112 to 128, 318 to 327, 135 to 255, 129 to 134, 271, 272, 278 to 280, 282, 269, 266, 265, 267 and 268, 270, 273 to 277, 281, 283 to 308, 425 to 510, 513 and 582.—[Mr. Chris Patten.]
    Lords amendment: No. 12, after clause 17, insert the following new clause—
    (2) Regulations under this section may also authorise or require a scheme made by a relevant authority under the regulations to include provision for the payment to appointed members of allowances in respect of such losses of earnings and expenses as—

    (a) are necessarily sustained or incurred in the carrying out, in connection with their membership of the authority or any committee or sub-committee of the authority, of duties specified in or determined under the regulations; and

    (b) are not of a description in respect of which provision is made for an allowance under any of sections 174 to 176 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 46 to 48 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

    (3) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) above, regulations under this section may contain such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for requiring a scheme made by a relevant authority under the regulations—

    (a) to make it a condition of any payment by way of allowance that, in the financial year to which the payment would relate, the aggregate amount which the authority has paid out or is already liable to pay out under the scheme does riot exceed such maximum amount as may be specified in or determined under the regulations;

    (b) to make provision for different maximum amounts to be applicable, for the purposes of any such condition, in relation to different allowances or in relation to different members or members of different groups;

    (c) to make provision in relation to claims which cannot be paid by virtue of any such condition and provision for the payment to members of the authority who are councillors of an amount by way of supplement to the basic allowance where, in any financial year, the aggregate paid out or owing under the scheme is less than an amount specified in or determined under the regulations;

    (d) to provide that the amount authorised by virtue of subsection (2) above to be paid by way of allowance in any case shall not exceed such amount as may be so specified or determined;

    (e) to contain such provision as may be so specified or determined with respect to the general administration of the scheme, with respect to the manner in which, time within which and forms on which claims for any allowance are to be made and with respect to the information to be provided in support of any such claim;

    (f) to contain such provision as may be so specified or determined for avoiding the duplication of payments or of allowances, for determining the bodies by which payments of allowances are to be made and for the apportionment of payments between different bodies.

    (4) Regulations under this section may—

    (a) prohibit the payment, otherwise than in accordance with sections 174 to 176 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 46 to 48 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 or in such other cases as may be specified in the regulations, of any allowance to a member of a relevant authority who is a councillor or to any appointed member of a relevant authority;

    (b) impose requirements on a relevant authority with respect to the publication, in the minutes of that authority or otherwise, of the details of amounts paid in pursuance of a scheme made under the regulations; and

    (c) contain such incidental provision and such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision in connection with the other provisions of the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

    (5) In this section "relevant authority" means—

    (a) a local authority of any of the descriptions specified in any of the paragraphs of section 20(1) below, other than paragraphs (d) and (j), or in section 20(2) below; or

    (b) any body on which a body which is a relevant authority by virtue of paragraph (a) above is represented and which is designated as a relevant authority for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

    and references in this section to an appointed member, in relation to a relevant authority, are references to any person who is a member of the authority without being a councillor or who is a member of one or more of the authority's committees or sub-committees without being a member of the authority."
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 9. after 'regulations', insert—
    `(bb) a financial loss allowance'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments (b) to (d).
    Mr. Blunkett: I wish to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about the chaos surrounding the Bill. However, I wish to thank the Minister for his co-operation, within the bounds of the mess that surrounds the Bill, in providing facilities to help to sort out my braille arrangements. I am grateful to him.
    Nothing that is said this afternoon can detract from the proposals for financial arrangements for councillors because their voluntary actions are of the essence in making our democracy work. We rely on such people to give their time at weekends and in the evenings, week in and week out, to ensure that local democracy is alive and active. As we said on Report, without proper arrangements for financial remuneration only the rich and the retired could take part in our democratic process, which would be detrimental to us all. Neither in Committee nor on Report did we have the detailed proposals that are before us today. They were introduced in another place and, as my hon. Friend said, it has not been possible to scrutinise as we would wish.
    I wish to put it on record that local authority associations and many local councillors are relieved that the Government have been willing to listen and to alter their proposals just a little in line with the suggestions that have been made to them.
    In Committee we debated extensively the issue of financial arrangements for councillors, and it was agreed by hon. Members on both sides that it was desirable to make arrangements that do not penalise those who genuinely undertake work—and so ensure that local authorities can go about their business in a reasonable fashion. There were differences between myself and the then Minister for Local Government, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), as to the role of elected members and on the way in which they should undertake their responsibilities. However, at the bottom line we all agreed that it is necessary to make proper arrangements.
    We are anxious that the proposed arrangements may penalise the very people whom both Government Members and my right hon. and hon. Friends want to see encouraged to participate in local government. I refer mainly to those who are in paid work and who need time off to perform their local government duties. They must be made to feel that they are damaging neither their own nor their families' financial well-being. They are the people who would benefit by arrangements for compensating for financial loss, rather than be subject to a complicated scheme of flat-rate payments based on councillors' general activities, an attendance allowance covering a 24-hour period, and a special responsibility allowance for those undertaking at leadership level duties that obviously go beyond the normal responsibilities of an elected local government member.
    It is making a mistake to proceed without allowing the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to compensate for loss of earnings in respect of councillors who will otherwise be compelled to play only a minor part in their authorities or to resign their seats.
    708
    Although the retired or the wealthy who serve as councillors make a valuable contribution, we do not want to rely on them alone. In a few local authorities, the regulations will have no detrimental effect on their financial arrangements, and the cash limits imposed on those authorities will not affect individual councillors. Those councils' traditions and functions will allow elected members to continue undertaking their responsibilities without difficulty. However, many local authorities shoulder a larger burden of functions and have bigger populations. Some of them cover wide areas of the country, involving long travelling distances for those attending official meetings. In such areas, councillors may be required to observe traditional shift work patterns and are unable to pop around the corner for an evening meeting. Therefore, some councillors will be badly hit unless the financial arrangements made for them are not altered and improved.
    5.15 pm
    Although local authorities welcome the fact that the global sum available to them has been improved slightly, it is still abysmally short of the level recommended in the Widdicombe report. The figure of £42 million now proposed compares with the sum of £75 million that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities extrapolated in its updating of Widdicombe's proposals. The most worrying aspect of all is the cash limit on individual authorities. An authority could get halfway through the year and then literally run out of money, which would be absurd. I hope that the Minister will allow teaming and lading between particular authorities, and will be flexible in respect of their cash limits, so that the system can operate sensibly.
    The local authority associations say that they are willing to monitor the arrangements with the Government to ensure that there are no wide variations in spending or in the criteria for claiming allowances. They are willing to co-operate and to ensure that the system works properly, but their role must be acknowledged and their voice must be heard. The associations will find it unacceptable if magistrates, co-opted local authority members, those appointed to quangos, and people still running residuary bodies—such as the chair of the London residuary body—receive salaries of as much as £55,000 per year, while being told that local councillors with responsibility for education, social services, housing, transport, environmental and leisure facilities must manage on sums that will damage not only their own finances but those of their families.
    In the past, there would have been no ideologically division between the Opposition and the Government, and neither should there be one in the future. On behalf of people who have spent all their lives in local government service, I make a plea that we get this right. When coupled with the restrictions on the amount of paid time off from public service that will be allowable, the financial arrangements will be crucial in determining whether both Tory and Labour councillors in all parts of the country will feel able to continue contributing their time to their communities and to perform a decent job on behalf of those who elect them.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): In replying to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 12, I shall speak

    709
    also to Government amendments (b), (c), and (d), and to Government amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 554. In doing so, I may point out that the line references in some of those amendments on today's Amendment Paper are incorrect. On page 3709, the line references in Government amendments (b), (c) and (d) should be to lines 77, 81 and 86 respectively. Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 554 on page 3711 should refer to line 6.
    Lords amendment No. 12 introduces a new clause to provide a system of remunerating councillors. We have come a long way since the House last considered that subject on Report, following discussions with local authority associations on how to implement proposals for the basic flat-rate allowance set out in the White Paper that formed the Government's response to the Widdicombe report. We made progress, but there was concern in local government that a flat-rate allowance by itself, without any attendance-related element, would be unfair on those hard-working councillors who put in most time and effort.
    The special responsibility allowance can of course provide additional remuneration for holders of key posts, such as the chairmen of committees. However, it was pointed out that many back-bench members work long hours on specialist committees—such as those dealing with licensing and appeals.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), as Minister for Local Government, met representatives of the local authority associations in July and listened carefully to the concerns that they expressed. He agreed to consider any alternative proposals that met the Government's objectives.
    To their great credit, the associations responded quickly with an outline proposal for a combined system of attendance and flat-rate allowances coupled with the existing special responsibility allowance. The local authority associations met the Government's anxiety about possible abuse of what would effectively be an open-ended attendance allowance system by suggesting that a limit be imposed on the total amount that each council could spend on allowances and that a restriction be placed on the definition of approved duties for which the attendance allowance could be paid. Those proposals form the basis of the new scheme for which the amendments provide.
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) generously acknowledged the success of the consultation exercise, and I believe that we have got it right. The new clause to be inserted after existing clause 17 will require each local authority to draw up a scheme for payment of the three main allowances. First, there will be a basic allowance, previously referred to as the flat rate. Secondly, there will be an attendance allowance, as at present, but with the definition of "approved duties" determined by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, a special-responsibility allowance will be payable—as at present—to councillors with special responsibilities, such as committee chairmen.
    The Secretary of State will be able to set a limit on the total that each authority may spend on the main allowance. It is intended that the amount should be calculated according to type of authority, and population in Scotland, and that it should take account of the number
    710
    of councillors in each authority. Within that amount, authorities will be free to determine the level of allowances, subject to any limits on different types of allowance set by the Secretary of State. That will ensure that a minimum proportion of the overall amount is allocated to the basic allowance, and will provide upper and lower limits for the special-responsibility allowance.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Am I right in assuming that that will prevent local councils from dreaming up extra meetings to obtain extra cash?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is quite right: there have been instances of apparent abuse, in which a proliferation of meetings, committees and sub-committees has been observed. The new scheme will end that, and it will cease to attract the minority of councillors who seek to increase their attendance allowance by such means.
    Mr. Maxton: Has the Minister made any allowance for Scotland's island councils—the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland? They have specific problems over allowances. Councillors have to be away from home to attend meetings of, for instance, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but small councils with few councillors would not be covered in the same way as those with a large membership.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The attendance allowance will continue to be paid as part of the overall scheme, which may be adopted by the councils concerned. In addition, there will be a flat-rate allowance. If, however, the hon. Gentleman was referring to the equivalent of parish and community councils, the present provisions will remain more or less unaltered.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister has again revealed the weakness of the Government's position, and the weakness of legislating in this way. What he is really saying is that he will cash-limit the island councils, most, but not all, of which are in Scotland.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have already explained that the overall amounts that can be spent by each local authority will be subject to limits set by the Secretary of State. That was one of the agreements that we reached with the local government associations.
    Mr. Soley: Am I not right, however, in saying that that agreement did not take the needs of the islands into account?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The needs of the islands were considered as part of the overall settlement. We are legislating for the United Kingdom, and each part was considered before we finalised our proposals.
    The principal advantage of the scheme is that it will enable each local authority to decide on its own system of allowances, within the framework that I have described. Some authorities may wish to opt for a flat-rate system with no attendance allowance, as originally envisaged in the White Paper, and they will be able to do so. Others will continue to be able to provide for an element of attendance allowance in recognition of the differing work loads and commitment of their members. Equally important, however, is the fact that the scheme will make councils more aware of the cost of allowances and what they are paid for, as well as focusing attention on the timing, extent

    711
    and necessity of meetings. I believe that that covers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
    I will not trouble the House with details of all the consequential amendments that deal with the administration and application of the provisions, except to mention that the arrangements for travel and subsistence allowances, and allowances for parish and community councillors, will remain broadly unchanged.
    Mr. Allen McKay: I may have missed something; if so, I apologise. Is the Minister saying that local authorities will receive a grant and will then be able to choose the method by which they decide how to pay councillors—whether they are paid a flat rate or, in certain circumstances, receive an enhanced payment? Will the system be based on the present payment of councillors, or on the "X thousand pounds a year" that is currently spent on allowances?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall deal with the question of overall resources later, but I think that I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the total allowable expenditure on councillors' allowances will be no lower than it is now. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that, within the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State, authorities will be able to decide on the mix between the three types of allowance that I have described.
    The five amendments that the Government have tabled to the Lords amendments are all minor and technical, but they are necessary if the provisions are to operate effectively. Amendments (b) and (c) ensure that appeal committees set by governors of maintained schools continue to be able to receive allowances under the new arrangements. Amendment (d) enables the Secretary of State to provide that members of bodies to which the provisions apply are to be treated as councillors for the purpose of the new allowances. Without that, members of the London and metropolitan joint authorities would not he able to receive attendance or special-responsibility allowances as they do at present.
    The two amendments to Lords amendment No. 554 make consequential changes to ensure that the Broads Authority can be brought within the new arrangements. There is, I hope, nothing controversial there.
    Amendment (a) would enable councils to pay a financial-loss allowance to council members. If he will excuse the pun, I am at a loss to understand quite why the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) considers such a provision necessary. At present, only 1 per cent. of councillors claim the allowance—only 250 in the whole of Great Britain—so it is clearly not popular. The main benefit that it provides over attendance allowance is that, for historical reasons, it is paid at a higher rate.
    There must be doubt about any system that allows some councillors—those whose circumstances permit it—to claim a higher rate of allowance than others. Such an arrangement becomes even less justifiable under the new system, in which total expenditure will be limited: high levels of financial-loss allowance would be paid to a few councillors at the expense of those receiving attendance allowance. The new system provides for three types of allowance, to take account of differing requirements. We did not want to complicate it further by defining another
    712
    sub-group of councillors entitled to claim not because of extra duties, but because of background circumstances or business commitments.
    The hon. Gentleman alleged that only the rich would be able to participate in local government. That is not the case at present, and the hon. Gentleman must know that the present financial-loss allowance, when it is paid, frequently goes to the self-employed, who tend not to be among the poorest councillors. I am convinced that the system that. I have outlined is adequate to compensate all councillors for the work that they do.
    Let me say a word about resources. The local authority associations have estimated that councils will spend about £37 million on the main allowances in the current year, if all councillors claim their entitlement. In the joint letter in which they put forward the new proposals they said that this was a minimum level of resources that they would consider as acceptable for the new scheme. Against that background, we have decided that the allocations to individual authorities for next year under the new scheme should be worked out within the context of a clear ceiling of £42 million at current prices. We believe that this is a fair and reasonable starting level which takes account of the fact that, in future, expenditure on allowances will be subject to limits. We shall be discussing ways in which this could be distributed with the local associations, together with the other details of the scheme which are to be prescribed in regulations.
    I hope that the House agrees that the provisions represent a great improvement over the existing arrangements.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Minister clearly does not understand how local government works. When he replied to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) he made it clear that only a small minority abuse the system by creating meetings that they can attend. It is important to emphasise that it is only a very small percentage who abuse the system. The Government are therefore legislating for the 99 per cent. who do not abuse it.
    The amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) spoke relates to loss of earnings. The Minister does not understand that many of those who serve in local government lose out in two ways. They incur a financial loss, through loss of earnings. They are entitled to have reasonable time off to attend to council duties, but they do not have to be paid and a large number of them are not paid for the time that they have off work. Increasing pressure is being placed on the definition of "reasonable time." Many employers are putting pressure on employees who serve on local authorities and on those who undertake other duties, such as magistrates, not to undertake those duties because they do not like those employees having time off.
    Furthermore, it does not help people's promotion prospects if they wish to serve on local authorities. I know many people who have not been promoted because they have undertaken local government duties. A good friend of mine was the leader of Burnley council for many years and he lost out twice on promotion. It was only when he stood down as leader of the Labour group and leader of the council that he was promoted. Within a couple of weeks of standing down he was promoted and became a

    713
    shift engineer at a local factory. The fact that he missed out on promotion for many years affected not only his financial position but that of his wife and the whole family.
    The Minister may be correct when he says that only 1 per cent. take that form of payment, but that is because of the way it is handled. Local authority members have to determine at a certain point during the year which method of payment they want to have. When they have taken that decision they do not have the option of moving from one method of payment to another. That can lead to difficulties; it is not always easy to work out in advance how best to minimise financial loss. No Opposition Member would want people to make money out of local government, but those who undertake important public duties should not suffer as a result of doing so. We must do everything that we can to minimise financial loss.
    A certain amount of time may be spent on travelling to meetings. Local authorities take arbitrary decisions on attendance times. If a person has to attend a county council meeting rather than a local council meeting, his pay for the whole day may be affected because of the time it takes him to travel to that meeting. Account should also be taken of working patterns. Some people may not be able to take just an hour off work, early or late, to attend a meeting. If somebody works on a production line, another person may have to cover his position on the line for four hours. I was in that position when I worked shifts. Somebody else had to cover my shift, or half my shift, because if I had been missing from my position on the production line the whole system would have ground to a halt.
    Amendment (a) is sensible and positive. People would not be put at a financial disadvantage. We have a responsibility to ensure that people do not lose out financially, especially as it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract people to serve on local government. That is partly because the Government continue to remove responsibilities and duties from local authorities, but it is also because of the increasing pressure that is being put on employees by their employers not to take time off. The Minister ought to respond more positively to that point than he has done so far.
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: My point relates to young women who wish to enter local politics. Local authorities have been very considerate towards them, but we cannot attract very many because often they have young children. If women have to attend meetings held at night, their children have to be farmed out to relatives, if possible, but in many cases they have to be looked after by child minders or baby sitters, who have to be paid. My council and, I believe, many others make no allowance for baby sitting fees. A heading on the form that local councillors have to fill in is entitled "Incidental expenses." They include car parking, but no mention is made of baby sitting fees, the payment of which would encourage young women to stand for election. Some of the young women who have entered politics are one-parent families, but we do not attract enough of them.
    The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was right when he said that in many cases promotion is blocked by local government service. However, unions that have been able to negotiate proper terms and conditions have negotiated 18 days, which could amount to 36 half days of
    714
    time off to attend to public duties. That includes justices of the peace. Many of the major firms and banks do not, however, do that. At their board meetings, arrangements are made for employees to have time off, but that is entirely at the board's discretion.
    I have asked many times why no ruling has been made, as Widdicombe suggested. There is no Government directive that 18 days or 36 half days should be allowed for time off. Is the Minister able to say whether any thought has been given to that point? Will anything be done about it? Until something is done about it, only elderly gentlemen will be prepared to serve on local government.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I pay tribute, as did the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), to the many hundreds of hard-working councillors who enable local authorities to function. I know that they make great personal sacrifices, in addition to the financial sacrifices that some of them have to make. I am thinking particularly of late-night meetings which hardly impose a financial burden, but can put considerable strain on family life.
    However, we believe that there should continue to be a strong element of voluntary public service in becoming a councillor. That element is adequately taken care of and respected in the scheme that we are introducing, which sets out as its guardian principle that allowances should be paid to ensure that councillors are not significantly worse off and do not suffer financial hardship.
    Those councillors who have to incur considerable travel expenses—and hon. Gentlemen who raised this matter may be thinking particularly of the islands councils—will in future be able to claim travel and subsistence allowances which remain outside the scope of the new arrangement, so those Scottish councillors will not find that their allowances are limited.
    The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) mentioned the role of women on local authorities. I, too, pay tribute to their important contribution. The personal and family sacrifices that they make are particularly acute. However, the hon. Gentleman's request illustrates the point that there are so many different groups who can claim to be special, and we could continue proliferating allowances to take account of different groups of people. We are confident that the three allowances that we are suggesting and the mix between them, which is largely at the discretion of local authorities, will take account of the circumstances of all the different groups to which he and other hon. Gentlemen have drawn attention.
    In my experience, good employers are quite happy to allow their employees time off, and even welcome it. Certainly the Government encourage employers to be reasonably generous with their time, but I do not think it right that there should be a statutory requirement. The present arrangements are working fairly well, and there is no evidence that people are seriously deterred from local government service by the intransigence of local employers. With that in mind, I ask the House to reject amendment (a) and accept the Government amendments.
    Question put and negatived.
    Amendments made to the Lords amendment:

    (b), in line 76, leave out second 'or'.

    (c), in line 80, at end add

    `or (c) any appeal committee so designated which is constituted in accordance with paragraph 2 or 3 of Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1980'.

    (d), in line 85, at end add—

    `(6) In this section any reference to a councillor includes a reference to a member of the authority concerned who, in accordance with regulations under this section, is to be treated as if he were a councillor.'.
    Lords amendment No. 12, as amended, agreed to.[Special Entry.]

    Clause 2

      POLITICALLY RESTRICTED POSTS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 26, after first ("with") insert
      "subsection (1A) below and any directions under section (grant and supervision of exemptions from political restriction) below"
      Read a Second time.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 1, after '(1A)', insert `(subject to subsection (1AA))'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and amendments (a), (b) and (c) and Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 9.
      Mr. Blunkett: I am particularly concerned with amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1 and amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 3.
      We welcome the changes that have been agreed in the House of Lords. We welcome the changes to financial limits in terms of the salary range and the changes in the categories of persons to be restricted in standing for public office and political activities. We commend the way in which the Government have handled the matter since our debates some months ago.
      We are concerned about the principle of restriction based on salary levels and the restrictions on individuals' political activities purely because of their membership of or earnings from a local authority. We are also concerned about the restrictions on those employed as political assistants, who, by the very nature of their activities, are hardly expected to be impartial. Under the Bill as drafted, they remain under those restrictions. We should have preferred only those mentioned on the face of the Bill to be restricted from standing for office in authorities and we reject the restrictions on holding office in a political party or being able to canvass, write or speak or in any way persuade others on behalf of a political party.
      We recognise the value of the changes that have been made, and the alleviation of the worry and concern of more than 100,000 people, so we shall not press amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1 or amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 3.
      I give notice that we shall seek to divide the House on amendment (c) to Lords amendment No. 3. The idea of restricting out-of-work activities of members and officials of local authorities remains unacceptable. We do not believe that it will be possible to monitor or to police certain measures; nor do we believe that that will be necessary. The idea that people should not be able to be chairman, secretary, or treasurer of a local branch of a political party or be able to contribute to it in their spare time is not worthy of a democracy and we should strike it out. We are particularly concerned about the notion that people should not be able to engage in canvassing, writing or speaking on behalf of a political party.
      716
      The anomalies in the Bill as drafted are self-evident. The idea of using the Representation of the People Act 1989 as it applies to police officers is absurd. It states that they should not, by word, message or writing or in any other manner, persuade or dissuade any person from giving their vote whether as an elector or proxy. That is absurd. The idea that an individual cannot persuade people to cast their vote for a political party will lead us into all sorts of difficulties. If that is what the Bill means, it will need to be policed and monitored and we shall have to brace people who knock on people's doors, and, still more ridiculous, those who deliver leaflets through people's doors.
      Perhaps we shall even have to monitor our discussions. Carried to an extreme, that could mean that people having an argument in a pub on a Saturday night could be reported by someone with a vindictive streak. However, it is quite possible that people who attend public meetings in a non-political way could be caught by the Bill because someone decided to report the fact that, although they were employed by a local authority at a specified level and fell into the category of politically-restricted personnel, they were engaged in persuading people in a way which might be construed as asking them to vote for, or perhaps not to vote for, a political party. Under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act 1989 they might even find themselves restricted in normal conversation. That would be ridiculous. If Conservative Members agree that it would be ridiculous, they should accept the amendments. If they believe that it is unenforceable, we should not accept it, but if it is enforceable we must know how it will be enforced.
      The Representation of the People Act refers not to persuading people to vote for a political party but only to a person, who could be someone holding minor office, standing as an independent or engaging in any measure of political activity. If the Government are serious about this provision they should be clear about how it would be enforced. If they are not, we ask them to withdraw the Lords amendment.
      The Government have seen sense and responded positively on a number of issues. When we last debated the Bill, many hon. Members felt that our democracy was at threat. It was not a major issue outside the House, but it would have become so. There was talk of having to take action through European Community institutions to ascertain and retain our democratic rights. The Government have seen substantial sense, and tonight they could make a substantial contribution to reassuring people outside by accepting amendments (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 3. For those reasons, we shall divide the House on amendment (c).
      The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): As this is my first opportunity to do so, may I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) for his earlier remarks? To reassure him, what is now being proposed is merely to apply the rules that have applied to thousands of civil servants for generations to those who will fulfil the same role in local government. That is a wise and sensible measure, because all hon. Members condemn the abuses that have occurred. Indeed, many Opposition Members have told me that they do not support the abuses that have brought the system of independent local government into disrepute.

      717
      We are in a complicated position, because the nine amendments to which we are speaking were moved by the Opposition spokesman in another place, the noble Lord McIntosh of Haringey. In doing so, he announced that agreement had been reached between the Government and the Opposition about which posts should be subject to the restrictions on public political activity. In accordance with that agreement, I shall recommend that the House should accept the Lords amendments. As the hon. Member for Brightside said, the Opposition have now tabled four amendments to the Lords amendments. In part, they raise questions about which their noble Lordships expressed reservations, but on one significant point they would effectively undermine the agreement reached in the other place.
      To set the four Opposition amendments in context, it might help the House if I were to explain the effect of the nine Lords amendments and the reason why the Government recommend their acceptance. The proposals in the Bill, with the Lords amendments, will ensure that all posts that are properly regarded as politically sensitive—not just those over a certain salary level—will be subject to political restrictions, and that there will be proper independent scrutiny of what those posts should be. Two separate questions must be addressed.
      Mr. David Winnick: As the restrictions will apply to a number of people who earn less than £19,000 but who are considered to be politically sensitive, may we have a calculation of how many are likely to be affected?
      Mr. Hunt: If I may, I shall move on to that point in a moment. I shall be unable to give a precise calculation, but I will ensure that I write to the hon. Gentleman.
      On the first question of which local authority officers should be subject to restrictions, the Widdicombe committee recommended that the restrictions should apply to all officers of the rank of principal officer and above. At that time, after consulting widely, the Government took the view that that would spread the net too widely and therefore proposed that the restrictions should apply only to a much more precisely targeted group of staff. Initially, it was proposed that chief executives, chief officers and their deputies, monitoring officers and all officers to whom council functions had been formally delegated should be politically restricted; to that list, for separate reasons, we added political assistants.
      Next, we proposed that restrictions should apply to all people in three politically sensitive categories—those who advise councillors, those who speak to the media for the council, and those who deal with the public and seem to represent the council. We proposed two mechanisms to apply those categories. For those paid a specified salary level or higher, to whom the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred, there would have been a system of contracting out. The restrictions would normally have applied to those with jobs on that salary level or higher, but if the employing council and adjudicator agreed that the posts did not fall into any of the three politically sensitive categories, they would be exempted. For those paid at less than the specified level, there would have been a system of contracting in. The restrictions would apply only if the employing council considered the
      718
      post to be in one of the three politically sensitive categories. As the House knows, the specified salary that divided the two approaches was £13,500
      Three main changes are effected by the Lords amendments. First, one of the three categories of politically sensitive posts has been dropped. The two that remain are those who advise the council, a committee or sub-committee and those who speak for the council to the media. We came to the conclusion that the third category—those who deal with the public in ways whereby they seem to represent the council—was of less significance in local government than in equivalent posts in the Civil Service, which are politically restricted. I think that that is one of the most significant changes.
      Secondly, the salary level that divides the contracting-out approach from the contracting-in approach has been raised to £19,500. We have further agreed that by regulation we shall link that salary to spinal point No. 44 of the national joint council scale; it will therefore be increased in line with that scale. Provided it can be adequately drafted, we shall provide for the disregard of nationally agreed local weightings. That change reflects a decision to raise the level at which it is assumed that a post's duties will be politically sensitive in the ways defined. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North said, that change does not mean that those in politically sensitive jobs on a salary below £19,500 will be free from political restrictions. If the duties of a post under that salary level fall within the definitions of the politically sensitive categories, the employing council will he required to apply the restrictions. If they fail to act when they should, the adjudicator can ensure that the restrictions apply either as a result of a complaint or on his own initiative.
      The reason for that lies in the third main change, because the role of the adjudicator has been widened. He will now be able to consider applications for exemption from the political restrictions even if the employing council thinks that they should apply. Equally, to prevent abuses that may flow from the raising of the salary level, he will be able to consider complaints from anyone that an employing council has failed to apply the restrictions to a post that meets the criteria for political sensitivity. If he agrees, he will be able to direct that the political restrictions shall apply to that post. I must stress that the Government regard this safeguard as important to ensure that the criteria for what posts should be restricted are properly applied. It provides an important assurance to those who have expressed concern, including many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have written to me about it, that raising the salary level to £19,500 would give councils carte blanche to employ political activists as long as they were not paid more than £19,500. The new powers of the adjudicator will help to ensure that that does not happen. In addition, a number of minor changes will be made. The adjudicators will be empowered to issue guidance to which the local authorities are to have regard. The drafting of the definition of those who speak to the media for the council has been improved and other aspects have been clarified.
      We regard as satisfactory the agreement reached in another place with the Opposition parties on the arrangements for determining what posts should be politically restricted. We commend the nine Lords amendments in this group to the House. I regret to have to reveal to the hon. Member for Brightside that I cannot say

      719
      the same for the four Opposition amendments. However, I want to make some remarks that I hope will be of assistance to him.
      Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Can the Minister clarify whether every officer who reports to a council committee, regardless of status, will be politically restricted?
      Mr. Hunt: I have not said that, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment. I have laid down the criteria carefully. The question of what restrictions there should be will go some way to answering the points raised by the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Brightside.
      The Bill provides formal prohibitions on those in politically restricted posts from being Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and councillors on principal councils. It further provides for contractual restrictions on certain other activities. The consultation paper that we have issued makes it clear that those are, being a candidate for those elected offices, holding office in a political party, canvassing and speaking and writing in public in support of a political party.
      It was suggested in another place that there should be two levels of contractual restrictions for all but those in the most senior posts. Although I am not immediately convinced by that argument, I shall consider it carefully.
      The four Opposition amendments reflect, in part, the questions raised in another place by the Opposition spokesman. Amendment (a) would negate the basis of what has been agreed on the question of the post to which the political restriction should apply. It was argued in another place that there should be a distinction between the restrictions that apply to chief executives, chief officers and their deputies and those that apply to other staff. It was suggested that all politically restricted staff should be prohibited from being elected to public office, but that the other restrictions should not be necessary in the case of staff other than chief executives, chief officers and their deputies. We have agreed to consider that.
      We have issued a consultation document which proposes that the restriction should be uniform for all the officers to whom the restrictions apply, as they are in the Civil Service for all members of a fully restricted group who are the equivalents of the politically restricted group in local government. We have an open mind on the issue and, as my noble Friend Lord Hesketh said, we will consider the case for a different approach.
      However, I cannot accept the approach of amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 3 because that would exempt staff, other than the most senior, from not only the wider restrictions that we acknowledge are to be considered but from the basic prohibition on being a councillor in another local authority. It would mean that the only political restriction on staff other than chief executives, chief officers and their deputies would be a restriction on being a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament. I stress that everything other than actual membership would be permitted. That would go back on the agreement as to which post should be politically restricted by making the content of those political restrictions practically non-existent for posts other than chief executive, chief officer or their deputies.
      The basic mischief at which the provisions are aimed is that of being a publicly active politician and at the same
      720
      time claiming to be the impartial servant of the local authority. I cannot therefore accept this attempt to set aside the Government's proposals to restate in law conventions which have previously ensured that there are no problems in this area.
      Mr. Soley: The Minister must know—he is not naive—that the Government got into an indefensible mess on this and that our colleagues in the House of Lords bailed them out. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside said, that does not mean that it is legislation that we would introduce. The Minister has said that he has an open mind on one or two issues and is willing to move on them. I am delighted to hear that. But how on earth can he legislate for that given we are at the final stages of the Bill and at the tail end of the Session? Does the Minister think that he can do these things by an Order in Council?
      Mr. Hunt: As the legislation and the consultation paper point out, there is scope for setting out the guidelines so that they are acceptable along the lines that I have already indicated. If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Brightside on canvassing. He is under a misapprehension. Our consultation paper suggests that those in politically restricted posts in local government, like those in comparable posts in the Civil Service, should not be able to canvass for political parties or for candidates elections to main local authorities or Parliament. The consultation paper suggests that a special definition of "canvassing" is needed, but if one were needed the definition of what is forbidden to policemen might be appropriate. That was the definition that was criticised by the hon. Member for Brightside. I do not think that it is an unacceptable approach.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The political activist in one area is usually employed in another area, and the logic behind the Government's point is that if someone who lives in the area where the activist works were to see him canvassing for a political party that ratepayer would lose confidence in the local authority. How does that apply when the political activist will be canvassing in the area where he or she lives rather than works? Why is the restriction being introduced?
      Mr. Hunt: It does not need me to reductio Zenosis as opposed to the hon. Gentleman's reductio ad absurdurn. The consultation paper shows that we are adopting a sensible and fair approach to the issue. We have an open mind as to the way in which we can best ensure that the objective that I clearly laid out, and thought was agreed on both sides of the House, can be achieved. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) referred to clause 1(5). Under that clause we have to lay regulations to determine the restrictions other than those on membership of councils, Parliament and the European Parliament. That is what we are consulting on.
      Amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 3 in part exempt assistants to political groups from restrictions other than being a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament. We have now sent to the local authority associations a consultative document setting out our proposals for restrictions for those political assistants, other than those on being a councillor, Member of Parliament or Member of the European Parliament which are included in the Bill. The document acknow-

      721
      ledges that the arguments for restrictions on these staff are different from those on other staff. Here there can be no conflict between the duties of the post and declared political allegiance. However, there must be safeguards against such posts being used merely to support a local party organisation. For instance, similar restrictions apply to Minister's special advisers for the same reasons. Such restrictions must exist if there is to be a power to appoint political assistants.
      Amendments (b) and (c) would exempt more junior staff from restrictions on being officers of political parties and on canvassing. As my noble Friend Lord Hesketh said in another place, we have agreed to consider the case for a less restrictive approach for staff other than the most senior. However, there are disadvantages in such an approach. It would make it much more difficult for people to understand what particular officers were allowed to do. It does not deal with the basic problem of a clash between publicly declared political views and a claim to serve a council impartially, and it would represent a significant step away from the traditional conventions on this subject.
      Mr. Richard Holt: Will my hon. Friend clarify this point? Is there a limitation on the number of political advisers that each authority is allowed to engage, or are we considering legislation that will enable any authority to engage, say, 50 of them?
      Mr. Hunt: I seem to recollect that the restriction applies to three political advisers per authority.
      Mr. Holt: Is that three per party or three per authority?
      Mr. Hunt: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that it is three per authority.
      I shall carefully consider all the arguments, but I do not think that the case is so clear that we should now rule out the possibility of uniform treatment of everyone subject to political restrictions.
      I may have misheard the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). I should like to clarify a point. I thought that he was referring to a member of staff who in any way advises a council on its decisions. I should like to make it clear that every officer who advises a council committee or sub-committee will be restricted, regardless of pay level.
      Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the people who put together reports for the council officers who advise committees be included in the restrictions?
      Mr. Hunt: My recollection is that the legislation applies to the officer who advises. A typist who types the document or someone similar much further down the chain will be affected by the restrictions only in the way that I explained earlier.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend may or may not know that each council chairman of a committee in Ealing has a personal assistant whose wages are paid by the ratepayer. That is a political figure. Am I to understand that this will be disallowed by the Bill in all cases but three?
      Mr. Hunt: My recollection is that three political assistants are allowed per local authority. I do not know
      722
      whether Ealing council will attempt to find some way of explaining such a post as other than that of a political adviser. I should be interested to investigate the status of a political adviser who overnight assumed a different mantle. No doubt, through my hon. Friend's vigilance, combined with my authority, we shall defeat any attempt to circumvent the legislation's provisions.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I do not agree with the Government's views. The legislation seems to result from shallow thinking and a biased view towards local government, and the Government have got it wrong. A chief officer may advise committees, but his advice will have come from further down the chain. Is the person further down the chain also debarred from taking part in political activities?
      Mr. Hunt: Let us not get the matter out of context. The hon. Gentleman and I know individuals who work in local government. I have constantly been in touch with such public servants for most of my political life. The majority in no way transgress in any of the respects which I have outlined. We are well served by the high calibre of public servant at local authority level.
      I remind the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) that the amendments were moved by the Opposition in another place to find a common solution to an uncommon problem—the individual who openly canvasses views for a political party and at the same time seeks to occupy an impartial position as a member of a council. It is to those people that the legislation is addressed. That is why I strongly urge the House to vote against the Opposition's amendments and to support the Lords amendments.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Winnick: The Minister concluded by paying a tribute to local government staff, and I echo his sentiments. There is, however, no evidence to show that the small numbers of people employed by local government who are politically involved do their job other than in the manner described. It is a slur on those people to argue that an officer who is employed by a local authority and is a member of another authority is not carrying out his basic function as a local authority employee in a forthright, honest and impartial way. If I had been a member of a local authority and were employed by another, I would consider it my duty, despite my strong political views, to carry out my responsibility as an employee impartially. Why should we believe that restrictions are necessary to cover someone who is a member of a local authority and is employed by another?
      Like my hon. Friends, I believe that in so far as these restrictions are necessary—I deplore them—it is far better to accept the Lords amendment than the Government's original provision. The original figure of £13,500, to which the Government clung in Committee, was unacceptable. If it had been accepted, a number of local authority employees would have been barred from carrying out any kind of democratic activity.
      I am worried about the legislation because those who earn less than £19,500 are to have their activities restricted, as the Minister made clear. When I asked him how many were affected, he said that he was not in a position to reply. I do not want to criticise him personally, but I should have thought that his advisers could give a rough calculation.

      723
      Those employees earning £19,500 will incur further restrictions, to which the Minister referred. People will be caught in the net.
      It is unfortunate that these restrictions are necessary, but in so far as they are necessary, they should apply to chief officers and deputy chief officers. I accept the possible need to impose a restriction on those two categories. One can argue that it is anomalous to allow a chief education officer or town clerk to be elected to serve on another local authority. I accept that argument, even if I am not wholeheartedly in favour of the restrictions. I would not go further, for the reasons which I have given. A number of people who are not chief officers or deputy chief officers and who do not occupy anything like those senior positions will be caught up in these restrictions because it will be argued that they hold politically sensitive positions such that they should not be allowed to stand for public office.
      Mr. Pike: Was not the Minister himself confused about how the people caught below the £19,500 figure would be defined? It is common in many councils for members of either the controlling or opposition party to consult the officer who prepared a report on a matter about which they are not clear, even if his is not the name on the report that goes to the committee.
      Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is right. As I said earlier, I am still worried that some who earn less than £19,500 will be caught despite the appeal system. Such employees may find that they are in the category, and I deplore that. The Minister must be aware that anyone who earns less than £19,500 is probably not in a position of seniority.
      Teachers are not included in the category. I am not in favour of including them. Indeed, I am not in favour of the Bill as it stands, let alone of extending the category. The only explanation that I can find for teachers and head teachers not being included is simply that the Government assume that the majority of teachers involved in political activities, such as being a member of a local authority, will be Conservatives. I see no other reason why one group of local government employees is included while another is not. That confirms my original view, expressed on Second Reading, that the ban or restriction is politically motivated. The Government have a deep authoritarian streak which works on the basis that the people whom they do not like should be banned. Similarly, they decided to finish off the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils because they were Labour controlled.
      If there are to be restrictions on election to another local authority, they should not include canvassing for a political party or holding office in a party. Hence the Opposition amendment. It is crazy that a citizen of our country should he prevented from being elected as treasurer to his local Labour or Conservative ward. Is it really suggested that a person who comes within a politically sensitive category may not carry out his functions because he is a member of a local political party, goes to its annual general meeting, and has been elected as treasurer, secretary or chair of the ward, or because he canvasses?
      I do not know the view of the Minister or of his hon. Friends, but, as a democrat, my view is that the more people are involved in political and democratic activities the better. In my party, and quite likely in the Conservative
      724
      party, we usually moan that too few people are willing to carry out such chores. Yet the Government say, "If you are employed by a local authority and you come within a politically sensitive category, you are not allowed even to canvass".
      Like so many other Bills, this Bill in anti-democratic. I regret the motives behind the Bill and the fact that the Government have not shifted further. They have removed the figure of £13,500 only because they have taken into account the arguments advanced in another place and the possibility of an action in the European Court of Human Rights. Our amendment would be some improvement on a bad, anti-democratic Bill, and I urge my hon. Friends to support it.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister. He made a proper distinction between elected councillors and officers of a council. Too much and too often recently the line dividing the work of councillors and of council officers has become blurred. Full-time employees of one authority elected to another have been allowed to spend almost all their office hours on politics. There should be a distinction between councillors who are elected to lay down a local authority's policy and officers who are employed to carry it out. The Labour party, both locally and nationally, seems to believe that councillors should work full time and direct the minutiae of council policy. I disagree. It is for council officers to carry out the policy laid down by councillors and the Lords amendment will ensure that that happens.
      It must be seriously wrong for council chairmen to have political assistants. In Ealing, each committee chairman has a personal assistant who is effectively a political assistant. Many think that the chairman's aide is there to make sure that the chairman does what the party wants him to do.
      Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Greenway: No.
      Mr. Winnick rose——
      Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has made a speech. I have only just begun.
      Mr. Tony Banks rose——
      Mr. Winnick rose——
      Mr. Greenway: No, I am not giving way.
      Mr. Banks: Chicken.
      Mr. Greenway: Chicken is almost a non-parliamentary word.
      Mr. Winnick rose——
      Mr. Greenway: No. I have not yet made my point.
      Mr. Soley rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I call Mr. Greenway.
      Mr. Greenway: I am simply saying that it is absurd and wrong for chairmen of local authority committees to have personal assistants who are really politicians at the behest of the local Left-wing hierarchy, in the case of Ealing, to see that he does what the hierarchy wishes. I am not saying that it is corrupt.
      Mr. Tony Banks rose——
      Mr. Winnick rose——
      Mr. Greenway: In Ealing, between eight and 13 Labour councillors would certainly have been caught by the £13,500 cut-off and prevented them from standing for re-election—in which they would probably have been unsuccessful—to Ealing council next year because they are employees of other authorities. There is political unfairness in the way in which councillors who are employees of other authorities operate. In many cases they seem to be given leave by the council employers to work full time on council work in Ealing.
      Thirty years ago I was at the Oxford university settlement in Bethnal Green. Poplar councillors were employed by Stepney council, Stepney councillors were employed by Bethnal Green council, Bethnal Green councillors were employed by Poplar council, and so on. In effect, the councillors worked full time in politics. That was grossly absurd because the Labour party had 100 per cent. control of each council.
      Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Minister has eight personal advisers in the Box. Does he agree that there are quite a few distinguished hon. Members who have been politically active while employed by local government and who would never have been able to become Members of Parliament under this legislation? Does the Minister also agree that local government officers are as honourable as headmasters of schools who are politically active?
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Greenway: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an honourable man and his comment is interesting. However, the Minister's advisers are not apparatchiks in the same way as the political or personal assistants to Ealing council chairmen, to whom I have referred—or at least they do not look like apparatchiks. I was prevented from becoming a councillor when I was a young teacher, although I would have liked to have been one, because teachers were not then allowed to stand for election to their local authority, and they are not allowed now.
      Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Greenway: No, because I want to be brief.
      Some councils are thought to appoint officers whom they believe will drive through a political point of view in their work as council officers. That is a serious problem because, like civil servants, council officers should not drive through political objectives for themselves. They should drive through policy objectives laid down by the council and should not pursue their own political aims, so they should never be appointed for such reasons. The Bill will help to ensure that that does not happen.
      Another problem is that some local government officers who speak to the media are in a sensitive position, as my hon. Friend the Minister said. It can soon happen that information put out to the media, electors, ratepayers or community charge payers becomes propaganda. It is right to ensure that anybody who deals with the media or who distributes information from councils is above reproach in political terms.
      I say that with particular feeling because a magazine called "Voices", which is a highly political document, has been produced in Ealing, financed by the ratepayers of
      726
      Ealing. It is wrong because it is merely Socialist propaganda. The leaflet that Ealing council produced on the community charge—and presumably it was produced by officers with access to the media—was incorrectly called "Poll Tax Information", and was highly prejudiced political propaganda. The amendments will rightly stop that. If people do not have the self-restraint or integrity to stop such practices themselves, it is right—although sad —that Parliament should do so for them.
      Council officers must be appointed on merit, regardless of political beliefs, sex, or ethnic background, but it is clear that that is not always the case. The Bill will ensure that such corruption ceases. Many of us are sorry that the Government have raised the cut-off point from £13,500 to £19,500, although we understand their reasons. Many of us fear that many council officers below the level of £19,500 will slip through the net into political activity and it will be important to ensure that they do not. However, I honour local government employees in general for the marvellous work that they do.
      Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) expressed concern that press officers in particular, who are responsible for issuing information, may become involved in issuing party propaganda. Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to intervene and to say whether he thinks that Mr. Bernard Ingham is beyond political reproach for the way in which he issues information on behalf of the Prime Minister's Office? Time and again the information he has issued has been pure political propaganda. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he thinks that Mr. Bernard Ingham is above reproach in terms of allowing political propaganda to interfere with his work as press officer for the Prime Minister's Office? The hon. Gentleman seems to be remaining in a sedentary position because he knows what the truth is.
      Mr. Greenway: The Opposition make so many attacks on that gentleman that they have lost all credibility.
      Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman obviously has no defence to offer for that individual.
      I welcome the concessions in Lords amendment No. 3 and the change in salary level from £13,500 to £19,500. I also welcome the Minister's assurance that he will recommend the amendment to the House. I was interested to hear what the Minister said about politically sensitive posts remaining under the salary level of £19,500. I remember that in Committee the Minister who was then responsible for the Bill and who has now moved on to pastures new as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food went to great lengths to try to justify the figure of £13,500. He gave the Committee two examples of high salary earners and low salary earners who would be affected. For his example of a low salary earner, he referred to a council officer in his own constituency who was responsible for allocating houses in the area. The Minister said:
      "It is important that he should not have political affiliations because his decisions must be clearly seen to be on the basis of priority … When decisions have to be taken and advice given to the authority about allocation, it is easier if the political affiliations of the person taking that decision are not known. He cannot then be accused of favouring someone who has a housing priority, even if they have the same political affiliations."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 7 March 1989; c. 188.]

      727
      It seemed a strange principle to apply. The Minister seemed to be saying that it was unacceptable for an officer to allocate houses and at the same time to have open political affiliations, but that it was wholly acceptable to do so if those political affiliations remained secret. It seemed that if the people in a particular area did not know what was going on, they had no need to worry. That has a masonic ring, and I hope that the Minister does not extend that principle.
      Will the Minister tell us whether council officers who are responsible for allocating houses will continue to be regarded as being in politically restricted posts, as the former Minister suggested they should be? Their salary level will be well below £19,500, so it is important that the Minister clarifies whether such officers will be affected by the politically restricted posts legislation.
      I was interested to hear the Minister say that the reason for the Bill was the extent of the abuses which had brought the whole system of local government into disrepute, and that point was made many times in Committee. If such abuses exist, they are alleged to exist only in England and Wales, and have never existed in Scotland to my knowledge. In Committee, I tabled an amendment that sought to exempt Scotland from the effects of the provision. Twin tracking has never been a concern in Scotland. I and my hon. Friends believe that and Widdicombe said that the traditional practices survive more readily in Scotland than in England or Wales.
      The research study upon which Widdicombe was based said that
      "the professional adviser model of officer-member relations remains dominant in Scottish local government".
      The research study also pointed out:
      "Councillors expect, seek and generally receive"
      politically neutral advice and said that, in general, relationships in Scotland are satisfactory and in no need of legislation such as this. The Government are trying to apply a remedy for a perceived disease in England and Wales and they have no basis for arguing that that remedy should also apply in Scotland. That is why I should have been pleased had Scotland not been included in the Bill.
      If anything, Scotland suffers from the opposite of the problem with which the Bill seeks to deal. We suffer not as a result of council officers' openly saying where their political affiliation lies but from officers not telling us where their affiliation lies, especially when that affiliation interferes with the advice that they give to elected councillors. I cite the case of compulsory competitive tendering because it has recently caused anger in my own area, the Tayside regional council area, where a contract was lost to an outside tenderer. Everyone who has been involved in the process has said that, if the in-house tenderer is to win, it is most important that elected members' trade unions representing the work force and council officers work closely together and show the same commitment to winning the contract. Council officers do not say what their political affiliation is but often by their actions and by failing to show such commitment, they undermine the in-house tender and make it possible for the contract to go to an outsider tenderer. That often happens without our being told the real political affiliation of the council officers and whether that affiliation is interfering with the advice that they give to the elected representatives.
      Some other council officers will remain caught by the politically restricted posts provisions. They include press
      728
      officers. Press officers are professional council officers and they act in a wholly professional manner. They impart information concerning democratically reached council decisions, publicise statements made by elected conveners on council committees, and so on. The Government have decided to reward them for doing a thoroughly professional job by designating press officer a politically restricted post and disallowing press officers from standing for political office or taking part in political activity—even from canvassing or taking part in the democratic process in any way.
      Our amendment (c) to Lords amendment No. 3, on which we shall divide the House, would at least restore some democratic rights to council officers. It is important that those Conservative Members who take these matters seriously should vote with the Opposition. After all, we are dealing with a serious infringement of civil liberties.
      The Minister said that the Lords amendments represented a sensible and fair approach on the part of the Government. Although it is true that the Government are taking a more sensible and fair approach than they did in Committee, the principle of politically restricted posts remains deeply objectionable on democratic grounds. I remind the Minister that, perhaps for very good reasons, Germany introduced the concept of politically restricted posts in the aftermath of the second world war. The Germans tried to exclude from public service those extremists who were opposed to the constitution and to the very notion of public service. They did that to deal with the Nazi party and its supporters. Unfortunately, in practice, Berufsverbot has been used not against Nazis but against those who subscribe to Left-wing ideologies. Since 1972, there have been 3½ million political screenings in Germany, several thousands of hearings and 1,250 rejections of applicants for jobs in the public service. There have also been 300 forced retirements. The orginal concept of Berufsverbot has been abused for political ends just as the principle of politically restricted posts will be open to abuse for political ends. It should be opposed, and the House should accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Tony Banks: There has been more than the usual whiff of hypocrisy on the Conservative Benches this evening. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) talked about propaganda. It comes ill from the Conservative party these days to talk about information as propaganda or propaganda as information, given the publications that now emerge from the Ministries almost daily. The last one that I saw was published by the Central Office of Information and dealt with the Conservative Government's approach to South Africa. It was printed in blue and there was a picture of the Prime Minister on every single page. That is the sort of publication that we believe should be paid for by Conservative Central Office and not by the hard-pressed taxpayer, but the hon. Member for Ealing, North would never say that.
      6.45 pm
      Much of the information that the Government publish about privatisation—at a cost of about £150 million of taxpayers' money—in so-called public information schemes is no more than propaganda to advance the Conservative party's cause. We do not need lectures from the hon. Member for Ealing, North about propaganda and information because the Government are past masters

      729
      at squandering taxpayers' money to push the Government's cause. It will do them no good because the public see through these thinly disguised activities and will boot them from office in the next couple of years or so.
      Let me say to the Minister, however, that I welcome his appointment. Perhaps he will take my congratulations to cover next week's ministerial reshuffle as well, as that will save me from repeating myself.
      In Committee, I made it clear that I was not in favour of twin tracking. I speak as one who was in local authority service as an elected member for 16 years. But the principle that we are discussing goes much further than twin tracking. I objected to twin tracking not so much because I was concerned about whether the advice given would be impartial but because of the pressure of time on the individual concerned.
      My solution was to suggest that if we approached local government responsibilities seriously and remunerated councillors so that they were not required to seek jobs with other local authorities—which might be broadly sympathetic because of the sacrifices that councillors have to make—we might prevent it from happening. It is difficult to get a job or hold a job when one is acting as a councillor, but if we were prepared to admit that we have local government on the cheap and to make positive suggestions about remunerating councillors, the twin tracking that occurs in some parts of England and Wales would cease to exist.
      The Bill goes much further, however. We are talking about placing restrictions on low-level political activity such as canvassing or holding political office. The Minister spoke as though political activity and involvement with a political party were in some way criminal. If that is so, this is a home for recidivists. I do not understand how the Minister can say that being involved in cavassing or holding political office disbars someone from being an effective local government officer. That person is not in the same position as someone who works for one local authority and advises another.
      As I understand it, Conservative Members would argue—I do not accept the argument—that public confidence is diminished if people receive advice from or make contact with a supposedly impartial council officer knowing that that officer is also an active member of a political party working on or representing another council somewhere else. One can almost go along with that argument a little way in the case of twin tracking, but canvassing and holding political office are completely different matters. The political activist does those things in the area in which he or she lives and not in the area in which he or she works. There is no reason why anyone who meets a political activist on the doorstep or within the local party should have their feelings about the local authority diminished, because that is not the same local authority. It is another local authority. Obviously if a council officer were canvassing and held a political office in the area where he or she worked, there might be something in it. However, the proposals in the Bill amount to an attack on the democratic civil rights of thousands of local government officers around the country. The proposal goes too far. The Minister has said that the matter will be reconsidered, but I want to know what he intends to do.
      With regard to holding office, the consultative paper states:
      "The concept of 'holding office' seems sufficiently self-explanatory not to need any special definition."
      730
      That is not so. Does it really include being the social secretary? If one holds that office, is one excluded from being a councillor? Would the organiser of the revolutionary jumble sales that we have from time to time in the Labour party be excluded? In my constituency there is a premises officer and an assistant premises officer. If they happen to work for another local authority, will they be excluded?
      The proposal really is a reduction to the absurd, as the Minister said. I am not reducing it to the absurd; the Minister is doing that by accepting the absurdity that
      "The concept of 'holding office' seems sufficiently self-explanatory not to need any special definition."
      We need a definition or the concept will be so imprecise as to be meaningless.
      The consultative document also states:
      "Canvassing seems sufficiently self-explanatory not to require a special definition."
      I am beginning to get the feeling that, because it was too difficult for the people who drew up the draft code to provide any definitions, they decided that everything was self-explanatory. That is a rather neat way of surmounting the problem.
      In many cases canvassing is an anonymous activity. I try to make it as anonymous as I possibly can when I am canvassing in the London borough of Newham. I must be honest about it, I do not like canvassing for myself. I do not like trying to sell myself from door to door like a suitcase full of Kleenezee brushes. However, I find many ready takers. I normally knock on the door and say, "Excuse me, very sorry to disturb you, but I am from Newham, North-West Labour party. I hope you will be voting Labour in the next election." If I am asked, "Are you Tony Banks?" I look at them very carefully and decide whether the question is asked in an amicable or a hostile fashion and either admit it or deny it according to the circumstances.
      Canvassing is an anonymous activity. People are not going to say, "Hang on. I know you. You work for the local authority down the road. My God, what are you doing canvassing for the Conservative party or the Labour party?" It is absurd to include canvassing and holding political office as activities that will carry disqualification.
      What will happen if someone continues to act in this way? The Bill states:
      "It will be included in contractual terms."
      If someone grasses on the person who comes round canvassing or is organising the jumble sale or the bring-and-buy down the local Conservative association or Labour party office to the employer—the local authority—will that person face dismissal? That must be spelt out. This proposal goes much further than the concept in Committee. It is an attack on people's civil and political rights who are trying to organise within a political party.
      If our democracy means anything and if political parties are in any way supportive of our democracy—some might argue that they are not, but I assume that all hon. Members would argue that they are—anything that limits people's involvement at even the most humble level in political parties should be rejected out of hand in this House, of all places.
      Mr. DavidHunt rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again? [Interruption.] It seems that he has.
      Mr. David Hunt: I was listening to the debate and I was enjoying it. However, from time to time I had to remind myself that we are debating the acceptance of Lords amendments which are the product of all-party agreement. I had to remind myself of that as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was speaking. I have made a pledge not to be critical of him because he paid me such a fulsome tribute. It was so fulsome that I cannot remember exactly what he said—I was in a state of shock.
      This has been an interesting debate on a very important subject. The hon. Member for Dundee, East Mr. McAllion) should not claim that the proposal should not apply to Scotland. He should listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) who said that it would he wrong for a chief executive of a council to be a councillor on another council. It just so happens that the chief executive of Clydebank district council is a member of Glasgow district council.
      Mr. Maxton: And he does a very good job in both posts.
      Mr. Hunt: I am sure that he does, but we are laying down the guidelines on how he can best carry out his duties in future. Therefore, the restrictions should apply to Scotland as much as to the rest of the United Kingdom.
      In response to the hon. Member for Walsall, North, I can state that the criteria for political sensitivity applies to those who regularly advise council committees and sub committees, not those who may offer advice to individual councillors. With regard to other members of staff, what matters is who personally puts the advice to the committee. If a chief officer is assisted, but takes responsibility for the advice, the assistant is not regularly advising the committee. If the junior officer takes responsibility for the advice, he or she will be restricted.
      There are already provisions in education legislation to restrict the professional activities of teachers in political areas.
      Mr. Maxton: I do not know whether that is true in England and Wales, because I am not an expert. However, someone employed as a teacher in Scotland by the regional council is quite entitled to stand as a district councillor on the tier below that.
      Mr. Hunt: I have just said that teachers are not dealt with in the Bill, because there are already provisions in education legislation to restrict their professional activities.
      The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to treasurers of political parties. Since 1948 that has been regarded as incompatible with being a senior civil servant. I remind the House that these provisions would come as no surprise to the vast majority of public servants in local government, because our proposal is a code of conduct to which they already subscribe. We are dealing with a very small minority of people who may feel that they are caught by the provisions.
      With regard to Ministers' advisers, I must state that I am honoured to be so well served by some of the highest calibre civil servants who give me just as much loyal and impartial advice as they gave to members of the last Labour Government.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was right to stress the inadequacies of Socialist
      732
      propaganda on the rates. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West did not try to justify that propaganda; he tried to show that other political parties tried to put forward political propaganda. While I do not accept the correctness of anything that the hon. Member said, he is talking to the same subject. It is wrong to have party political propaganda either funded on the rates or from people who are normally associated with the impartial activities of a local council.
      Mr. Soley: May I have a commitment from the Minister? He is a Minister in the Department of the Environment, and it has been admitted in the background papers that the expenditure of £21 million by the water boards was designed to help privatisation. Given that the Minister has said that that is unacceptable, will he resign?
      Mr. Hunt: No. That was to explain the importance of the measure, and it was in accordance with Government policy. If Opposition Members were reasonable, they would understand that we are talking about official council policy and official Government policy as opposed to party political propaganda.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is demonstrating how difficult it is to make an acceptable distinction between information and propaganda. Politicians are deciding that the Government are putting out information and that local authorities are putting out propaganda. That is the problem. There is no objective assessment. Unless the Minister can come up with an acceptable and objective way of determining what is propaganda and what is information, he is simply interfering in a party political way in the affairs of local authorities.
      Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman must trust the fair-minded people, such as myself, who are Ministers in the Government.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: We are getting to the nub of the matter. Many people in local government fear that, although there may have been some all-party compromise rather than agreement in the other place, everyone is not necessarily talking about the same thing—they may think that they are, but they may not be. Will the Minister elaborate on future progress in defining some of the things that he promises and what opportunity there may be to review and reflect in future?
      7 pm
      Mr. Hunt: I readily respond. It has been an interesting debate, and I shall carefully consider the points that have been made.
      To return to the all-party approach which characterised the start of the debate, the Lords amendments are the product of compromise and agreement between the Opposition and the Government. That they must now work effectively must be agreed. That is why we have gone out to consultation, and that is why, before we bring forward the regulations, we shall carefully consider all the points that have been made and listen to further representations that hon. Members may wish to make. We are determined to ensure that the product of these amendments is put into good law and that everyone knows exactly where he stands.
      Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1 negatived.
      Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 29, at end insert—
      "(1A) It shall be the duty of every local authority to prepare and maintain a list of such of the following posts under the authority, namely—

      (a) the full time posts the annual rate of remuneration in respect of which is or exceeds £19,500 or such higher amount as may be specified in or determined under regulations made by the Secretary of State;

      (b) the part time posts the annual rate of remuneration in respect of which would be or exceed that amount if they were full time posts in respect of which remuneration were paid at the same rate as for the part time post; and

      (c) posts not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above the duties of
      which appear to the authority to fall within subsection (3) below,

      as are not posts for the time being exempted under section (grant and supervision of exemptions from political restriction) below, posts for the time being listed under section 100G(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 or section 50G(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 or posts of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection"
      Read a Second time.
      Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (c), in line 21, at end insert—
      `(1B) No regulations issued under section 1(5) above in respect of a post in a list prepared and maintained under subsection (1A) above, or in respect of a post falling within subsection (1)(f) above, shall prohibit a person holding such a post from endeavouring to persuade any person to give, or dissuade any person from giving, his vote for any candidate, whether as an elector or a proxy at any election.'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 283.

      Division No. 368]

      [7.2 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Cohen, Harry

      Alton, David

      Coleman, Donald

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Ashton, Joe

      Corbett, Robin

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Cousins, Jim

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Crowther, Stan

      Barron, Kevin

      Cryer, Bob

      Battle, John

      Cummings, John

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Beith, A. J.

      Cunningham, Dr John

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

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Darling, Alistair

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blair, Tony

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Blunkett, David

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

      Boyes, Roland

      Dixon, Don

      Bradley, Keith

      Dobson, Frank

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Doran, Frank

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Douglas, Dick

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Buchan, Norman

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Buckley, George J.

      Eadie, Alexander

      Caborn, Richard

      Eastham, Ken

      Callaghan, Jim

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Fatchett, Derek

      Canavan, Dennis

      Faulds, Andrew

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Cartwright, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Fisher, Mark

      Clelland, David

      Flannery, Martin

      734

      Flynn, Paul

      McNamara, Kevin

      Foster, Derek

      McWilliam, John

      Fraser, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Fyfe, Maria

      Marek, Dr John

      Galloway, George

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

      George, Bruce

      Martlew, Eric

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Maxton, John

      Gordon, Mildred

      Meacher, Michael

      Gould, Bryan

      Meale, Alan

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Michael, Alun

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Hardy, Peter

      Morley, Elliot

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

      Haynes, Frank

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Mullin, Chris

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Murphy, Paul

      Henderson, Doug

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Brien, William

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hogg, N.(C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Home Robertson, John

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Parry, Robert

      Howell, Rt Hon D.(S'heath)

      Pendry, Tom

      Howells, Geraint

      Pike, Peter L.

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Radice, Giles

      Illsley, Eric

      Randall, Stuart

      Ingram, Adam

      Redmond, Martin

      Janner, Greville

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Richardson, Jo

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Robertson, George

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Lambie, David

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lamond, James

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rowlands, Ted

      Leighton, Ron

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lewis, Terry

      Sheerman, Barry

      Litherland, Robert

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Livingstone, Ken

      Short, Clare

      Livsey, Richard

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, J. P.(Vale of Glam)

      McAllion, John

      Snape, Peter

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Soley, Clive

      McCartney, Ian

      Spearing, Nigel

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McFall, John

      Stott, Roger

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Straw, Jack

      McLeish, Henry

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      735

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)

      Turner, Dennis

      Wilson, Brian

      Vaz, Keith

      Winnick, David

      Wall, Pat

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Wallace, James

      Worthington, Tony

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dover, Den

      Alexander, Richard

      Dunn, Bob

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Eggar, Tim

      Amess, David

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Amos, Alan

      Evennett, David

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fallon, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Favell, Tony

      Ashby, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Baldry, Tony

      Forman, Nigel

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Franks, Cecil

      Bendall, Vivian

      Freeman, Roger

      Benyon, W.

      French, Douglas

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Gale, Roger

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gill, Christopher

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Boswell, Tim

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gorst, John

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gow, Ian

      Bowis, John

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gregory, Conal

      Brazier, Julian

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Grist, Ian

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Ground, Patrick

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Grylls, Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Burns, Simon

      Hague, William

      Burt, Alistair

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Butcher, John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Butler, Chris

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Butterfill, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hannam, John

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

      Carrington, Matthew

      Harris, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Cash, William

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hayes, Jerry

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hayward, Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Heddle, John

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

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Conway, Derek

      Hill, James

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Holt, Richard

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Couchman, James

      Howard, Michael

      Cran, James

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

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

      Day, Stephen

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Dicks, Terry

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

      736

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Irvine, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Irving, Charles

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Jack, Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Jackson, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew

      Janman, Tim

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Jessel, Toby

      Ryder, Richard

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shelton, Sir William

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knox, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Speller, Tony

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Squire, Robin

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lord, Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Stern, Michael

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Stevens, Lewis

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Maclean, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Mans, Keith

      Sumberg, David

      Maples, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thorne, Neil

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Tracey, Richard

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Tredinnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trotter, Neville

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mudd, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Neale, Gerrard

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Needham, Richard

      Walden, George

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Ward, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Watts, John

      Paice, James

      Wheeler, John

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Whitney, Ray

      Patnick, Irvine

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Pawsey, James

      Wilkinson, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Portillo, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Yeo, Tim

      Price, Sir David

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rattan, Keith

      Rathbone, Tim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Redwood, John

      Mr. Alistair Goodlad and

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Riddick, Graham

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

    Clause 11

      CONFIDENTIALITY OF STAFF RECORDS
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 16, line 18, leave out
      "Subject to subsection (3) below".
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 11.[Interruption.] Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber and we are considering amendments that are extremely complex and difficult for hon. Members to follow. Would those hon. Members who wish to hold conversations do so elsewhere?
      7.15 pm
      Mr. William O'Brien: The amendments are important because they relate to a significant number of local authority staff and deal with the confidentiality of staff salary records. We are pleased that the amendments that have been pressed in both this House and in another place have been accepted by the Government because they mean a great deal to a lot of people.
      I should like to put one point to the Minister arising from the debate in their Lordships' House. It was decided that a working party would be established consisting of civil servants in the Department of the Environment and officers of the local authority associations to try to work out a proper formula about how the confidentiality provisions would apply both in total and in general.
      We have been given to understand that the working party has yet to be established. If an amicable arrangement cannot be agreed with officers of the Department of the Environment and local authority associations, before any action is taken on the proposals, can the matter be brought back to the House for a general discussion? There may be contentions or difficulties to resolve.
      This involvement is far-reaching. That is borne out by the way in which the Government have accepted the amendments that have been submitted. The Opposition parties deserve congratulations for the way in which they have pressed these amendments. If the working party cannot reach an agreement with the various officers, no action should be taken until we have had an opportunity to discuss it in the House. I ask the Minister to give that request his careful consideration.
      Mr. David Hunt: The amendment provides that protection of personal information under clause 11 for employees of local authorities and certain other bodies at the time of audit should be extended to information about gross pay and benefits. As amended, the Bill provides that no information about employees will be available for public inspection at that time.
      As my noble Friend Lord Hesketh made clear during consideration of the amendments on Report in another place, we remain of the view that it is important to get the right balance between public accountability and personal privacy.
      738
      No departmental officials are involved here. The issue is being considered by the Audit Commission and by the local authority associations. Together they are examining the system of public inspection at the time of audit.
      I understand that the working party has already been established but, in view of the doubt that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, I shall check that information immediately after I leave the Chamber.
      I understand that the working party will publish its recommendations, which will then be open to comment. I should like to make it absolutely clear that we will then wish to consider any recommendations that it makes. I cannot go further than that. In the meantime, we recognise that no information about local authorities' employees will be open to abuse and, for that reason, we accept the amendment.
      Mr. O'Brien: The Minister says that the working party is in place and I accept that. If its report is published for consultation, I am prepared to accept the assurances given by the Minister. We look forward to obtaining the report.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 514, to 553 agreed to.

  Schedule 11

    ENACTMENTS REPEALED
    Lords amendment: No. 554, in page 219, line 18, column 3, at end insert—

    "In section 177, subsection (2A) and in subsection (3), the words "(but not for the purposes of subsection (2A) above)".

    Section 177A.

    In section 178, in subsection (1), the words "and 177A"."

    Read a Second time.
    Amendments made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 5, at end add 'and subsection (5)'.

    (b), in page 223, line 4, at end insert—

    '1988 c. 4.

    The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.

    In Schedule 6, in paragraph 10, subparagraphs (6) and(7).'.—[Mr.DavidHunt.]

    Lords amendment No. 554, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 555 to 581, 583 to 601 and 603 to 606 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

  Clause 132

    SCOTTISH NON-DOMESTIC RATES: INTERIM PROVISIONS
    Lords amendment: No. 256, in page 118, line 29, after "value" insert
    "or, where a rateable value has been prescribed or determined in respect of the lands and heritages under section 128 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. according to that rateable value"
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 257 to 264, 328, 329, 330 and

    739
    amendments (a) to (f) thereto, 331 to 371, 372 and amendments (a) to (d) thereto, 373 to 399, 400 and Government amendment (a) thereto and 401 to 424.
    Mr. Douglas:On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not our responsibility to challenge the grouping of amendments, but some of these relate expressly to Scotland. Am I right in understanding that a Scottish Office Minister may move those amendments separately, if he should manage to catch your eye? Will those amendments that relate to Scotland be moved by a Scottish Office Minister?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: If a Minister seeks to catch my eye, I will call that Minister.
    Mr. Douglas: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry. but will the Secretary of State make it clear that he is not grouping these amendments to move them collectively and that the amendments relating to Scotland will be moved by a Scottish Office Minister?
    Mr. Patten: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We intend to give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the opportunity to speak during the debate, if that is agreeable to the House. I think that a Scottish spokesman from the Opposition Front Bench will also intervene—in fact I know now that that will happen. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and other hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies will want to have a say. l hope that is acceptable to the House.
    Mr. Blunkett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like it to be made clear that we are taking this whole group of amendments together, and that they can be moved and debated as one.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I can clear the air on that I am sure. We are dealing with the group of amendments beginning with No. 256, which is the lead amendment and which the Secretary of State is currently moving.
    Mr. Douglas: On a point or order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I correct my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)? My understanding is that the amendments will not be moved and debated as one, but that the amendments relating to Scotland will be moved separately. Can I be clear about that?
    Mr. Patten: I understand that it has been agreed, in the normal fashion, that I should move that this House agrees with Lords amendment No. 256 and that we should then discuss with it a group of amendments including some that affect Scotland. Because some of the amendments affect Scotland, there will be interventions from appropriate spokesmen on both sides of the House. At the end of the debate, with the leave of the House, I shall wind up for the Government and someone—I am not quite sure who—will wind up for the Opposition. I hope that that will take proper account of the legitimate Scottish interest in the business before us.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Secretary Patten on Lords amendment 256.
    Mr. Patten: The amendments that we are now considering deal with issues that relate to the introduction of a new system of local government finance for next year. They are grouped together for discussion because I am
    740
    sure that the House will wish to spend substantial time discussing the main issue that arises from them—the introduction of the transitional relief scheme.
    There are bound to be areas and individuals who gain or lose from any substantial change to the system of local government finance or a comparable revenue raising system. As I understand it, that is the problem which is causing the Labour party further to sophisticate its two-tax policy for local government finance.
    Under the existing system of domestic rates, many people have been unfairly treated. One thinks straightaway of single pensioner households, widows, single-parent families, and all those on the lowest incomes. They will almost all be better off as a result of the new system.
    I shall spend a few minutes explaining to the House how we intend to ensure a smooth transition to the new system for those areas and groups of people who will, to some extent, be worse off. We propose two measures to help such areas. The area safety net was specifically introduced for that purpose. It provides that average ratepayers will lose no more than 50p a week on a comparison with their rate bill this year, increased by the GDP deflator of 4 per cent. We have now decided that the safety net will be abolished after the first year, but in the succeeding three years protection for those areas will be paid for by the Exchequer. The cost will amount to more than £600 million during that period. In addition, we are providing nearly £100 million next year to help areas with particularly low rateable values. That relief will be phased out over the same period as the general relief for areas.
    7.30 pm
    It is important to remember that individuals in those areas received subsidy from other areas regardless of their own level of income. That has never been a fair way of distributing grant and it is right to abolish it. The Government have always recognised, however, that it was important to cushion the effects on those areas that would lose out as a result. That is the effect of our proposals.
    Protection for those areas will not ensure that all those individuals who need help receive it. That is why we are ensuring that the new system of rebates for the community charge will be more generous than that provided for under the old domestic rating system. The rate at which rebates will be withdrawn will be 15p for every pound of extra income instead of 20p for every pound under the rates. The cost of rebates in Britain next year, including uprating of income support to help pay community charge bills, will be of the order of £2·5 billion and more than one in four adults are expected to benefit as a result. By any standards that represents a generous level of help for those in need.
    It would not be right to build permanently into the system yet more protection, but I recognise that many individuals whose earnings are above the rebate level could face substantial increases in bills unless they are given special protection. That is why we are introducing the transitional relief scheme.
    The first question to be answered is how one decides who should receive help. I do not believe that it would be right to include all first-time payers. The whole point of the introduction of the new system is that almost everyone should make a contribution towards the cost of local government. Arguably those who have not yet contributed should have been contributing all along.

    741
    local government. Arguably those who have not yet contributed should have been contributing all along.
    It would also be wrong to protect individuals from the consequences of overspending by their local councils. The remedy for that lies in the ballot box. I recognise, however, that a move from a system based on rateable values to one based on adults means that some people living in low rateable value properties may find themselves worse off. It is those people that the new relief scheme is intended to help. We also thought it right to go somewhat further than that. We believe that disabled people and pensioners who are not paying rates deserve special help. We have therefore decided that first-time payers who are pensioners or are disabled will also qualify for the scheme. If they are already ratepayers, of course, they will receive help in the normal way. In total, the transitional relief scheme should help about 6 million
    The second question to answer is how one defines the floor and the ceiling for protection. In one sense it is unfair to use this year's rate bill as the floor. We all know that were the rating system to continue almost everyone's rate bill would have been higher. In that sense they all would have been losers. None the less, we thought it right to be generous in providing help for the new system, so we are defining the floor for protection as this year's rate bill.
    Mr. Soley: It is an open secret that the Secretary of State did not like the poll tax and I suspect that that was because he knew that it was unfair in the way in which it hit people. The point about rates is equally unfair because he knows that, over the years, the Government have cut £28 billion from the rate support grant. If the Secretary of State intends to argue that this year's rate bill should be the floor, surely, by his own previous arguments, he should accept that the way in which to give relief should be based on need by assessment rather than through the blanket approach that he has now adopted. That approach will leave many people worse off.
    Mr. Patten: There are two important ways in which to deal with need. The first is through the rebate system and that is why I am pleased that the rebate system for the community charge is more generous than that for domestic rating. The second method is to look at the particular problems that arise because of a change from a system based upon rateable values to one based upon adults. That does throw up particular difficulties in low rateable value properties, as I have already explained. The interim relief scheme is designed to assist in solving such problems.
    I think it improbable in the new model Labour party, which is substantially committed to the standards of fiscal rectitude trooped by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), that it would decide that the only way in which to be fair to local authorities would be to add £28 billion to what they are spending and consider that that was the right starting point. I have read—I dare say I am one of the few people who have done so—
    "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change"
    and I have seen what it says about the importance of bearing down on overspending. I find it difficult to understand why those views about overspending never seem to apply to local authorities, but to the Ministry of
    742
    Defence alone. During the time that I hope to spend in my job I look forward to learning more about the Labour party's views on controlling local expenditure.
    Mr. Soley: Let me help the Secretary of State get out of his misery. He knows that the Labour party's alternative has not only been warmly welcomed by all—[Interruption.] Oh yes, that is right. It has been warmly welcomed by specialist local government groups, especially those concerned with finance. Our proposal operates in almost every other advanced democracy and it is recognised that it not only gives more flexibility to local authorities in the way in which they raise their expenditure, but deals with the issue of fairness. The Secretary of State cannot bring himself to face that issue. When he took on the job he knew that the Government's proposals were unfair, but he still took that job on and he is still doing his lady's bidding.
    Mr. Patten: I believe that the community charge is incomparably fairer than the domestic rating system. If any Secretary of State stood at this Dispatch Box and tried to argue, with a straight face, that we should base the way in which local revenue is raised on notional rental values 16 years out of date—[Interruption.] That is what the domestic rating system amounts to. I am describing the present system.
    If the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) believes that the policy left behind by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is still the policy of the Labour party he should have a word with the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I am not absolutely convinced that the hon. Member for Dagenham, who is extremely bright and sensible, has quite the same idea. It was the constituency Labour party from Dagenham that tabled a motion at the Labour party conference to say that the Labour party's proposals were electorally and administratively unacceptable. I predict that the Labour party will be back with a new Mandelson-proof scheme as an alternative to domestic rates in a few months' time. We will then be delighted to provide exemplifications on that alternative as well. I believe that there are some Opposition Members who secretly wish that their party had never abandoned its commitment to the domestic rating system.
    Mr. Douglas indicated assent.
    Mr. Patten: I note that there is one on the Opposition Benches. We are exposing one or two fractures in the carapace of the Opposition's position.
    I shall move on in this spirit of convivial agreement. At least most of us are agreed—with one exception, and I am prepared to listen to more views—that none of us believes that we should continue with the domestic rating system. [Interruption.] I am not sure if one or two hon. Members disagree.
    Mr. Douglas: I shall make my own speech.
    Mr. Patten: We do not have unanimity, but we are approaching it. The alternatives on offer will be closely examined by the electorate at the next general election. I am sure that the Labour party will want to bring forward its proposals as soon as possible so that they can be subject to political debate and examination by the constituency Labour party in Dagenham and elsewhere.
    We were talking about the definition of the floor for protection and I said that we were taking that as this year's

    743
    rate bill. However, it would be wrong to provide protection for any level of spending which the local authority cared to incur next year. That would simply give the green light to excessive spending locally. Having listened to what has been said, I am sure that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer would not wish us to do so. Therefore, we are providing help to match the level of local authority spending that we have assumed for next year. That level is 11 per cent. more than the level that we assumed for this year. In no sense can that be regarded as unreasonable or ungenerous.
    Obviously, there are problems in devising a scheme to smooth the transition from a system based on households to one based on individuals. In particular, there are difficulties related to houses in multiple occupation. We are talking to the local authority associations about these problems, and we have to draw a line somewhere. Inevitably, there are arguments about who should and who should not be covered by the scheme. I am confident that they can be resolved and I shall do all that I can to ensure that they are. I wish to say immediately that, regardless of the political differences between us, I hope that we can enjoy an effective working relationship with the local authority associations, because that is in the interests of good government in this country.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State seems to accept that there are serious concerns about the problems of perming any two out of an HMO. I hope that he will accept—I am sure that he will come in for a lot of criticism if he does not—that that proposal cannot be made to work. There is no way that two individuals can be permed out of a house of multiple occupation. The real world does not work like that.
    Mr. Patten: I do not accept that principle. The hon. Gentleman and others should not exaggerate the scale of the problem. It stands to reason that most of the houses in which there are likely to be a large number of residents will be high rateable value houses and are unlikely to be those that are covered by the scheme. Nevertheless, there are practical problems which will probably affect 2·5 per cent. of the total expenditure of the scheme. We want to resolve those problems. I hope that we can find some way of agreeing their resolution with the local authority associations; if not, we shall have to agree to disagree.
    I am aware that it is pretty late in the day to be introducing a new system of relief. It will cause difficulties for the local authorities implementing it. However, sensible local authorities welcome this extra protection for their community charge payers. I also understand that computer houses believe that these changes do not present insuperable difficulties.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) giggles. I do not know which computer firms he has consulted. We have discussed this——
    Mr. Maxton rose——
    Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish I shall let him intervene.
    We have discussed this matter with a number of computer firms. There are problems with bolting additional requirements on to the existing system, but we understand that computer houses believe that these changes can be made in a way that will enable us to bill at the appropriate time next year.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Maxton: I wonder whether the Secretary of State has spoken to the directors of finance and the directors of computer services, particularly those in large local authorities in Scotland, where an attempt is being made to bolt this system on to an existing scheme which has been up and running for seven months. Those computers, which are already dismally failing to cope with the present position, are being asked to cope with this additional matter. I wish that the Secretary of State would talk to people in Scotland about what is happening instead of relying on software experts in private companies.
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would take it amiss if I had had discussions with computer houses in Scotland about the Scottish system. Were that the case, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) would quite properly take exception. I was talking about discussions that we have had with computer houses in England. I am sure that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—and the hon. Member for Cathcart will be able to describe the discussions which are taking place in Scotland.
    Mr. Douglas: Does not the Secretary of State accept that he should not necessarily be discussing the matter with computer houses, but consulting with his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who would tell him of the difficulties of trying to rejig a system and rewrite programs? In Fife people are working night and day, and trying to rejig the system at considerable cost. What additional cost has the Secretary of State for Scotland said will be incurred in trying to rejig the system?
    Mr. Patten: When we proposed this scheme, we discussed it with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, with whom we are always happy to have discussions. I repeat that I think that the hon. Member for Cathcart and others would take it amiss were I to try to speak for the Scottish Office or my right hon. and learned Friend, who is well capable of speaking for himself. Therefore, I shall leave discussion of the administrative problems in Scotland to my Scottish colleagues.[Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Cathcart to laugh, but he knows perfectly well that if I were to try to say too much about Scotland, hon. Members would regard it as an appalling piece of lese majestê.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware, since my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would have advised him, that the Scottish regions do not all operate the same system, equipment, or software. Consequently, the difficulties experienced in whichever region one considers depend on which system it operates and how effective it is.
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that my hon. Friend has explained, to the universal satisfaction of the Opposition, the position in Scotland. I wish that I were as well informed about the position in Scotland as is my hon. Friend. Even if I were, I would not have dared to speak for Scotland during this debate.

    745
    As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West implied, the relief scheme will involve additional costs for local authorities. I assure the House that we shall meet all reasonable costs associated with its introduction. I should make it absolutely clear that I want to ensure that the scheme is a success. I have argued that point strongly in my discussions with local authority associations. We shall do everything we can to ensure that it is a success.
    The principle of providing transitional protection is undoubtedly right. When domestic revaluations were carried out in 1963 and 1973, transitional relief was made available. As I have explained, the scheme will not undermine accountability because it will not provide help over and above the level of spending assumed by the Government for next year. In those circumstances, it is reasonable to recognise the need to concentrate on those likely to be most affected, and to do so without building into the system permanent protection that would undermine the accountability that is so central to the community charge.
    The other Government amendments relate to technical and other improvements to the legislation setting up the new local government finance system. In particular, they refer to the transition to the business rate—I hope that one or two of my hon. Friends will speak on that matter—to certain new exemptions from the community charge and to alterations to the arrangements for the standard charge. There are also some minor amendments relating to Scotland, but with the agreement of Scottish Members I shall leave them to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who will reply to the debate. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Cathcart, from, I hope, a vertical rather than a horizontal position.
    I have made my main points about the transitional relief scheme in my answers to the various interventions. The Government have put forward their alternative to domestic rates and, with some honourable exceptions, almost everyone in the House is in agreement. Our proposals for the community charge are more equitable and more sensible than domestic rating. We look forward——
    Mr. Tony Banks rose——
    Mr. Patten: I was about to perorate.
    Mr. Banks: Before the Secretary of State perorates, which is a painful experience for us all, will he say something about the publicity campaign? There is nothing in the Department of the Environment paper about that, but there has been some speculation in the newspapers. How much is likely to be spent on the publicity campaign for the transitional relief scheme and the poll tax generally? Is he prepared to consult local authority associations to ensure that that publicity will be based on information rather than on Tory propaganda?
    Mr. Patten: The information about the publicity campaign was given in a parliamentary answer, not leaked through a newspaper. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if one really wants to keep a secret, one should announce it in the House. However, on this occasion the information was, surprisingly, picked up by the newspapers. I saw some exemplifications—a word that I have learnt in this job—in yesterday's newspapers of what the advertising might look
    746
    like. They were rather interesting commentaries on local government finance and on some of the attitudes of the Labour party. They are not the sort of advertisements that would be likely to pass the scrupulous attention of my hon. Friends and others.
    It is possible both in local government and in central Government to have good and effective advertising that does not cross over any of the political parameters. We shall try to ensure that take-up of rebates for community charge payers and the take-up of the interim relief scheme are as substantial as possible. I am well aware of the interest of hon. Members on both sides of the House in the quality of that advertising. I assure them that I am also aware of the political parameters that were discussed during our previous debates.
    Mr. McAllion: The Secretary of State said that the Government wanted to ensure the maximum take-up of rebates. In that case, when it became clear in Scotland that by keeping the original date thousands of people would lose out on rebates, why did Scottish Ministers refuse to extend the deadline? As a result, many thousands of pensioners were denied the right to rebates.
    Mr. Patten: Almost two months were given—[Interruption.] It was 56 days, which by my reckoning is virtually two months. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal more substantially with that point in his reply. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Sometimes we are criticised for not encouraging take-up of rebates, and at other times we are criticised for suggesting advertising and are accused of doing something politically mischievous. I hope that all those eligible for rebates will take up those rebates. That is not a desperately partisan observation. I hope that all those who are entitled to benefit from the interim relief scheme will take up that benefit. That will involve public advertising, but I am sure that we can produce advertising that will satisfy hon. Members on both sides of the House who legitimately want to help those in need.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I support the Secretary of State's suggestion that people need all the help that they can get to pay the poll tax. If anything can be done to achieve that, so much the better. Previously I have been involved with a number of organisations trying to increase take-up of benefits in other areas. People are often unaware that they can claim benefits. I hope that, while promoting his campaign, the right hon. Gentleman will try to get his colleagues in other Departments to run similar benefit take-up campaigns.
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security would take exactly the same view as I do on the take-up of benefits. At least the House appears to be moving towards agreement that, without overstepping the proper political parameters, we should advertise the rebates and the transitional interim relief so that people can get the assistance that Parliament has voted for them. We want to introduce the community charge as smoothly and as successfully as possible, and the interim relief scheme is an important element in that process. When we first announced it, the Opposition denounced it as an electoral bribe. Judging by the amendments that they have now tabled, it appears that either they do not think that it is large enough or they think that we should be spending the money in other ways.

    747
    It is a sensible and effective way of targeting help on those who need it while the community charge is being introduced, and I unreservedly commend it to the House.
    Mr. Blunkett: I was remiss earlier in not welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. I hope that he has greater fortune than his predecessors—although, perhaps. promotion out of chaos might be catching. Other than the previous Secretary of State who has gone to Rip Van Winkle land in the Department of Trade and Industry, every other change in the Department of the Environment team has meant promotion.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said earlier, by anybody's description the Bill is in chaos with more than 600 amendments having been tabled. One of the Department's former team has moved to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food while another has moved to pastures new in the Department of Health. Those who have been promoted have left behind them—if my canine friend will forgive me for saying so—an absolute dog's dinner. It must be a message for the hon. Gentleman—if he makes a big mess, he could end up a contender for the premiership. I advise him to think on rapidly. Any pretence that the poll tax is acceptable or workable has disappeared. The proposals announced on 11 October and put before the House tonight reflect an admission of defeat, in respect not only of the safety net but of the poll tax. It is not the device to soften the tax but the tax itself that lies at the heart of the Government's problems.
    8 pm
    The Secretary of State's words tonight cannot hide what is clearly a shabby bribe—an attempt to hold on to marginal Conservative seats by using public money to cushion the impact on the electorate of a tax that it does not want. There can be no other explanation. Again and again, we have appealed to the Government to alter the implementation of the tax. Even Conservative Back Benchers pleaded for banding of the tax to help those who are worst off, but that plea too was rejected. It was only in the wake of the Labour party campaign explaining to the public what the poll tax will really mean that Government Back Benchers began worrying about its repercussions on their seats.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) remarked earlier, the Government are so worried about the effect of the poll tax in the run up to the 1990 local elections and to the next general election that they propose spending £1 million of public money in an attempt to convince everyone how good their proposals really are. I wonder whether the publicity campaign in Wales will be slightly different from that used for England. The campaign used in Scotland will certainly need to be different, because what was unacceptable to the Scots and lost the Conservatives seats there will have to be made acceptable to the English. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales will present his proposals more clearly. Since the leaflet drop earlier this year, the hon. Gentleman has gained a reputation for demonstrating the unanimity of the Cabinet, by devising his own means of avoiding the pitfalls of the Department of the Environment. He is probably known in the Cabinet as "Do-it-yourself Peter", because he has his own ways of ensuring that the administrative chaos facing England is modified for Wales.
    748
    Nothing that the Government say will hide the truth from the electorate. No matter how much money they spend, their proposals to tinker with the poll tax will be exposed for what they are. The resultant confusion will lead not only to greater bewilderment but frustration and anger among people who think that they are entitled to relief but discover that they are not—and among those who believed that their poll tax bills would be lower but realise that they were misled.
    Local authorities throughout the country point out that the administrative chaos will be something to see. The problems of 1982, with the transfer of unified housing benefit out of the social security system, were bad enough, but the bolt-on arrangements for the computer systems will lead to considerable difficulties. Some have already been evident. During the registration procedure, 15,000 forms were lost in transit between Wickham and the Philippines. Sastec, which was given the task of transferring the registration data to magnetic tape, sent work, under competitive tendering arrangements, to the Philippines. That material was lost in transit on the return journey. Perhaps other local authorities will, in the interests of achieving the lowest possible labour and other costs, send their registration data around the world in implementing transitional arrangements. If that is done, the chaos will be even greater than envisaged.
    The continuing expense and delay has been criticised again and again by not only Labour authorities but the leaders of the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils. Councillor Thomason feels that it will be necessary to delay the dispatch of poll tax bills until May or June next year, and I understand that the Secretary of State has told the ADC that such might be necessary. Some of us remember when councillors were surcharged and disqualified for failing to implement rates bills by 1 April.
    Mr. Chris Patten: For the record, and as the hon. Gentleman raised this point, it should be possible for local authorities to send out bills at the appropriate time next year. There should be no need for delay.
    Mr. Blunkett: The Secretary of State must be an optimist for bringing forward such proposals in the first place. I hope that he is right, but if the bills are not out by 1 April the poorest will suffer. They will find it hardest to catch up if the system for making payments on a weekly or fortnightly basis is not immediately implemented.
    When things go wrong, the Government will blame the local authorities. When the predicted chaos comes about, the Secretary of State will suggest that such was never the Government's intention and that it is not their fault.
    The public will not believe them. It will be understood that by introducing complicated and difficult arrangements at a late stage, the Government and not local authorities must take the blame for the consequent difficulties.
    Mr. Patten: I have no doubt that introducing the scheme late in the day will place additional burdens on local authorities, who are already hard pressed, in making an important but difficult change to the community charge. I do not doubt either that many local authority officers are working flat out to introduce the community charge as proposed and that they have shown considerable commitment and professionalism in the work that they have already done. It would be neither sensible nor helpful

    749
    if I or anyone else were to make the kind of charges against local authorities that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) suggested we might be inclined to make. I want to work with local authorities to implement the interim relief scheme as successfully as possible. Despite the difficulties, we should, by working with local authorities, be able to achieve that objective. However, I do not for one moment underestimate the difficulties.
    Mr. Blunkett: My belief is that local authority officials will do everything possible to implement the interim proposals and to cope with the administrative difficulties that confront them. I am anxious to ensure that no one remains under any misconception about the problems facing those officers and the difficulties that they will create for the public. I am anxious to stress also that if blame is to be allocated, it is not placed at the doorstep of the individuals who are nearest to members of the public, who are confused and suffering.
    The Government will determine the level of poll tax through aggregate external funding and the arrangements announced by the Secretary of State for standard assessments and specific grants. The Government have constantly got wrong their estimates of the poll tax, so it is important to spell out again that it will not be a notional or imaginary figure. Three years ago, the Government suggested that, at average levels of spending, the poll tax would be £162 per person. The figure has since risen to £278.
    That notional figure does not take into account balances that cannot be repeated by being used more than once, or the fact that no authority can achieve 100 per cent. take-up—in Scotland it is estimated that there has been a 7 per cent. drop. Nor does it take into account the real rate of inflation: the 3·8 per cent. figure is only half the true rate. Even if it were to take those factors into account, however, the notional figure would be about £345.
    The importance of the Government figures is that the Government have chosen to use them in the implementation of transitional relief: people will be entitled to such relief only if the figure approximates to what the Government think the local authority should be spending. The notional figures, which are obviously either below or above that level depending on the Government's assessment, will determine whether they are so entitled.
    Apart from collective poll tax and standard poll tax—with the exemptions which apparently are now available to Members of Parliament—along with the rating system that will continue to holiday lettings and the non-domestic rate applying to commercial premises, there are now seven different personal poll tax levels. There is the Government's standard spending assessment—the mythical target or ready reckoner of £278 which will have to go on poll tax bills. There is the notional poll tax or settlement figure for spending at Government-approved levels, exemplified in the papers that have been produced today. There is safety-netted poll tax; transitional poll tax for ratepayers; transitional poll tax and special help for non-ratepayers; rebated poll tax; and, finally, the real level of poll tax that will be levied by authorities working in and having to cope with the real world. They will set a level of poll tax that will retain the existing level of service for the
    750
    people in their areas: that is the level about which people will be concerned, and on which they will make a judgment.
    Since 11 October, the myth has been peddled that no poll tax bill be more than £3 above the existing rate bill. Because of the notional figure—because of the way in which the Government are intent on blaming the local authorities—literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who think that they are entitled to relief will find that they are not.
    It is no good saying that that is because local authorities are overspenders. Conservative Members can say that if they wish, but if they do they must then condemn their own authorities. More than 90 per cent. of local authorities in England spend more than the amounts in the Government's guidelines—the new target figures that have been reintroduced. Of the authorities that spend more than 10 per cent. more than the guideline figures, 56 are Conservative and 36 Labour.
    Mr. Chris Patten: May I help the hon. Gentleman? I am not sure from what he is saying whether he has misunderstood the interim relief scheme. He seems to be suggesting that, if a local authority spends more than is consistent with total standard spending nationally, the scheme will not be available to those living in that area.
    Mr. Blunkett: I did not say that at all, and I would not want to imply it. What I am suggesting is that people who believe that they are entitled to relief will then find that they are not, because if spending is higher than the notional level predicted by the Government they will not be able to claim the difference between their rate bills and their poll tax bills. Many people expecting lower bills next year will be disillusioned when the bills fall through their letter boxes.
    8.15 pm
    I will not be diverted from my argument, however. I was saying that, of the authorities that spend more than 10 per cent. more than the assessed level, 56 are in Conservative hands, while only 36 are in Labour hands. Of the top 20 per cent. of so-called overspenders, seven are Conservative and only three Labour. The highest overspender—in terms of the assessment—is an authority that spends 210 per cent. more than the Government's guideline requires. That authority happens to be Mole Valley, the constituency of the chairman of the Conservative party.
    I do not think that Conservative Members should be too quick to tell people, in the months ahead, that their local authority has disbarred them from help that they were promised. The offer of such help was illusory so it is no wonder the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), has moved to pastures new: Suffolk, Coastal spends 36 per cent. more than the guideline, and it will take more than irradiation to make the poll tax palatable in the right hon. Gentleman's area.
    Even if the authorities conform to the Government's guidelines, however, few ratepayers will find themselves eligible for the new transitional help—those who are currently ratepayers, that is, as opposed to those receiving special help. The reason is simple: entitlement to it is dependent on a very low rateable value.
    The Secretary of State said that our hearts should go out to pensioners. Mine does: it goes out to pensioners in

    751
    areas such as Pendle, where a rate bill would have to be as low as £12·74 a year—not a week—to entitle them to relief. In Hyndburn, it would have to be as low as £19·92 for a single pensioner; in Barrow-in-Furness, it would have to be £41·57. In the same areas, a couple would have to have a rate bill as low as £181·48, £195·84 and £239·14 respectively.
    There will be major problems in regard to pensioners and the disabled—categories who are to be offered special help—who are not ratepayers, and who are therefore clearly living with a primary ratepayer. Apart from the administrative problems, clumsiness and costliness involved in trying to sort out who is eligible and who is not, it will be difficult to identify the primary ratepayer. Although it would be easy enough to look at the list to find out who paid the bill, in many households the primary ratepayer—the person whose name appears on the list—is not necessarily the person who pays the bill.
    As we have tried to point out, other members of the household effectively pay rates, in that they contribute to household expenses. Thus many people entitled to special help because of age or disability will be better off than the primary ratepayer, who will find that he is entitled to no help. People living in the same household, on the same income, will be paying different amounts of poll tax, and one householder may be entitled to help while his poorer next-door neighbour is not. People will ask each other why their poll tax bills are different. That was exactly the accusation made against the rating system by Conservative Members when they introduced the poll tax: that a pensioner could be living alone in a house next door to people who were earning and better off but could end up paying the same bill. That is exactly what will happen under the transitional arrangements. A primary ratepayer who is a pensioner living alone next door to someone who is entitled to special help will find that he or she is a great deal worse off. I can see neither the fairness nor the justice of that. That is why we reject the scheme.
    The cost will be enormous. That money ought to be spent on helping to cushion the effects of the poll tax. I do not know what the word "reasonable" will mean when it comes to the administrative costs that the Government have agreed to bear. They have said that they will meet all reasonable costs. The last time those words were used, the Association of District Councils suggested that the cost of implementing the poll tax would be £200 million short of what was required. That expense will have to be met by poll tax payers and by cuts in services. There will be confusion and concern about that.
    The poll tax will have a great impact on community care. We have already referred to the fact that the poll tax will hit families hard. We are worried about the transitional help that is to be made available. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with the point—I do not believe that it divides us politically—that if 28 February is used as the cut-off date we shall disfranchise people who move house and deal a blow to people who move from one type of property to another—for example, from a hostel or a nurses' home. They will not be entitled to any help because they are not primary ratepayers; they are secondary ratepayers.
    We shall also disfranchise those who are discharged from hospitals and hostels for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped for rehabilitation in the community. All hon. Members would be horrified to find after 1. April that people who were being rehabilitated and
    752
    reintegrated into the community were to he disqualified from special help because 28 February was the cut-off date. I ask the Secretary of State to examine that point again. He may not have much sympathy for those who live in houses of multiple occupation, who are not primary ratepayers and who will not get help. He may also not be worried about those who move from one household to another. However, I believe that every hon. Member will be concerned about the impact of the cut-off date on community care policies.
    We welcome the additional exemptions to cover those who suffer from senile dementia, but I hope that the Secretary of State will put it on record that all sufferers from senile dementia, not just those suffering from Alzheimer's disease, will be exempted.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Yes.
    Mr. Blunkett: I welcome that commitment unreservedly. I believe that it is a wise and sensible move. I wish that it had been made a long time ago. My Scottish colleagues will have a word or two to say about it and other issues—that steps could have been taken to help the people of Scotland but were not.
    Those who cease to be exempt under any category will find that they are not entitled to relief. Given the present position—and we would not dream of starting from here—a rebate system would make much more sense than the transitional relief proposal. It would be fair, understandable and workable. Furthermore, it would be administratively simple and it could easily he implemented by 1 April. It would help those who are just outside rebate entitlement.
    People are often hit by the means test which disqualifies them from obtaining any help. By changing the taper from 15p to 10p, we could bring within the rebate scheme as many as 2 million people, 500,000 of whom would be pensioners. We should help those who need help most. We should do what most people believe to be fair—help those in need. We should base help on ability to pay and we should target that help. There are excellent precedents for doing that, with which Conservative Members would agree. I rarely agree with the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but I have to say, although it comes hard to put it on record, that I agree with what he said in the House on 18 Aprl 1988. He said that the Government had made their rebate system more generous, and that they had targeted it very much better. He said:
    "I can think of no scheme more closely attuned to ability to pay. "—[Official Report, 18 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 591.]
    That cannot be faulted. A rebate scheme—improved and extended by the £300 million that the then Secretary of State did not have—would help millions of people who, without that help, will be unable to meet their poll tax bills. That is why, in an effort to be constructive—not to carp and to be critical—we have tabled amendment (f) to Lords amendment No. 330.
    It is important to examine again the operation of safety nets. As a result of phasing out the relief and safety net system, people such as pensioners, through no fault of their own or of the local authority, will be hit hard during the move from the first year to the second year. How can it be fair for a pensioner in, say, Guildford to make a gain of 28 per cent. in the second year of poll tax whereas a pensioner in Lewisham will lose by 69 per cent.? That is both unfair and unjust and it will be thought to be so when the scheme is implemented.

    753
    The non-domestic rate is another major bone of contention. Many of us in the north and the midlands are very concerned, not about the fact that people in the south will receive help during the transitional period but because the hard-pressed industrial and manufacturing sectors will have to bear the cost of the transition rather than the country as a whole. We believe that the transitional costs for the non-domestic sector should be met by the Government, just as they have agreed to meet the costs of personal poll tax payers during the transitional period. The 400,000 businesses that ought to gain from the revaluation changes should be allowed to enjoy the boost that they would give to economic and employment prospects, at a time when the single European market will be posing a major threat to jobs and manufacturing industry in those areas.
    Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman says glibly that the Government should meet those costs. Will he explain why the presonal taxpayer should meet the costs of bringing relief faster to businesses in areas that will benefit from the changes that this Government are introducing? The Labour Government never did that.
    Mr. Blunkett: It is quite wrong that the unemployed, the low paid and deprived people in the north, the midlands and Wales should be made to pay for the phasing-in process. Why should industry be put at a disadvantage? Why should the relief not be made available to both personal poll tax payers and businesses? Why are the Government not prepared over a five-year period to find £2 billion to make that a reality? It would be a substantial help to those industries in the manufacturing sector. Our balance of trade might be improved if their opportunities were increased and the funds they had available for investment were increased by a reduction in rates. They shouted hard enough at me when I was the leader of a major city council. I want industries now to put the same pressure on the Government to make sure that they receive the gains to which we all agree they are entitled.
    8.30 pm
    At the end of the day it does not matter what we do to the transitional arrangements for personal poll tax or the national business rate, tinkering about at the edges with safety nets which allow big fish through but catch the small fish as we attempt to protect people from the worst unfairnesses of the tax. The truth is that we cannot get rid of the anomalies, the disadvantages and the dangers unless we get rid of the tax. It is no good kidding ourselves that people will be helped and assuring them that they will not feel the pain of the poll tax. In the end the tinkering will fail and people will realise what the poll tax means to them and to their families.
    In one sense the answer is a little like the answer to the problems surrounding Sir Alan Walters and the former Chancellor. Tory Back Benchers have been saying, "Get rid of this tax or it will get rid of us." Our answer is the same as it was for the former Chancellor and the Prime Minister's adviser. When one goes, both will go. When the poll tax goes, it will go because we get rid of the Back Benchers who trooped throught the Lobbies and voted it
    754
    in. The answer for the electorate is clear. If they want to get rid of the poll tax, they should get rid of the Government who imposed it.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): It may assist the House if I refer to the Scottish amendments which were alluded to earlier, although I shall also refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
    Lords amendment No. 260 relates to the standard community charge. The Government are responding to the concerns that have been expressed in Scotland over some of the effects of the present standard community charge arrangements. I should make it quite clear at the start that many of the grievances that have been brought to our attention can be attributed directly to the decisions by local authorities. Under the present arrangements, they have had the discretion to set their standard community charge at between one and two times the personal charge. It is therefore regrettable that, with the exception of the Shetlands and the Western Isles, all Scottish local authorities set their charges at the maximum this year.
    Mr. Maxton: When the Minister and the Secretary of State were establishing the level of revenue support grant to local authorities in Scotland, what multiple did they consider the local authorities would use?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously the maximum which local authorities might set has to be taken into account, but we have taken that into account and we shall consider possible changes with regard to this year.
    We accordingly decided that we had to alleviate the problem caused by high charges. The new proposals are designed to focus specifically on areas of hardship, leaving intact the basic principle of a flat-rate charge. They give the Secretary of State power to prescribe certain classes of property for which he will set the maximum multiplier. While we are still considering the extent to which that power should be used, we do not expect to make widespread use of it. Local authorities are very well placed to identify problem areas, and for that reason we are providing them with the power to prescribe their own classes, for which they will be able to set their own multipliers. That power will be limited by regulations, but our intention is only to restrict its use so that it does not become a means of reintroducing a form of tax based on the physical characteristics of a property.
    The new powers will allow levying authorities to set different multipliers for classes in different districts in their areas—a power requested by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities with which we had a useful exchange of views. Finally, authorities are being given powers to set their multipliers at nought, a half, one and a half or two. That is in line with the powers available to authorities in England and Wales.
    I should like to refer specifically to amendment No. 260 which allows the Secretary of State to prescribe certain classes of property for which he will lay down a maximum standard charge multiplier. It will also allow local authorities to determine their own classes for which they will be able to set their own multipliers. I am glad that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is in his place as he raised this matter in the summer, along with his colleagues who represent rural constituencies.

    755
    Although we have not reached a final decision on which classes should be prescribed, premises which attract a standard charge because the person who was living there has to live elsewhere either to be looked after because of age or infirmity or as a carer looking after someone else who is old and infirm will attract a multiplier of nought. Empty manses will attract a multiplier of nought, homes of prisoners will attract a multiplier of nought, and homes of full-time students who live elsewhere during term time will attract a multiplier of nought for the duration of the course. Properties which attract a standard charge because of the occupant's death will attract a multiplier of nought for six months after the death. Properties used as trial flats for housing associations will attract a multiplier of nought. That will leave scope for authorities to determine other classes. For example, they may wish to determine a class comprising properties which attract the standard charge because their owners are obliged to live elsewhere under the terms of their employment. It will be for each regional or islands authority to determine within certain prescribed limitations what additional classes will be appropriate for the circumstances of their area and what the multiplier should be for those classes.
    A particular query concerns prisoners. We are proposing to use the new standard charge provisions to prescribe a class of property comprising the homes of prisoners for which a maximum standard charge multiplier of nought will be prescribed so that people in prison will not have to pay the standard charge on their former home, although they might have to continue paying in respect of a second home.
    The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) raised the matter of rebates. The take-up has been approximately in line with expectations, with more than 1 million people, or almost one in three adults, not having to pay the full community charge. He also mentioned the feasibility of implementing the scheme in Scotland. Discussions with local authorities so far have not revealed insuperable difficulties in introducing the community charge transitional relief scheme, even in the context of a scheme which will allow retrospection for the current year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has undertaken to reimburse local authorities for reasonable administrative costs incurred in introducing and operating the scheme. Discussions with COSLA are certainly continuing and we hope to be able to announce in the near future the details of a fair and workable scheme.
    Mr. Douglas: What is on the table? What figure do the Government have in mind as a reasonable cost? What sums are they putting on the table in response to COSLA?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously the exact amount that it will cost for the local authorities to carry it out is a matter for negotiation between the local authorities and the Scottish Office. But the actual costs of the scheme will be between £20 million and £30 million for this year and the next two years. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's speech later.
    As for the transitional relief scheme, the hon. Member for Brightside was not fighting the principle of relief, but wanted to apply it differently. The Government recognise that the transition from domestic rates to the community charge led to significant increases in bills for some people. The proposed amendments will enable the scheme to be
    756
    introduced which will provide transitional relief for former ratepayers, pensioners and the disabled whose community charge bills are significantly higher than their former rate bills.
    The first amendment provides a regulation-making power which allows the Secretary of State for Scotland to provide that, where prescribed conditions are fulfilled, a person's liability to pay a personal community charge may be reduced by an amount in accordance with prescribed rules. The clause has been drafted widely so as not to prejudice the formulation of the scheme most appropriate to Scotland. It will allow comparison to be made between people's rates bills and their community charge bills, and will allow for special arrangements to be made for pensioners and disabled people. It has been drafted specifically to allow the scheme to be made retrospective in Scotland and thus be applied in respect of the financial year 1989–90. Discussions are continuing on the practicality of doing that.
    We intend to use the powers to prescribe a scheme under which former ratepayers and their partners will, in the first year, lose no more than £3 a week, or £156 a year, as a result of the change from rates to the community charge, provided local authorities spend in line with the Government's assumptions. As the relief will be limited to the additional costs borne by two chargepayers, we intend to make special provision for pensioners and disabled people who would not be eligible for relief as former ratepayers or partners of former ratepayers. They will be able to apply for relief to ensure that they pay no more than £3 a week in community charge, with the same proviso. We have been discussing the precise details of the scheme with local authorities and full details will be announced as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister is giving the House important information that, although not ideal, will be welcomed. Will he make it clear whether he is speaking of individuals or households? Four adults paying £100 in rates may have to pay over £1,000. Will the household receive the cumulative amount or only the individual?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The point about multi-person households has already been raised. No final decision has been reached about the treatment of such households in Scotland. The hon. Member should remember that the scheme is intended to be targeted at former ratepayers. The change in their liability is not intended to provide universal relief. However, the rebate scheme will continue to link directly the community charge with the ability to pay. In most cases, the rateable value of households with three or more adults is too high to qualify its residents for relief.
    The second amendment on transitional relief allows for the payment of a grant to local authorities in respect of the relief scheme. The grant may cover the revenue forgone by authorities as a result of community charges having been reduced by the relief scheme and the administrative costs to the authorities of administering and setting up the scheme. We have met with COSLA, and discussions are continuing to ensure that a fair and workable scheme is developed as quickly as possible. I hold the strong conviction that there is the will to make the scheme work and to get the funds to those concerned as quickly as possible.[Interruption.]

    757
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) laughs, but about 500,000 people may benefit from such funds in Scotland. It is therefore important that it is done as quickly as possible.
    The hon. Member for Brightside mentioned people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who wrote on 12 October to say that he was very relieved that we have been able to make a concession. Hon. Members will be aware of the Government's decision to extend the exemption from the community charge for people who are severely mentally impaired to include people who are impaired as a result of a degenerative brain disorder or mental illness. The changes necessary to implement the proposals will be made by regulations under existing legislation.
    Mr. Douglas: Given the importance of this issue, will the hon. Gentleman say what the Government are doing to overcome some of the difficulties that occurred when previous exemptions for the severely mentally impaired were made? Will he give an undertaking that if the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped produces a leaflet to publicise the exemption, the Scottish Office will assist with its financing? What publicity does the Minister envisage to bring to the attention of the public the exemptions that will be made?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member raises a different point, about which I shall write to him. I met the chairman of the Alzheimer's Disease Society, who welcomed the steps that we are taking and asked for them to be back-dated. I am glad that we have been able to respond to that request.
    Under the new definition, we are extending the definition of "severely mentally impaired", because the only people included under the current definition are people who are severely mentally impaired as a result of a brain injury or a congenital handicap. In future, others who are impaired because of a degenerative brain disorder or because of a mental illness will be included. It took some time to widen the definition of "severely mentally impaired" and to adopt a formula that would be effective and would stand the test of time. To qualify, a person must be severely mentally impaired and meet one of the qualifying conditions, such as entitlement to constant attendance allowance or severe disabled allowance. COSLA has welcomed these changes most warmly, and I hope that it has been of some assistance to report them to the House.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Maxton: I do not intend to enter into the argument about whether the domesic rating system was good or not, but, whatever its faults, it was an awful lot better than the scheme that the Government came up with to replace it.
    The Secretary of State attacked the domestic rating system, and whenever anyone does I put on the record a quotation that says:
    "The Government recognises that rates are far from being an ideal or popular tax. But they do have advantages. They are highly perceptible to ratepayers and they promote accountability. They are well understood, cheap to collect and very difficult to evade. They act as an incentive to the most efficient use of property. No property tax can be directly
    758
    related to the ability to pay; but rate rebates, now incorporated in housing benefit, together with Supplementary Benefit, have been designed to reduce hardship. The Government have concluded and announced to Parliament that rates should remain for the foreseeable future the main source of local revenue for local government."
    That quotation is from the Government's 1983 White Paper on local government financing. I hasten to add that that was after the 1983 election.
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will realise, as does every Scot, that despite what was said in 1983, the revaluation between 1983 and 1987 produced the most appalling problems for many people in Scotland. No Government, of whatever colour or complexion, could have allowed that to continue.
    Mr. Maxton: Past revaluations did not cause any outcry, but there were two reasons why there was an outcry about the last revaluation. First, the Government were cutting rate support grant and, therefore, placing an increased burden on domestic rates, and, secondly, the Government gave instructions that the burden was to be switched from business rates to domestic rates. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has never understood that fact, but there are many things that the hon. Gentleman fails to understands.
    When the Government got the scheme off the ground in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland said, "It is almost perfect; we are almost there. The scheme will last, and it is a good scheme." A quarter of the English Bill was taken up with changes to the Scottish Act. Now, these amendments are being shoved into an English Bill that again refers to the Scottish system. The Government realise that the poll tax in Scotland is a shambles. It is not working and is an administrative mess. The computer cannot cope with the 4,000 daily changes as a result of people moving. Rebate applications made on 1 April have still received no response. People have not received the rebates to which they are entitled and the 25 per cent. in Scotland to which the Secretary of State referred has not materialised. He said that the bills would be sent out with ease. Perhaps he should speak to Bill Aitken, one of the four Conservative councillors on Glasgow district council. He has written letter after letter to Strathclyde regional council asking it to send him a bill for his poll tax. He may be daft but he wants to pay it. However, it has not sent him a bill and there are many other examples of bills that had not been sent out even by the end of October.
    Some people are receiving final demand notices for the poll tax when they have not received the original bill. The system is a shambles. The unfairness of it is shown in the enormous number of people who cannot afford to pay and who have not paid even though it is now November. Therefore, the Government have been forced to rethink their attitude to the way in which the poll tax will operate in Scotland. The transitional payment recognises that the poll tax is basically an unfair tax. By introducing it, the Government have admitted that.
    I shall give a short history lesson because some hon. Members may not be aware that in 1986, when the Government introduced the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, there was a transitional arrangement within it. Under the Bill the rating system would be phased out at the same time as the poll tax was phased in. Rightly, the local authorities said that that administrative scheme was a nightmare and that they did not believe it could work. They said that the new scheme was difficult enough

    759
    but to have to run the two side by side would be absurd. So the Government accepted the amendments that I and others tabled and on Report they withdrew the transitional arrangement.
    Having talked about the abolition of the original transitional scheme, the local authorities wrote to all members of the House of Lords. In a letter dated 24 April 1987 they said:
    "This suggests the need for some form of special transitional arrangement to limit the increased payment being sought in the first year; while such a broad-brush approach should provide rather rough justice, there is a precedent for it in the arrangements which were introduced in response to the special difficulties of those rate bills which rose…in 1985."
    The Government rejected that. It was two and a half years ago that the transitional arrangement was first suggested to the Government as a means of ensuring that payments would not be massive for those who could least afford them. It has taken the Government two and a half years to accept that it might work. The Secretary of State described COSLA as the vehicle for Labour party policy in Scotland, but it was COSLA which first suggested that scheme. Now the Government are suggesting to COSLA that it should implement it. However, it is too late. It will cause enormous administrative problems and will not be anything like as generous as the Government think.
    I accept the Government's commitment that any outstanding payments will be backdated to 1 April 1989 and that anybody entitled to them will receive them. However, they will probably not receive them until after 1 April 1990. The local authorities have made it clear to the Minister that, with all their other administrative shambles, they will find it impossible to cope with this scheme as well. We will have the absurdity of final demand notices being sent out to people who after 1 April next year will have a large part of that poll tax repaid to them.
    In some of the regions dominated by the absent Scottish National party—Grampian——
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Dominated?
    Mr. Maxton: Some of its members are still part of the administration. That area will use warrant sales. People will have the poll tax taken off them by the sale of their property. I have never heard anything so absurd as people having their property sold around them in order to pay a bill that will be repaid to them six months later. It is nonsense and the Government know it. They should have introduced the scheme long ago.
    As has been pointed out, the Secretary of State and his Ministers plucked the notional poll tax figures out of the air during the months prior to the scheme's implementation in Scotland. No one in Scotland, from finance officers or elected local government personnel, has ever managed to work out exactly how they came up with the figures, but those are the figures upon which the transitional payment will be based. Let us suppose that one receives £156 more relief than under last year's rates. In Aberdeen the notional poll tax figure is £201 but the actual figure is £301, so one must immediately add on £100. The people will not receive anything like the generous benefit that Ministers are claiming. We welcome any relief but it ought to have been introduced two and a half years ago when it was first suggested, as it would now be in operation.
    Mr. Bill Walker rose——
    Mr. Maxton: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am sitting down, he is in for a slightly rude shock as I have one or two other things to say.
    On the standard poll tax, we welcome the changes that take out of the system elderly people who are forced to live with relatives because they are no longer capable of looking after themselves for short or long periods. They may have been pushed into having to pay a standard community charge on their house that could have been a multiple of two and upon which no rebates were allowable. We also welcome the other changes. However, they fail to recognise the basic unfairness of the tax.
    In my constituency an old age pensioner couple wrote to me saying that some years ago they had been left a holiday flat in Millport on the island of Cumbrae. It has no toilet or bathroom and they have to share a toilet with the rest of the flats. In 1988–89 they paid £56 in rates. This year they are paying £540 in poll tax. They cannot afford to keep the flat on. Even if the local authority had used a multiple of one rather than two, that couple still would have had an increase in their local government bill from £56 to £270—a massive increase, although not as large as if they had paid the poll tax.
    The nonsense of the poll tax is shown by the fact that the Duke of Argyll who has a home in London can designate Inveraray castle as a holiday home and will pay the same rates as a poor person with a holiday flat in Millport or Dunoon. The same unfairness applies to the standard poll tax as to the personal poll tax. It does not take account of people's ability to pay. The Government's obsession with the poll tax has forced them to introduce a standard community charge rather than leaving second properties in the rating system, which would have made much more sense than the present proposal.
    The Government have exempted those suffering from Alzheimer's disease and other degenerative disorders. It is about time that happened and we are grateful to the Government for doing that. I am sorry that the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)—is not present. On six occasions in one Scottish Question Time in February the hon. Gentleman said that it was impossible to bring these people into the system. Perhaps the generosity of the new Secretary of State for the Environment or a change in advice—I notice that there is now a new chief medical officer—have led to the exemption.
    9 pm
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) was extremely keen to achieve this change, but he believed that it had to be an effective change that would stand the test of time? We believe that we have achieved such a change.
    Mr. Douglas: The Minister said that it could not be done.
    Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is right. On six separate occasions in one Question Time the Minister said that it could not be done. Of course we are grateful to him and are delighted at the news. I hope that the Secretary of State will spell out the numbers involved. There seems to be a discrepancy between the press release that the Secretary of

    761
    State issued in Scotland and the number of people whom we estimate suffer from Alzheimer's disease and other mental disorders.
    We welcome these concessions, but there are no concessions that will get rid of the basic unfairness of the poll tax and the resulting bureaucratic nightmare in Scotland. There is only one way that we can do that—by getting rid of the poll tax completely and returning to another system. That cannot happen under the present Government. They will not give way. They are obsessed with the poll tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was right when he said that the only way to get rid of the poll tax was to get rid of the Government. That will happen at the next general election, and we all look forward to it.
    Mr. Malcolm Thornton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State touched briefly on amendment No. 372 and amendments (a), (b) and (c) thereto, which I tabled. I hope that the brevity of my remarks will not detract from their importance. Amendments (a) and (b) are intended to extend the transitional protection to businesses paying rates before 1 April 1990 even if they move premises after that date. The Government rightly support initiative, enterprise and expansion, but this proposal is a deterrent to all three.
    Denying transitional protection to businesses that move will slow the natural progress of successful smaller businesses that are seeking to move to larger premises. In turn, this will leave fewer smaller units available for new businesses wishing to start up. It is important to stress that point. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to pass on my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has written to me today on this subject. I hope that attention will be drawn to this in the wind-up to the debate. I urge my hon. Friend to reflect on that point. The Government state that they want to support small businesses, which are going through a difficult period. The extension of transitional protection to those who wish to move will be an important safeguard for small businesses during this period.
    Mr. William Cash: I am the vice-chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench smaller businesses committee. My hon. Friend may know that we produced a pamphlet last year on this very subject and we feel that in the prevailing economic circumstances, with high interest rates and so on, there is a strong case for my hon. Friend's point to be taken into consideration. I support him in his view.
    Mr. Thornton: High interest rates are the type of difficulties to which I referred and are likely to be with us for some little time to come. It is important that the Government take that on board.
    Amendment (c) deals with the permitted increase. The Government say that it should be 15 per cent. plus inflation. That means an increase of up to 23 per cent. in real terms, which is a massive increase for any small business to face. My amendment would limit it to 10 per cent., and would have a salutary effect.
    Many people in small businesses can give examples which demonstrate clearly that an increase of 23 per cent. would force them out of business. One such example was given to me by a man who owns a butcher's shop in
    762
    Stanmore in Middlesex. He paid rates of £2,305·18 in 1988–89. He currently expects a rent review after which, if the property next door is to be used as a guide, he will pay £1,666. His bill, plus the uniform business rate poundage of 36p, will amount to £4,199·76. That is an increase of £1,894·58 or 82 per cent. He has been in business for a long time and has already moved premises, so he will probably go out of business. He will be forced to move and, in moving, will lose any benefits from the transitional protection provisions. That is a double blow.
    The Government rightly recognise that small businesses are central to the growth of our economy. They have introduced many small measures during their time in office to assist small businesses in many different ways. I, and the many small business men who have made representations to me and my hon. Friends, feel that the Government could take the small step suggested in my amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said, small businesses will face a particularly difficult time in the coming year or so. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues to accept this relatively minor amendment and give small businesses the extra help and protection that are vital for their continuing health and growth.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Many good changes were made in the House of Lords, not least some of those that we are discussing now. However, I have listened to the debate with the slight feeling that all this could have been avoided had Ministers listened to some of the points made in Committee on the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Committee members, including myself, raised then the difficulties that the Government are only now starting to tackle. It might have been possible to avoid people in Scotland having to pay the poll tax without these changes having been implemented, and many people who look forward to paying the poll tax in the new year would not have the worries they have even now had the Government listened to the advice given earlier.
    Only now, in a series of amendments—and the Secretary of State himself accepts that it is unfortunate to bring in such changes at the tail end of the Bill—are we starting to receive some response. I hope that in part it is a result of the new Secretary of State assuming office. I say that not only because I wish him well in his new job, but because I hope that it marks a change of direction. It may be politically in the Opposition's interest for him to continue along the path of the previous Secretary of State, but for those whom we seek to protect and represent it is better that there should be a fundamental change away from that. If this debate has been sparked off partly as a result of such a change, it is to be welcomed.
    Yet, as we have already debated, people's expectations about the introduction of transitional relief will not be met in practice. When I have travelled around my own area and other parts of the country, people—and especially the elderly—say to me that they do not believe that they can afford even the extra £3 a week which they have been told is the maximum extra they will have to pay. I can understand why they are so concerned in view of the low level of pension and benefits that many people receive. However, those people are operating under a delusion. Many will be paying more than an extra £3 a week and they do not understand that it is a notional figure based wholly on the Government's set of figures of what local authorities should be spending, not on what is happening

    763
    in their own area. Their worries are based not on what will happen to them, but on the best that may happen to them. In reality, people will have to pay more than that in district after district. Whatever the background arguments—and we could debate indefinitely the politics of why those figures are higher—those people will find it impossible to pay the extra sums without hardship, and some of them may not pay at all.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of those who will benefit from transitional protection are living in low-valued properties at present? If we had kept domestic rates, there would have been a revaluation and they would have had to pay more anyway. The Government's concession takes account of that as well.
    Mr. Taylor: The process of revaluation is not as straightforward as that. I am no defender of rates, and I am proud to say that I represent the only party that has argued consistently for a local income tax.
    9.15 pm
    People are being sold the poll tax and are planning for it on the basis of the misapprehension that the Government have guaranteed increases of no more than £3 a week. That will not happen; the figure is purely notional, and it will not do. In fact, more than 90 per cent. of districts are spending over the Government's target, so the figure is not even a half truth. It is not even a quarter truth.
    Moreover, in houses in multiple occupation, only two people will be eligible for relief. That is ridiculous. Earlier, when I told the Secretary of State that he could not defend that ridiculous state of affairs I thought that he would at least admit that the principle was wrong, whether or not he had found a solution. I listened with interest, but the right hon. Gentleman would not even say that. It seems to me obvious that no one can go to a group of people sharing a house and say to them, "We have to pick a couple of you. Which two of you want relief and who wants to pay more?" It does not work like that. People will not be receptive to that idea.
    The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) raised some important points concerning the effect on small businesses of the changes in non-domestic rating. In areas that have enjoyed low rates in the past, many small businesses are set to suffer badly, especially in deprived parts of the country with low wages. In Cornwall, for example, local authorities have gone out of their way to keep rates down, and businesses will face large increases. The Government have provided transitional arrangements to allow for 20 per cent. or 15 per cent. increases plus inflation. If Conservative Members are honest, they will admit that such increases will be extremely difficult for small businesses to meet. They will find the burden insufferable. Many small shopkeepers have no alternative source of income from which to find the extra money at a time when living standards are becoming increasingly tight, when mortgage interest rates are increasing and when small businesses have precious little opportunity to expand.
    What makes all that harder to bear is that small businesses know that the extra money will go not to improve local services but to maintain a higher level of service elsewhere. Elsewhere the rates will be cut but the services will continue to be provided. They know that their fiercest competitors—the national retailers with a shop on
    764
    every street corner—will be able to spread the burden. It will be nothing like as difficult for them as for the small businesses which do not have the option to move from their village or town.
    Acceptance of the proposal to ensure a maximum increase of 10 per cent. in one year is the very minimum that people should expect from a Government who claim to understand the difficulties of small businesses. If that is not forthcoming, small business people will draw their own conclusions on the basis of their bank balance and the experience of their national competitors who will benefit from the changes in the years to come.
    The changes that the Government are introducing almost monthly in both the poll tax and non-domestic rating arrangements are extremely complicated and far-reaching. It is almost as if the Government tear up the proposals and start again every time they look at the figures. I do not believe that when Ministers first started to debate the changes they understood the difficulties that the proposals would cause for the Government, for the local authorities which would have to implement them, and for the people who would have to pay the charge.
    Your best course of action would be to rethink the proposals and admit that the poll tax arrangements do not work as you originally expected them to. However, I accept that you are unlikely to accept that until the ballot box announces its verdict in future.
    The Government should recognise the complications that they are causing for the local authorities which must implement this proposal. Even those authorities that are most willing and most supportive of what you are trying to do—and there are some authorities like that—are finding it virtually impossible to keep up with the pace of change that the Government are trying to impose on them in an attempt to meet some of the difficulties that they have finally recognised. At the very least, you would be wise to delay the implementation of the poll tax in England for a year to allow the changes to be properly absorbed and to allow the poll tax to be introduced, if not fairly, at least in an administratively clean way.
    Mr. Bill Walker: It is not surprising that we have just heard a Mickey Mouse-type speech. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) was actually addressing you, Mr. Speaker, when he thought that he was addressing the Government Front Bench. He therefore expected the Chair to make the changes that he really believed should be made by the Government. That is not surprising because the hon. Gentleman's speech was of a Mickey Mouse character and that is why it contained Mickey Mouse information.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has left the Chamber and I can well understand why. He referred to a Government White Paper from 1983. The hon. Member and his colleagues always fail to draw attention to the fact that housing benefit was rightly referred to in that White Paper because it runs into hundreds of millions of pounds in Scotland. When they refer to the alleged reduction in public or taxpayers' support for local government, the Opposition somehow forget the massive amounts going to the housing coffers as public support money.
    Mr. McAllion: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that housing benefit makes up for any losses incurred through the poll tax. When the

    765
    Government introduced their latest changes in housing benefit in Scotland, why were 2,500 people taken out of housing benefit?
    Mr. Walker: I never have any difficulty supporting the reasons why I vote or do not vote for things. I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will be able to look back and say, "When it was required, I at least voted the way that my conscience dictated."
    We welcome the transitional relief arrangements in Scotland. Contrary to the noises from the Opposition Benches, many Conservative Members have been lobbying from the outset for such measures.
    Mr. James Wallace: Not very successfully.
    Mr. Walker: Oh, yes, indeed. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues believe that they can ever persuade Governments to change their minds, they are wrong.
    Mr. Wallace: The standard community charge amendments which were tabled by the Government in the other place and which are for approval this evening are substantially the same as those that I moved on Report. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has been lobbying for the changes in the transitional arrangements since the poll tax was first introduced in Scotland, why has he been so singularly unsuccessful until his English colleagues started bleating?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should know that I am the last chap that he should take on when talking about a unitary Parliament. I support the unitary Parliament. Through my hon. Friends in English constituencies, it is right and proper that I should bring pressure to bear on the Government in whatever way that I want to bring it. I have no hesitation in saying that I do that all the time because I believe that the unitary Parliament is a protection that we all enjoy. It is important that we can look at different aspects of our legislative system and enjoy the benefits. That is what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and his colleagues are prepared to throw away with their nonsensical ideas about breaking up this unitary Parliament and have small Mickey Mouse assemblies in different parts of the country which will take Mickey Mouse decisions of a kind that we have just heard described by the hon. Member for Truro.
    It is important to Scots that we are to backdate these changes. One wonders what Scottish National party-controlled Angus district council will do. It has been nasty to people who are not paying the community charge, although it is party policy not to pay it. The council has been nasty to individuals who are entitled to rebates but who, because of difficulties, are paying only a certain amount. Those with rebates will now be able to pay, and the Scottish National party will again find itself facing two or three directions at once.
    I welcome the changes to the standard community charge. In a large rural constituency such as mine, many people will be able to enjoy the benefits that are brought about by the multipliers. Contrary to some of the noises from the Opposition, these changes will be welcomed, and I am delighted that the Government have responded quickly to hon. Members' requests.
    Mr. Douglas: I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). One of the changes announced by the Government proves that non-payment works. Scottish hon. Members pressed amendments in respect of Alzheimer's disease, and we were told by the Government that they could not be accepted. We pressed for transitional arrangements, but we were told that they could not be made, and the Scots proceeded to pay—some of them did—on 1 April 1989. All the "concessions" have been achieved by English Back-Bench Members who are frightened for their seats, and they have not yet paid a penny. Non-payment works.
    The Secretay of State alluded to registration in Scotland. In one authority it is 106 per cent. The Secretary of State should not be taken in by that percentage. Enormous registration anomalies always take place. The threatened non-registration penalty was severe. If one did not register, one was fined, and the fine could be repeated. One of my constituents received five forms. He did not register, but he is on the register. I have never registered, Mrs. Douglas has never registered, and my daughter has never registered, but we are all on the register. Poll tax registration officers are very efficient.
    In Fife, there is a zealous poll tax registration officer named Mr. Thompson. He has registered people who have not completed registration forms. If the Secretary of State does not discuss these matters with anybody else in Scotland, through the good offices of the Secretary of State for Scotland he should speak to the poll tax registration officer in Fife. He described the tax as crazy. In a report to Fife regional council, he said that the tax will collapse because of its internal contradictions. It will be the duty of all hon. Members to pursue those internal contradictions. That is why I may not be too gracious this evening. I welcome these changes. The more changes there are, the more absurd the tax becomes.
    Let us consider the changes in relation to Alzheimer's disease and to the severely mentally impaired. How can it be fair to take people from homes where, at present, they are exempt from making a payment and bring them into the community without wanting to establish the same basis for exemption? Those concerned will have to go through the humiliation of declaring an individual to be severely mentally impaired. We must ask what the Government are trying to do in this task. The Government are bringing many people into the tax bracket who were not in it before by taking people out of homes, where they were not paying the tax, and bringing them into the community. In my view, it is an obnoxious and nauseating——
    9.30 pm.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman was saying because as a constituency Member of Parliament, I have been involved—I am sure that this is true of the hon. Gentleman also—for a number of years with local organisations working with those suffering from senile dementia. I have taken up cases of people suffering from senile dementia who have been paying rates year in and year out. yet although that issue was around for decade after decade, I do not remember it creating much concern anywhere in the House, including among Opposition Members. The change that we are making regarding those suffering from senile dementia—I use that phrase deliberately rather than saying "Alzheimer's disease"—is extremely important.
    Mr. Douglas: I accept that the Secretary of State is a humane man, but, with great respect to him, I do not think that he is grasping the nature of the point that I am trying to make. I am not excusing the fact that people might have paid rates and that that might have placed a burden on a particular individual; I am simply trying to illustrate to the Secretary of State that to avail themselves of this exemption, a husband, wife or parent will have to declare that their spouse or offspring is severely mentally impaired. Perhaps the Secretary of State cannot grasp the significance of that, but, as a parent, I can.
    Mr. David Hunt: That is a matter for a general practitioner.
    Mr. Douglas: The Minister mentions doctors, but there are several gateways to this. Not only does a doctor have to be consulted, but the individual concerned has to be in receipt of certain benefits. Naturally, I welcome the extension, but, as I have argued before, if we are to extend the provisions, why not take the fact that an individual is in receipt of benefit as being the relevant factor, instead of the relatives having to go through the procedure of declaring somebody severely mentally impaired? Moreover, why do we not illustrate that fact on the public record by removing that person from the register?
    If the Secretary of State cannot accept that, so be it, but I have another illustration for him. If the individual concerned were to remain in a nursing home, he or she would be exempt from the charge and would not have to pay the poll tax. However, if that person is brought into the community, the procedure that I have described must be gone through. I rest my case there.
    My basic argument is that the more the legislation is changed, the more absurd it will become. The Government are now moving away from their basic contention in relation to the standard community charge, which was that the poll tax should be a charge for services rendered, because the changes that they are making in the standard community charge make it a tax on property——
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Not enough.
    Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend says, "Not enough", and I shall return to that point because I want to face the argument about the Labour party's policy changes. I do not know what they are and—thankfully or otherwise—I am not responsible for them.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Who is?
    Mr. Douglas: The hon. Lady asks, "Who is?". I would argue forcibly that if we are to have a multi-based system of taxation, we should not exempt property. Although that is what the Government are trying to do, they have partially failed. All the arguments that they have advanced about old widows living in big houses and paying rates on those big houses, while inhabitants of a local authority house where three or four adults are working may find themselves absolved from paying rates, fall down on examination. That individual is heir to a gain which could be liquidated but the person in the local authority house is not.
    In certain areas, there has been a transfer of title from one section of the community to another because of poll tax. Property values in Edinburgh have soared because the burden on the house has been reduced. Can anyone in their senses suggest that that is fair?
    768
    In my constituency, the Tories in the village of Saline argued that they ought to have the rates burden reduced because the village was remote. They achieved that. Now people in Saline, where property values are high, pay the same poll tax as my folk in Steelend, who cannot get proper roads.
    The argument that it is a charge for services rendered—like the television licence—falls down. Generally, one hopes that television reception is the same throughout Britain. Sometimes we hope not, in view of some of the programmes we see.
    Mr. Bill Walker: It is nonsense to say that television reception is the same throughout Britain. Anyone who represents a rural Highland constituency knows that because parts of the constituency do not receive some programmes. The hon. Gentleman mentioned an old lady living in a large house, but it could have been a rented house.
    Mr. Douglas: It may have been a rented house. Most of the examples given of unfairness relate to property, and many relate to properties whose value had been enhanced and now have been further enhanced by the poll tax.
    I shall not argue about television reception. If it is not the same, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt kick up like billy—and say that we deserve the same if we are paying the same licence fee.
    My folk in Dunfermline and north-east Fife want the same services throughout the Fife region but there are differences in poll tax levels. Services in Auchtermuchty, where I live, are not as good as they are in St. Andrews. How will that anomaly be cleared up by the poll tax? Instead of starting from a level base, we are starting with a system that has numerous anomalies, which is illustrated by the attempts at safety nets and transitional arrangements.
    I hope that there will be a Labour Government and that my colleagues will be in it but I must tell them that, after the promises the Labour party has made, if they come to power on Thursday, by the following Monday there will be very few payers of the poll tax in Scotland. Anyone who doubts that should look at the situation now. The number of non-payers may be between 500,000 and 700,000. Many of us will go to Hampden next week. I hope that there will be 60,000 people there. We former Govanites are extremely flexible when it comes to football matters. If there are 60,000 people in the bowl there, four times that number will certainly not be paying poll tax. If that is not a mass movement, I do not know what is. My hon. Friends have been looking for a mass movement to lead. It is there in Scotland and it is not necessarily being led.
    The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State ignore that movement at their peril. Dislike of the tax in Scotland is enormous. We are supposedly paying that tax, but we see the concessions that the English have already got by non-payment and, therefore, the feelings of dislike towards that tax will increase. That feeling is felt across the political spectrum and is not confined to Labour party supporters.
    The tax is disliked because it is unfair, unjust and undemocratic. I was not at the Labour party conference, but I read a report in The Times which recounted how my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that our fundamental disagreement with the tax was that it was immoral. It is immoral to use the state

    769
    apparatus to take from those who do not have and give to those who do. It is immoral to take from a couple aged 92 and 89 who live in my constituency. Because that couple have £6,000 in the bank, they must pay the full whack—the same as the Earl of Elgin. That is immoral. If the Government do not understand that, it is clear that, having sown the wind, they will reap the whirlwind at the next general election.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, last year, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was reported in the Glasgow Herald as saying that all responsible politicians have now rejected the case for a mass campaign of non-payment? What is the hon. Gentleman's message to his own Front Bench?
    Mr. Douglas: I do not believe that my hon. Friends would welcome any great message from me on this occasion. I have made my position clear. I do not want to break the law, but if someone asked me the most effective way in which to stop the tax I would cite the English example and tell them not to pay it. Ministers may murmur as much as they like, but if Conservative Back Benchers had meekly taken the Government at their word and accepted that the tax was perfect and wonderful, the concessions given tonight would never have been achieved. We tried to get those concessions, but because we did not have the political arm-twisting necessary——
    Mr. Bill Walker: Nonsense.
    Mr. Douglas: Those concessions have been achieved because the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) and a former Minister at the Northern Ireland Office—both of whom are absent now—strongly suggested to the Secretary of State that if such concessions were not given they would lose their seats at the next election. They did not say that they would not administer that tax or that they would not necessarily pay it, but, because of their representations, concessions have been made in England and Wales before a penny piece of the poll tax has been paid. I wish those hon. Members well in their campaign.
    I must tell the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, however, that there ain't enough sheriff officers in Scotland to collect from the non-payers. No one should try to get a warrant sale in Dunfermline, West—don't anybody try that. They will need a lot more than the police force of Fife to carry out that procedure. There will be massive opposition to the poll tax because its fundamental flaw is its immorality.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I listened to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) with care and with particular enjoyment when he pronounced so loudly that "non-payment works." As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested, he should convey that sentiment to the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps through the medium of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who seems to have his own unauthorised programme on a variety of matters.
    I welcome the transitional proposals that have been announced by my right hon. Friend. During the past few months the feedback that I have received from my constituents—no doubt my hon. Friends have had a similar experience, has not, surprisingly, been opposition
    770
    to what is the most significant change to the domestic local government finance system—the extension of liability to pay to the third or fourth working adult in a family. Most people accept that that is a just change and it is the counterpart to the example of the widow who lives in a fairly large house and who pays a large rate bill. The complaint has partly been about people on low incomes, but I shall refer to that when I talk about rebates.
    The main problem which I have encountered—I think that my hon. Friends have encountered similar ones—is the result of the out-of-date system of values in relation to local government finance which we have in this country. The rateable system is 16 years out of date, which means that anomalies have occurred in all sorts of constituencies. People on relatively modest incomes in one sort of property pay up to £700 in rates a year in my constituency. People on similarly modest incomes, who live in different sorts of property, find that because of the vagaries of valuation they pay only £170 or £180 on rates, without rebates.
    9.45 pm
    It was necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues to respond to this difficulty. Certainly, those of us who have lived in London know that revaluations took place on an ad hoc basis. My house was revalued some years ago. When we started living in it, it was a building site and when we left it three years ago it was still a building site, but its rateable value had doubled because someone from the Inland Revenue decided that we should pay higher rates.
    I tabled a question to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and he replied:
    "Since the last general revaluation…rateable values…have been altered most commonly because of a change in the physical state of the property or in its environment. I estimate that some 3,200,000 alterations have been made to the rateable values of domestic property in England since 1982."—[Official Report, 3 Nov. 1989; Vol. 159, c.275.]
    A certain amount of ad hoc revaluation has taken place all over the country, and so it was right for us to take the measures which we have.
    As I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), those who complain about the change in their bills as a result of a move from rates on low value properties to the community charge must bear in mind that if domestic rates had been kept—particularly for those living in terraced houses in urban areas where there is strong pressure for occupation or cottages in tourist-favoured areas such as I have in my constituency—their rates would have increased under the old system.
    I wish to welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's concessions on the disabled. I am sure that he will confirm that the Alzheimer's disease concession will be extended to those with senile dementia. There has been some concern about that, and my right hon. Friend made a telling intervention in an earlier speech.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made an important point about advertising. It is right that my hon. Friends and Ministers in other Departments should get right the advertising of this changeover. The television advertising of the water authorities has not entirely been a standard to follow. I hope that we shall learn from that. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West made the point that it is important

    771
    that those entitled to rebates should apply for them. The rebate system is more generous than Opposition Members concede and many of our constituents are aware.
    I tabled a question to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard)—the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. It was answered on 1 November. She revealed that next year, on a community charge of £250, a pensioner couple aged 60 to 74 who were not working would obtain the minimum rebate up to an income of £123 a week—which is quite a way up the income scale for pensioners. She said that a couple with two children under 11, who were working, would, on a community charge of £250, obtain a minimum rebate on an income of up to £147–£148 a week. She said that for a community charge of £300, the income for the pensioner couple would be £134 a week and the income for the couple with two children would be £158. Those are useful figures.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for picking up my earlier point. The Opposition have no argument with advertising that points out what rebates are available. We do not like the poll tax, but we want people to have all the rebates that are available. We do not want an advertising campaign that tries to sell this immoral tax as something that is as good as sliced bread and in the interests of the people. The Government must stick to telling people what benefits are available. If they try to sell the political concept of the poll tax, that would be objectionable.
    Mr. Nicholson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are aware of the rules and conventions that apply to Government advertising.
    I welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), who dealt with business rates. There is a problem for small businesses that will be encountered throughout the southern constituencies, but I must emphasise that it is not caused by the uniform business rate. Again, we come back to the issue of revaluation. In Somerset, had the uniform business rate been introduced on present rateable values, it would he 4p or 5p lower than the current rate set by the party of the hon. Member for Truro—the Liberals, the SLD or whatever it calls itself. The rateable value is 16 years out of date. There will be difficulties, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby.
    Nevertheless, in the long term there will be advantages for business and industry throughout the country. They will operate on up-to-date values and, most important, on a single national rate. The current system is quite ridiculous—as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) must know—with businesses taking off, relocating and reinvesting so that they can avoid the very high rates in Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, and parts of the midlands.
    There is strong justice and fairness in the reform of the business rates that acts as a convoy for the introduction of the community charge, which itself is more controversial. However, as my right hon. Friend knows, I have consistently supported the Government in their proposals for the community charge.
    Mr. Pike: We are discussing important amendments. I felt sorry for the Secretary of State when he opened the debate, because he has been saddled with a difficult job. It
    772
    is rare for me to feel sorry for a Conservative Minister, but the right hon. Gentleman has been left with a Bill that he did not begin and that has been changed several times during its passage, especially during its stages in another place. The right hon. Gentleman not only has to defend all that; he has also to defend the poll tax, even though it was introduced by his predecessor. He is like a man trying to walk with his shoe laces tied together. The simple fact is that, although the transitional arrangements are an improvement, they cannot overcome the basic fault of the poll tax, which is the failure to base it on fairness and on the ability to pay.
    Some of the amendments relate to matters that we tried to impress upon the Government during the many hours that we spent in Committee a year ago, but the then Secretary of State was not prepared to concede any of them. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and the Secretary of State both refer to revaluation. The Goverment have a cheek to refer to the fact that there has not been a revaluation for 16 years, because their first action when they were elected in 1979 was to cancel the proposed revaluation in England.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who cancelled the revaluation that was due after 1963?
    Mr. Pike: It goes back further even than 1963. The Government have been in office for 10 years. They know of the problems that arose in Scotland, and their cancellation of revaluation in England led to the problem that now confronts us, with valuations that are 16 years out of date. It is incredible that the Government want to keep turning the clock back. They will soon start talking about the actions of a Labour Government in 1929. The Government's cancellation of revaluation in their first week of office in 1979 created the current problems.
    The Secretary of State asked whether any right hon. or hon. Member wholly agrees with the present rating system. I admit that it creates problems and anomalies, but it is no use replacing a flawed system with one that is even worse.
    Many different issues are covered by the amendments before us, and I appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in selecting amendments for debate. As to the likely business rate that was announced this afternoon, we shall not really know what it will be until revaluation. When business rates are finally revealed, they are likely to be met by uproar in many parts of the country. Also, although the Government promise that there will be consultations between local authorities and businesses, they will come to regret the fact that a locally fixed rate is to be replaced by one that is determined by central Government. That will serve to sever many of the valuable links and relationships between local authorities and the businesses in their areas.
    Exempt categories were debated at length in Committee and on Report, but the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was unwilling to move further on them. We welcome the additional exemption categories and hope that the Secretary of State will continue to exhibit more thoughtfulness and concern than did his predecessor—and will, as time goes on, and as he becomes even more aware of the difficulties created by the poll tax, increase their number.
    I acknowledge also the right hon. Gentleman's statement that those receiving benefit will, by the nature of the taper, have only 15p in the pound deducted rather than

    773
    the present figure of 20p. We welcome that improvement, but I still believe that it is only half the story. People have yet to be told how much they will receive, and how much they will have left. There is an element of "kidology" involved, and people should not leap with joy until they know the full story.
    Protection for property of a lower rateable value is of concern not only to Burnley but to north-east Lancashire as a whole. The Secretary of State surely recognises that property there has the lowest rateable values of the whole of England. Pendle is the lowest rated and Burnley the third lowest, with an average rateable value of only £103.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend up to date with the latest information? Interviewed on the BBC's Nine o'clock News, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) made it clear that the poll tax would cause tremendous difficulties, and would be of acute disadvantage to his constituentts.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman had been on television, although he asked a question about the issue earlier this afternoon. That is one reason why he left ministerial office: he recognises that the poll tax will lose him his seat. His constituency is adjacent to mine, and he will be faced with considerable problems next year——
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Lords amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill may he proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
    Lords amendments again considered.
    Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Pike: The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) is clearly very concerned about the issue of rateable value, and rightly so. It is a pity that a year ago he kept trooping through the Lobbies and voting for the measure.
    Hon. Members have mentioned the fact that only two people in a property will receive protection, and the problem of determining which two it should be. The Minister must tell us how that will be dealt with, as it will cause considerable friction. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will be interested to hear his response.
    The amendments that the Government will push through tonight will not solve the problem of the poll tax legislation. The very fact that the arrangements are transitional makes that certain—and, as the Secretary of State has said himself, the Government cannot legislate for permanent protection. Of course they cannot; if they did, they would be admitting that the legislation that they forced through last year was nonsense. The fact that they are having to do the same thing now shows the folly of their policy. As the temporary arrangements are phased out, people will find themselves faced with the full unfairness and inequity of the legislation.
    The real reason for the Lords amendments—the reason why we are debating them today and why they were forced through the other House—is not that the Government wish to be fairer, but that they want to gerrymander and, if possible, help some Conservative Back Benchers to save their seats in a couple of years, before the poll tax is fully payable. The Government have not really made a generous
    774
    concession; they are trying to con the people. They will fail, however, and the poll tax legislation will be repealed as soon as the Labour party takes office.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wish to respond briefly to the points raised by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. We welcome the concessions that have been introduced, especially those relating to the standard charge. The Government amendment is very similar to new clause 1, moved on 14 June by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). On that occasion the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), said that the new clause was
    "based on a misconception that there are significant differences between the positions north and south of the border and that the English and Welsh arrangements are more flexible. That is not so as I shall seek to explain."—[Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 1021.]
    That debate revolved around the fact that we believed that it was so, and that changes were needed. At that time the Government said that the new clause was not necessary and resisted it. We welcome the fact that our arguments have now prevailed, and that the Government have recognised their strength, producing an amendment that gives much wider powers to both the local authorities and the Secretary of State than are contained in the guidelines given to us by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I am grateful for the Minister's guidelines, but they raise a few questions that I hope he will address in his reply.
    He distinguished between categories that would be zero rated as of right and categories that would be zero rated at the local authority's discretion. Into which categories are student nurses and doctors who work in hospitals likely to fall? Student nurses are incensed at not having been treated as students on the ground that they receive an allowance, although it is very low. Therefore, they will be forced to pay the full charge out of their very low allowance. That will represent a real cut in the allowance. Student nurses have understandably become cynical over the years. Every time that an allowance is reviewed they usually find that the cost of, say, meals has increased by more than the allowance and that the real value of the allowance is eroded year by year. Student nurses will be significantly worse off under the proposals. I think that the Minister implied that local authorities will have discretions, but the Government ought to make the position clear.
    The same applies to hospital doctors. They have made representations to me and, I am sure, to other hon. Members about the implication, which they resent, that they may have to pay the poll tax on their home and also on their residence in hospital if they are resident there for more than half the time. Therefore, they would have to pay the poll tax twice. That would be an injustice and would amount to double taxation, to which they should not be subjected. I think that the Minister also implied that that would he left to the discretion of local authorities. If local authorities decided to exercise their discretion, the cost would have to be met by all the other poll tax payers. Local authorities would therefore be under pressure to resist discretionary reductions of that kind. As the cost of the National Health Service is met by the Government, they ought to agree to fund that concession.
    The Minister did not refer to second homes and holiday homes, about which there has been much correspondence and many representations from both sides of the House. His omission leads me to think that the Government will not address the issue. If Barratts or any other large

    775
    organisation runs a time share operation, it does not pay poll tax on its property; it is assessed at the commercial rate. However, an individual with a modest holiday home —perhaps a cottage with a couple of bedrooms that is very low rated—has to pay the standard charge. Similarly, a farmer who wishes to supplement his farm income may let a few cottages on his farm to tourists. He will be squeezed out of a profitable business by having to absorb the standard charge.
    Will the Minister clarify whether local authorities will be able to exercise discretion? That would be an improvement. If they can, will that fact be taken into account when calculating revenue support grant? I hope that I am right in assuming that local authorities will have that discretion. I see that the Minister is nodding, and I am grateful to him. If it is a modest property, it is reasonable that local authorities should be able to set a ceiling so that the standard charge does not have to be paid twice. The letting of a few cottages may be an important supplement to a farmer's business. The same discretion ought to apply to him.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) has already referred to the fact that the £3 a week rebate is certainly an improvement, although very late in the day, and that it is based on the Government's assessment of what the poll tax in any given authority ought to be rather than on the actual outturn. If that is the case, it is a cheat because the Government know perfectly well that those targets were unrealistic and that virtually no authority, including those controlled by the Conservative party, has been able to achieve them. The rebate should be based on the average poll tax rate rather than on Government targets which were never realistic.
    The Minister made no reference to the safety net in Scotland. As a Member for a constituency in Grampian region, I feel very strongly that Grampian region poll tax payers have had to pay between £46 and £54 per head, according to where they live, towards the cost of the safety net for Glasgow and Strathclyde. I fully accept that the needs of Glasgow and Strathclyde justify that degree of safety netting, but I do not accept that the burden should fall on Grampian region poll tax payers rather than on the general taxpayer.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance on that point. The safety net, in its present form, will be phased out over three years. That means that those authorities which contributed to the self-financing safety net this year will receive their revenue support grant entitlement in full for 1990–91. Areas such as Glasgow which have benefited from the safety net will receive protection for a further three years, with the cost being met by the Exchequer.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank the Minister for that helpful information. I still have slight reservations as to whether we will get the full amount back, but I accept the Minister's assurance in good faith.
    I do not wish to be sour as we have had some effect and my colleagues and I who have campaigned consistently and promoted amendments have been vindicated. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) does democracy a great disservice when he says that Opposition Members are wasting their time as the Government never accept suggestions from them. I do not believe that is the case. However, politics being what it is, Conservative
    776
    Members respond only when they see their majorities being whittled away. But they have responded, and most of the Government's concessions today are those that we pressed for a year ago. I do not believe that the Government will recover any ground in Scotland because people in Scotland know that the Government care not a docken for the plight of the Scots who have to face the imposition of the poll tax and that the Government were prepared to act only when the English majority was threatened. I am quite sure that Scottish voters will not return to the fold with any gratitude.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall speak on my amendment opposing Lords amendments Nos. 332, 347 and 421. However, before doing so I should like to use some of the leeway that you, Mr. Speaker, have allowed hon. Members who did not get in on the statement on the poll tax by saying that we would be able to catch your eye and raise those points in tonight's debate.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I said, with ingenuity.
    Mr. Cohen: I am using the best of my ingenuity.
    The figures provided by the Secretary of State for the Environment in his statement this afternoon show a lot of sleight of hand. He was not comparing like with like. Table 2 was supposed to be comparing the rates with the community charge, but the rates figure included the local spending discretion—the amount that the local authority was spending on local needs. That figure was not in strict compliance with the Government's targets, but the community charge or poll tax level is strictly in compliance with Government policy. The Government's level of spending for local authorities is absurdly unreal and would mean massive cutbacks in my authority of Waltham Forest, for example. The Government have allowed only 4 per cent. for inflation, which is ludicrous. Under the safety net, Waltham Forest is having to pay £46 per person, thereby subsidising Tory-controlled Wandsworth.
    All summer, Conservative Members bleated that the purpose of the safety net was to subsidise overspenders. Let us hear no talk of Waltham Forest being an overspender, because we are being penalised by having to pay into the safety net. The figures announced in the statement show that needs in inner-London boroughs are still not being properly recognised. There is still gross unfairness, because some boroughs are paying half the amount that their neighbouring boroughs are paying, purely at the flick of the Minister's pen.
    10.15 pm
    I oppose Lords amendments Nos. 332, 347 and 421, which relate to privacy. The disclosure of information is the thin end of the wedge, yet under those amendments, which the Government slipped through in the other place, disclosure will be allowed. This is the first case in which the Government have allowed data unconnected with the poll tax to be disclosed. Why should poll tax data be used for purposes other than the poll tax? The Minister should explain why, under this gaping hole in the legislation, virtually unrestricted access to information will be allowed.
    Lords amendment Nos. 332 and 347 to schedule 5, which relate to the poll tax in England and Wales, and Lords amendment No. 421 to schedule 6, which applies to the poll tax in Scotland, should be rejected because they do not guarantee that anonymity will be preserved. The use of

    777
    the words "registration officer" in the amendment means that when the registration officer discloses information the recipient will be able to gain access to other lists in the possession of the registration officer and obtain personal information about an individual. The poll tax officer could disclose that three people live at 55 Acacia avenue. Two of those people could be exempted from payment because they are in prison or because they have Alzheimer's disease. The poll tax officer cannot supply the names of those people, but the recipient can check the electoral registers, telephone lists and other public lists to discover the names of the people listed. He can even use the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which introduced the poll tax, and check the entry in the extract of the poll tax register for 55 Acacia avenue to discover who lives there. Anonymous information goes to the wall. The fact that someone's name does not appear on the register can also be useful intelligence. The position under Lords amendment No. 421 is even worse, because the poll tax register can be photocopied as well as inspected.
    The Lords amendments should be rejected because there is no guarantee that the Secretary of State will not use his powers to obtain anonymous information from other sources available to him, such as social security records. He can reconstitute personal information relating directly to people. He may misuse that information. He may withhold the social security benefit to which a person is entitled in order to punish him for being behind in his poll tax payments. There is no limitation on the availability and subsequent use—or perhaps misuse—of this sensitive information. The Government do not seem to care about protecting this sensitive information which can easily be handed over and get into the wrong hands.
    There is no guarantee that anonymous information will not be copied on to the data bases of the police, immigration service, security service, credit reference agencies and other organisations with long lists of addresses. Again, big brother rides under the poll tax rules.
    The Lords amendments are deficient in that there is no attempt to stop the recipient of the information attempting to reconstitute it to identify individuals. There is no attempt to stop any linking of anonymous information to the personalised information that a recipient already has. The reason that the Government advanced in the Lords for favouring these measures is bogus. They said that the information could be used for planning purposes. Local authorities can already use section 6 of the Census Act 1980 and call upon the staff of the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys to use the census data for planning purposes. The Minister can also call upon OPSC staff for statistics. Using the Census Act has several advantages over using poll tax data for planning—information is kept anonymous because it is protected by OPCS staff who are alert to the privacy issues involved in handling it. By contrast, local authorities seem to have been hauled up before the data protection authorities on a number of privacy issues involving the poll tax register. Under the Lords amendments, there is virtually no privacy restraint on local authorities.
    The Lords amendments could lead to the back-door selling of poll tax data in the same way as information on the electoral register is sold. As with the electoral register, the so-called Government of choice do not give the
    778
    individual the opportunity to object to disclosure of information about himself. The poll tax rides a coach and horses through personal privacy. It is a bailiff's and snooper's joy and a computer voyeur's delight. The Lords amendments are yet another example of individual privacy being sacrificed to expedite the implementation of this repressive, inefficient and unpopular poll tax.
    Mr. McAllion: Amendment No. 261 deals with the rate at which the standard community charge can now be levied. In dealing with it, the Under-Secretary of State listed a series of properties that would as of right be zero rated. He mentioned empty mansions, and the homes of prisoners, full-time students at university and college and those who had died. He went on to describe a second category, whereby a local authority would have discretion to designate properties that should be zero rated and included those properties where the owners' employment required them to be away from home for a long period.
    I should like to ask the Minister about another category of properties—local authority houses where the tenant is a long-term hospital patient but wishes to retain the tenancy and keep the house furnished while he is in hospital. In February this year, the Scottish Office wrote to the Tayside poll tax registration officer, saying that in these cases
    "the liability to pay the standard charge would fall on the local authority as owner of the property since council houses are let on short, renewable leases."
    How will such a property be affected by the changes that the Minister has described tonight? Will he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State give us a specific explanation? Will local authorities be allowed to zero-rate at their discretion local authority houses whose tenants are long-term patients in hospital, but who wish to keep their houses furnished and to keep the tenancy during that period?
    The transitional proposals are supposed to protect groups of people who are affected by the poll tax. It is alleged protection because, as the Minister said, the limit of £3 will be applied only when the local authority imposes a poll tax that is in line with the Government's assumptions. In the case of my own district council of Dundee, the Government assumed that the poll tax should be £274 in the current year. In reality, the council was forced to levy £324—£50 or 18 per cent. above the Government's assumption. Will the Minister say that when the transitional arrangements are in place in Dundee everyone will be entitled to the limit of no more than £3 irrespective of the level of poll tax levied by the district council—even though that figure is higher than the Government's assumptions about the poll tax for Dundee?
    We are expected to believe that we are dealing with a genuine, if sudden, conversion by the Government or with a sudden concern for those who are worst off. I use the word "sudden" advisedly. In Scotland, we have been dealing with the poll tax for a long time—longer than any other part of this allegedly unitary British state. We have a long track record on the poll tax and I have been in correspondence with Ministers for some time on the poll tax rebate schemes in particular.
    About 18 months ago, I wrote to the Minister of State, who was then responsible for the rebate scheme. His reply gave me a series of assurances about the rebate scheme. He wrote:
    "we have taken full account of the need to ensure that payment of the community charge is not an unacceptable burden for those with low incomes".

    779
    He went further and said that the Government had taken full account of those on low incomes, whether or not they were in employment. The Minister had unlimited confidence in the virtue of the rebate scheme for people in Scotland such as the unemployed, the disabled, the handicapped, the low paid, single parents and pensioners.
    Six months later, I received another letter from the same Minister on the same subject. His confidence in the rebate scheme in Scotland was still completely undiminished. He wrote:
    "Overall, I do not accept that the community charge will represent a significant shift of the tax burden from the rich to the poor."
    He told me that the winning and losing households would be roughly equal and that for half of all those affected, the difference would he less than £1 a week. He also told me that there would be substantial benefits for those who were least well off. He singled out two groups and said that 90 per cent. of single pensioners and 85 per cent. of single adult households would be better off.
    Yet in the debate tonight both the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), have referred repeatedly to single pensioners as a group who will especially benefit from the transitional arrangements. It is passing strange that, according to the Minister who had previous responsibility for the poll tax, there was no need for any transitional protection because they would all be better off, yet we are now told that they will be better off as a result of the transitional arrangements which have been introduced a year after the Minister made that claim.
    The last sentence of the letter sent to me a year ago sums up the Government's confidence in their rebate scheme. The Minister wrote:
    "In all cases—
    and I emphasise the word "all"—
    "the rebate scheme will ensure that nobody is called upon to pay an unreasonable amount."
    That letter was sent in October 1988. Why is it that a full year later we need a whole poll tax package of further concessions? Are the Government saying that the Minister was lying to me a year ago when he said that the rebate scheme then available would ensure that nobody would be called on to pay an unreasonable amount?— [Interruption.] I never alleged anything of the kind. I am merely asking whether that is what the Government say now. At that time, the Minister told me that the rebate scheme would ensure that nobody would be called upon to pay an unreasonable amount——
    Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the hon. Gentleman was heard clearly by those of us on the Conservative Benches to have said that the Minister was lying.
    Mr. Speaker: I certainly did not hear that.
    Mr. McAllion: I said no such thing, Mr. Speaker.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman did allege that, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw, but I did not hear him say it.
    Mr. McAllion: I would certainly have wished to withdraw, but I never said anything of the kind. I was merely trying to explain to Conservative Members that
    780
    Ministers are now telling the House the exact opposite of what Scottish Ministers were telling me a year ago. The House deserves some explanation of that discrepancy. If no one was being asked to pay an unreasonable amount a year ago, why do we now need a package of concessions and transitional protection for those who are, indeed, expected to pay an unreasonable amount? That is a serious matter
    10.30 pm
    I have talked about what happened 18 months and a year ago. Six months ago we received from the Department of Social Security a so-called short paper dealing with poll tax rebates. We were told that from 1990 onwards the arrangements in England and Wales would be virtually identical to those in Scotland. Tonight we have been told that from now on the arrangements in Scotland will be virtually the same as those in England and Wales. In six months the Government have turned the whole thing round. They now tell us that what was happening in Scotland six months ago was unsatisfactory and that the arrangements will have to be changed to bring them into line with those for England and Wales.
    The Department of Social Security paper contained a nice table showing a poll tax figure of £300, by which the Government sought to illustrate their point. As it turned out, that was a very convenient figure from the Government's point of view. With poll tax at £300, those on income support—which has been increased by £1·15 for a single person under 25, £1·30 for single people over 25 and £2·30 for couples—will be no worse or better off. It was, therefore, convenient for the Government to use the £300 figure in the tables illustrating the Department's paper.
    In the real world, however, authorities are not levying poll taxes of £300. They are levying poll taxes well in excess of £300. In my constituency, for example, the figure is £324. Conservative Members may say that that will mean that those on income support will be only marginally worse off. How can they justify a system that makes those on income support marginally worse off and Scottish Office Ministers £1,100 a year better off? No system that does that can be justified.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that had we retained a Conservative administration at Tayside the community charge would have been about £120 a year less?
    Mr. McAllion: At the last budget meeting, the Conservative opposition on Tayside regional council suggested a reduction of 0·75 per cent. in expenditure. That would make very little difference to the poll tax; the poll tax might even be bigger as a result of that opposition's activities.
    I am trying to drag home to the House the fact that for 18 months I was repeatedly told by Scottish Ministers that there was no cause for concern—that everything was fine and that the rebate scheme was marvellous. Suddenly after the Tory party conference in Blackpool everything changed. All bets are off. Everything must change in Scotland and Scotland must be brought into line with England and Wales. Have the Government suddenly come to their senses? No; Conservative Back Benchers representing marginal seats have suddenly come to their senses.[Interruption.] There are very few Scottish Tory

    781
    Back Benchers, and it is most unlikely that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has come to his senses.
    In December 1988 Alzheimer's Scotland wrote a letter to every hon. Member in Scotland and I am sure that the hon. Member for Tayside, North received a copy. It wrote:
    "It seems, however, that people with degenerative brain disorders such as dementia will not qualify. In the latter stages of dementia, a sufferer may lose the power of speech, may appear to understand almost nothing, may fail to recognise close family members and may be doubly incontinent. It is both illogical and unfair to attempt to differentiate between such people and others with conditions causing a similar degree of mental impairment."
    The director of Alzheimer's Scotland wrote to me:
    "Alzheimer's Scotland have drawn the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to this … state of affairs."
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office wrote to me in February 1989:
    "This is clearly a difficult question, but I can assure you it is one to which the Government gave considerable thought before deciding that people with dementia should not be exempt from paying the community charge."
    That is what the Minister of State, Scottish Office, called excessive keenness on the Government's part. After considerable thought, they decided that they were not going to exempt sufferers from Alzheimer's disease and other degenerative brain disorders. Only as a result of pressure from public opinion in Scotland and from Government Back Benchers did the Government make any concessions.
    The Government are running scared now, but not because they have lost the argument. They lost the argument a long time ago. Now for the first time they can see the implications of losing the argument in the House and in England and Wales, where they will lose many marginal seats. The Government are papering over the cracks in an unjust and unworkable system of local government finance. No one wants it, especially not in Scotland where we have experienced it.
    I have decided that I will not willingly pay the poll tax and it will have to be taken from me. I have received threatening letters from my local regional council stating that I had better pay up in 14 days or else. However, other people in my street have not yet even received their poll tax payment books. That is the kind of administrative chaos facing regional councils. If the system will not work in Scotland it will not work elsewhere. The poll tax has degenerated into unsustainable chaos and the legislation will have to be repealed.
    We have heard that the cost of the poll tax is enormous. Nearly £1 million was spent on propaganda in Scotland trying to sell the poll tax to the Scottish people. Does the Secretary of State for the Environment believe that that money was well spent? Was it cost effective? After spending £1 million on propaganda, 80 per cent. of the Scottish people rejected the propaganda and the poll tax with it. Perhaps the local government auditors should have a close look at the Government Departments that are wasting money in that way. Already millions have been wasted on computers and in administrative costs. Other huge costs will be incurred in rejigging the scheme to bring it into line with the transitional arrangements.
    The Minister wrote to me and told me that he believed that all the costs were worth paying because the system increased accountability in Scottish local government. It is
    782
    a sheer nerve for a Tory Minister responsible for Scotland to say that he wanted to see increased accountability in local government in Scotland. When are we going to have increased accountability in central Government in Scotland? Only 20 per cent. of the Scottish people voted for the Government who are now imposing their will on Scotland. We cannot hold the Government accountable and we are denied the right to hold them accountable, but we are told that accountability is good for us in local government in Scotland.
    The Minister also justified the costs and disruption that the poll tax would bring about with the idea that it was a fairer method of collecting local government finance. If a poll tax of £350 is levied in a local authority, someone on £62·47 a week will be expected to pay the full poll tax. He will pay £6·73 in poll tax—10·8 per cent. of his income. Someone in the same area earning £300 a week will also pay £6·73 a week in poll tax, but that is 2·5 per cent. of his income. How can it be fairer for the poor to pay four times as much as the rich in their contributions to local government finance? The whole tax is immoral. It is only a matter of time, not until the poll tax is repealed, but until the Government are defeated. Then the poll tax will be repealed.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate the Secretary of State on inserting a Treasury tag into the Government's bulky document. It makes it very convenient to hang it on a nail. I assure him that I will put every single page to good use.
    An annex to the document relates to special grants which will be paid to inner London local authorities. I do not resent that—many local authorities are getting fresh grants. However, why is the London borough of Newham not qualified to receive special grants? I am sure that the Secretary of State understands that, although the London borough of Newham is an outer London borough, it has the same problems as inner London boroughs. If its two next-door boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Hackney are to receive special grants, I should like to know precisely why Newham is not to receive them and what they are all about.
    It is grotesquely unfair that the poll tax payers of Newham will contribute to the safety net, whereas outer London Tory boroughs such as Bexley will get a safety net contribution. Why should the poll tax payers of Newham subsidise leafy Tory boroughs such as Bexley? I hope that the Secretary of State will tell me something that will make some sense to the people of Newham when they consider what was announced this afternoon.
    Mr. Winnick: The Government have enough advisers.
    Mr. Banks: I notice that the Box is now so crowded that they must double-park. It comes ill for the Government to start talking about special advisers and chairs' assistants in local authorities. They must carry a great weight of responsibility and they thoroughly deserve all the assistance they can possibly get.
    The Secretary of State spoke about publicity for rebates and transitional relief. I saw the Minister, who is undoubtedly one of the most acceptable faces of extremism that we have seen on the Government Front Bench, nodding his head in grave agreement with my points. I want the Secretary of State himself to make a statement. I understand that the major poll tax advertising campaign will also involve television, and I trust that emphasis will be placed on rebates and transitional relief.

    783
    Opposition Members will support anything that points out how people can avoid the more iniquitous aspects of this invidious tax. If there are rebates and benefits, they must know what they are and how they can get them as speedily as possible. If that is what the advertising campaign is to be about, we will not object. We have seen enough of the Government's information campaigns to know that they usually amount to nothing more than crude Tory Government propaganda.
    The Secretary of State did not respond to me earlier, so I ask him again. If he is genuine in saying that the advertising campaign will be about rebates and benefits that poll tax payers can receive, will he consult local authority associations on the terms of the advertising campaign to make sure that we are all in broad agreement before we start? If not, I suspect that there will be much disagreement and a lot of mud will be flung around.
    Mr. Winnick: Does it not prove that the Prime Minister has a sense of humour, if only an odd one, that she appointed a Secretary of State who was known to be
    784
    opposed to the poll tax and who, as a Tory Back-Bench Member, made several wet speeches, and gave him the job of justifying this totally unfair tax?
    Mr. Banks: I do not recognise the Prime Minister as having a sense of humour——
    Mr. Winnick: A perverse one.
    Mr. Banks: I was about to say that it must be a perverse one. Indeed, when the Prime Minister develops a sense of humour, I will cross the House to join Conservative Members, but I do not think that there is much danger of that happening in the foreseeable future—or, indeed, in the unforeseeable future.
    I ask the Secretary of State yet again, since his Minister of State has made it plain that the campaign on the poll tax will be about rebates and transitional reliefs, whether he will give the undertaking that I have requested and seek early discussions with the local authority associations on the terms of the advertising campaign that is to be inflicted on us in the winter.
    10.45 pm
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I intend to be brief. I begin by apologising to the Minister of State, Scottish Office and to his Opposition counterpart for not being present for their opening speeches. They, more than most, will appreciate the difficulties of trying to be in several places at one time and they know that I listen with great interest to their words on numerous occasions.
    You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many of the hon. Members who have participated in the discussion on these amendments represent Scottish constituencies. If at times Opposition Members sound less than gracious when concessions are made by the Government, it is perhaps because, having consistently voted and worked against the community charge in Scotland, all of us are well aware of the implications of the implementation of that legislation in Scotland and of all its drawbacks.
    I advise Conservative Members who represent English constituencies that if they think that their mailbags are heavy or that their constituency clinics are particularly busy, they have seen nothing yet. As the community charge comes closer in England and Wales, those Conservative Members will find out what we are finding out in Scotland, which is that the vast majority of people are opposed to this tax on grounds of principle. They will face many difficulties in trying to persuade their constituents that the legislation should go through. If all the Opposition Members representing Scottish seats were to bring into the Chamber and to read chapter and verse all the letters relating to the individual cases with which they have had to deal over the past 18 months, they could keep the House sitting for many a long hour, well beyond the normal rules and regulations. I give that as a clear warning because many individuals in other parts of the country will now experience the difficulties that we have experienced.
    However, having said that, I welcome the flexibility that is now—belatedly—to be offered to the Scottish regional councils when deciding on the standard community charge. It is only right to mention that one of the strongest campaigners on this issue has been the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), whom we all wish well and hope that he will soon be recovered and back with us. Along with others of us in Grampian region, the right hon. Gentleman raised the point that people were being described as having "holiday homes" and were being subjected to a standard community charge of £522 for a little property, sometimes merely a wooden shack with no running water or electricity, for which in previous years they had paid perhaps £20, £30, or £40 in rates.
    The fact that such people were being asked to pay the standard charge was against the interests of the tourist trade in our area, which is important in keeping small village shops open. That shop is often also the post office, where the pensioners collect their pensions, and it plays a significant role. We are talking not about people who live in mansions and have lots of money, but about individuals with a tiny cottage in which they can spend weekends or a fortnight in the summer, having a family holiday. This point has caused a great deal of upset. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will tell us the implications of what
    786
    has happened in the financial year 1989‐90 for these people who have already been asked to pay such substantial charges for their small properties.
    I wonder whether the Secretary of State wishes to comment also on what he has built into his calculations in respect of the bureaucracy of the charge. Regional councils in Scotland have suggested to me that, whereas the collection of rates constituted 2 per cent. of their income, a more accurate figure for the collection of the community charge is 8 or 9 per cent. That is a substantial increase. There are still warrants to be issued and people to be pursued who, like me, have had 14-day and seven-day warnings. There are still others who have not paid for whatever reason. We still do not know the financial implications of that. There must be some calculation of the bureaucratic implications of collecting the charge.
    I welcome the concession about the sole or main residence for the purpose of employment. The Minister from the Scottish Office will remember the individual cases that I have sent him. Are there any implications for people who work abroad and use local services for only a few weeks of the year? A constituent who lives in Lossiemouth works in Dubai. Because of the nature of his work, he spends 12 weeks abroad and is then at home for three. In any financial year, therefore, he spends a minimum of nine weeks and a maximum of 10 weeks in the community, yet he is expected to pay the full charge.
    I am disappointed that there is no reference here to what happens if people die. I do not want to repeat the problems experienced by fishermen's widows who were issued with community charge requests for £3 or £4 for the two or three days of a month when their husbands were alive. I thought that was appalling. Some regional authorities have decided that £5 is the minimum bill for which they will send out a claim, but I should like a clear ruling from the Government that no community charge payment will be required retrospectively for the month in which a community charge payer dies. Such requests demonstrated one of the most despicable attitudes in the implementation of the charge, and the heartbreak that it caused to widows and widowers in my constituency was horrendous.
    I welcome the concession regarding Alzheimer's disease, but it has been a hard long struggle, and we are still not 100 per cent. sure what the implications are for others who suffer similar conditions, such as senile dementia, which the Secretary of State mentioned.
    The Department of Social Security has announced that there is to be a substantial review of how payments and allowances are made to disabled people. The community charge must be considered clearly and sincerely in that review, because if we are to have emphasis on community care, the implications of the community charge are substantial for families who want to give independence to relatives with some form of disabling disease. The Department of the Environment and the Department of Social Security must take that on board.
    We have experienced many other problems during the past year. If we in Scotland sometimes sound a little grudging about the concessions that are made, it is because we feel that we have been used as guinea pigs for this legislation. We have had the bureaucracy, the problems of constituents having eight pages to fill in to claim a rebate and local authorities saying that rebate forms have not reached them.

    787
    The few concessions that have been made do not in any way measure up to the anger, resentment and bitterness that many people feel about this charge in principle—not just because of the administrative chaos.
    Those who seek to represent people must search their consciences. I believe that fundamental principles are at stake because of the community charge. I have searched my conscience and I know that I have not found it easy to become a non-payer. I do not find it particularly easy to break the civil laws of my country. Until those who seek to lead and to represent are prepared to take on leadership responsibilities, however, one cannot argue for changes in the law.
    I believe that the non-payment campaign has helped to cause the small amendments to be made. I believe that non-payment can still help to defeat the poll tax. Its replacement with a local income tax would mean the introduction of a fairer tax which takes account of ability to pay. The community charge is destined to failure because it is based on a simple flaw.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but the group of amendments that we are considering are complicated and make changes in Scottish law which is entirely different from the English legal system. I accept that there can only be one wind-up speech, but obviously the English Minister will reply. That means that some of the legitimate points that have been raised by Members representing Scotland will not be answered.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly write to all Members if all the relevant issues are not dealt with. Many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) were dealt with in my speech, but she was not present at the time.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister would be less than his usual courteous self if he did not write to hon. Members, but, with respect, that is not the point. If we are having debates, they should truly be debates.
    Earlier today English Members heard a ministerial statement on local government finance, which meant that hon. Members representing English constituences had the opportunity to raise constituency issues. Instead of writing to Scots Members the Minister should consider the alternative of making a statement of his own at some date as that would enable us to ask specific questions. Will the orders that flow from the legislation that we are enacting be negative, or affirmative orders? If they are negative, hon. Members must pray against them. If they are affirmative, hon. Members are guaranteed a debate albeit limited to one and a half hours. We now have the broad framework of the legislation. but the orders are important as they provide the important detail.
    The statements that the Secretary of State has made in the debate have been helpful and I believe that they represent a move in the right direction. We must see the fine print, however, before we can make final judgments. But it is important that the orders that introduce the legislative details are affirmative so that we can discuss them here as of right.
    Today, on such issues as exemptions for Alzheimer's disease and discretion over the standard community charge, Ministers have adopted a different tone from previous discussions. They now say that things can be done that could not be done a year ago when the Scottish legislation went through. If such changes can be made
    788
    suddenly, why is it not possible to consider introducing a system of local government that relates people's local government taxation to their ability to pay. That is the fundamental flaw in the poll tax legislation.
    The Secretary of State made great play about retaining local government accountability in the amendments. The best way to achieve such accountability is by adopting the political solution of a system of proportional representation. That makes the electorate the judge and jury on levels of tax rather than Ministers sitting in Whitehall.
    I am concerned about levels of business rates. My constituency has a low-rated rural base and I cannot see how local small businesses or high street shops will be better off in the long run as a result of the uniform business rate, whether it is based on a unified Scottish or United Kingdom rate. I have never had a convincing answer to that. I have not had one tonight, and it is something to which the Government must address themselves. I understand that transitional protection is built in, and I welcome that. However, in the longer term, small businesses and shopkeepers in high streets in constituencies such as mine will inevitably suffer.
    I welcome the fact that the transitional protection will be retrospective. I also understand that substantial moves are being made to encourage people to apply for community charge rebates. If, in the course of the advertising campaign, people in Scotland are found to be eligible for rebate on their poll tax, will the rebate be paid in retrospect as well? Will the rebate system as well as the transitional protection be retrospective in Scotland? That is an important question, and one to which I hope the Minister will address himself.
    11 pm
    I wish to ask about what will happen when local authorities take advantage of the new discretion to zero rate people's individual standard community charge. When people's contracts of employment require them to live outside their home, and a local authority allows their income to be zero rated, will central Government make good the losses to the local authority's revenue support grant? That is an important point.
    Will the Government look carefully at a problem which has arisen in my constituency where, because of a computer programme failure, 18-year-olds have been missed off the register and have only just started receiving their original bills in the past few weeks? My local authority, which has the legal power summarily to insist that the full amount be paid forthwith, has given them to the end of the financial year to pay these arrears. That doubles the weekly and monthly charge which they are required to pay. Will the Government look at the possibility of extending the period available to extinguish arrears in such cases, where the fault for the arrears did not lie with the community charge payer, but was due to a local authority administrative hiccup? Such people deserve more time in which to pay the amount owed.
    The concession which has been made on senile dementia is welcome, but the Secretary of State will not be able to allow the exemption to rest there. The category of exemption will have to be expanded to cope adequately with the present position in Scotland. Apart from anything else, the legislation drives a coach and horses through the Government's policy of trying to promote care in the community if individuals can be charged outside institutions within which they are exempt.

    789
    The Government have a long way to go. The changes announced tonight are warmly welcomed. as far as they go, but they do not go nearly far enough.
    Mr. Wallace: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and wish to mention the unsatisfactory nature of trying to mix a Scottish debate with an English and Welsh debate. As the Secretary of State explained on a point of order, it was agreed between the usual channels, and no doubt Opposition Front Bench spokesmen work in a mysterious way to put the Scottish Office on the hop by allowing it to get away with a reply from the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is not responsible for the Scottish operation of the poll tax, despite his great talents in many other respects.
    I also wish to congratulate the Government on bringing forward an amendment dealing with the standard community charge which is, in many respects, similar to that which I moved on Report. I well recall the occasion, not least because of the absence and silence of the other two Opposition parties in Scotland. The Government have done a complete U-turn from the position which they then held.
    I also wish to congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) for implementing an undertaking which he gave on that occasion in relation to another new clause which I tabled about evidence on appeals arising out of the poll tax. That is dealt with in Lords amendment No. 419, and I acknowledge that it will improve matters.
    Although the rebate scheme has been presented as a generous measure—and it is far better than nothing—it will still leave many people considerably worse off. In my constituency, because the poll tax does not amount to £150 per annum, or £3 per week, per person, no one will derive any benefit. It is clear from letters from my constituents that many of them find themselves worse off under the poll tax, but this rebate scheme will not bring them any benefits.
    It is important to put it on record that, although the amendments will bring some relief to some people, it by no means makes the poll tax a good tax; it makes it only a little less rotten.
    Mr. Chris Patten: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply, albeit briefly, to a number of the points that have been raised. I shall not detain the House for an inordinate length of time.
    I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) for his warm and charming welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who has joined my Department. I thought that at one point the hon. Gentleman was about to suggest that there was nothing in life that anyone could want more than a berth in Marsham street. My hon. Friend is a welcome member of the team.
    The hon. Gentleman and I must have felt at times as though we were intervening in a Scottish debate, but it was helpful to have such a wealth of experience brought to bear on a number of the Government's proposals for smoothing the introduction of the community charge.
    I want to take up three points that the hon. Gentleman raised. First, he referred to community care, and especially to those leaving care homes and going into the community after 31 March next year. Those in the position he
    790
    described will have all the protection already built into the community charge system. If they have low incomes they will be entitled to rebates. It is important to recognise that the transitional relief is in addition to the existing protection, so it is misleading to suggest that those who do not qualify for relief are being deprived of protection.
    The hon. Gentleman made a number of points about senile dementia. The Scottish amendments deal with that and apply new definitions retrospectively. We have also announced that we shall change the provisions that exempt from the community charge those who are severely mentally impaired. As was made clear, that will allow the exemption to cover people whose mental impairment arises from degenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's disease or mental illness. The change in the definition in England will be made by order and no new primary legislation will be necessary. It will be done by adding attendance allowance and constant attendance allowance to the list of qualifying benefits and removing the requirement that the impairment must have arisen from a congenital or childhood condition or injury to the brain. Any person who is in receipt of a qualifying allowance and has a certificate from his doctor confirming that his intelligence and social functioning are severely impaired will be entitled to the exemption.
    As there has been some misunderstanding on that point, I must make it clear that we will not be specifying by name the conditions that will qualify people for exemption. I think that that was the point which most concerned the hon. Gentleman. That aspect is important, given recent press reports on the difficulties of diagnosing Alzheimer's disease. Anyone suffering from any disorder that is severe enough to warrant the award of the attendance allowance or any of the existing qualifying benefits will be exempted if his doctor certifies that his impairment is a mental one.
    The hon. Member for Brightside pressed his amendment and suggested that rather than spending the money that we have made available for the interim relief scheme we should be spending it on rebates, thereby making the existing system of rebates more generous. The hon. Gentleman will know that next year in Britain as a whole about £2 billion will be paid out in rebates, plus another £500 million in income support to help pay community charge bills.
    There are two principal problems with the Opposition's amendment. First, it would be wrong to provide yet more permanent help through rebates. That would undermine the accountability which is so central to the working of the new system. Secondly, I doubt whether the Opposition would wish that those on average earnings should lose more than £3 a week next year and receive no help. No conceivable increase in rebates would help that group. It is right, therefore, to target help directly at those who stand to lose the most, and to provide such help on a transitional basis only. Most of the help is likely to go to those on relatively modest incomes.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) made a powerful speech in supporting small businesses and the transitional problems that some of them will face. I know that he is extremely knowledgeable on the subject and has been a good friend to small businesses. He referred to the transitional arrangements for phasing in the uniform business rate, revaluation and the impact on small businesses. We have taken the view that protection against increases in bills should apply to

    791
    existing occupiers only. New occupiers of both new and existing property should not, in our view, qualify for protection in the same way, because when taking on a new property they will know what their new rate liability will be. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but it must be remembered that the protection for losers under the new system is to he paid for by the gainers, who will have to wait for their full gains. The amendment would postpone further the point at which businesses that are expecting reductions, predominantly in the north and the midlands —this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson)—will be able to enjoy them.
    We must strike a balance between the need to protect losers and the need to complete the transitional process as quickly as possible to secure the benefits of the new system. We think that we have struck the right balance, but I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby had to say. I would be pleased to talk to him further to ascertain whether there is anything else that we can do to meet the problem to which he pointed.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the usefulness of some of the documentation that we have provided for the House today. I should tell him that the type does come off some of the documents. The hon. Gentleman asked why Newham does not qualify for the ILEA special grant. The reason is that Newham is not in ILEA.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The special grant is available to other local authorities outside London that have nothing to do with ILEA. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman drew special attention to the ILEA grant. I think that he is referring beyond that to support for additional education needs. If the hon. Gentleman and I are unable to agree tonight, I shall write to him. The grant that is dealt with on the specific page to which he referred is the ILEA one.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-West talked about advertising and the campaign that he read about in the newspapers. I want to confirm what was said earlier in the debate, what we intimated by winks and nods and what we intimated orally. We intend through advertising to try to encourage the maximum take-up of rebates and the maximum take-up of interim relief. That is the purpose of the advertising.
    Mr. Blunkett: I should like to press the Secretary of State on that point, because it is important to the House. Do the Government intend to use television advertising? If so, do they intend to refer to their transitional scheme, or to rebates that the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned'?

  Schedule 5

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT I988: AMENDMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 330, in page 162, line 6, at end insert—
    "2C. The following section shall be inserted after section 13—
    "Reduced liability
    13A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations as regards any case where—

    (a) a person is liable to pay an amount to an authority in respect of a personal community charge as it has effect for any chargeable financial year which is prescribed, and

    (b) prescribed conditions are fulfilled.

    (2) The regulations may provide that the amount he is liable to pay shall be an amount which—

    (a) is less than the amount it would be apart from the regulations, and

    (b) is found in accordance with prescribed rules.

    (3) This section applies whether the liability to pay the amount mentioned in subsection (1) above arises under
    Mr. Patten: We certainly intend to use television for part of the advertising. We have not decided precisely how to allocate advertising for the interim relief scheme or the rebates, but I think that we must ensure that we advertise both schemes as effectively and comprehensively as possible. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the parameters for advertising, about which he and some of his hon. Friends have shown such priestly concern.
    11.15 pm
    Mr. Maxton: Should not the Government give more money to the local authorities—which are much better able to identify those who need rebates—rather than leaving the task to centrally funded television and national newspaper advertising schemes, which, as the Scottish experience has shown, do not really work?
    Mr. Patten: I think that national advertising is probably the best way to deal with what are, after all, national issues. I do not, however, rule out the possibility —although not necessarily in this instance—of occasionally using local authorities to get such important messages across, and also using voluntary organisations.
    If I have been unable to deal with any points during my brief remarks, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland or I will try to deal with them in correspondence.
    This has been a useful debate. It has given us a chance to cover a number of the important changes that we are making to the community charge. By and large, both sides of the House have been able to agree—with one or two honourable exceptions—that the domestic rating system is inequitable and should go. We have put forward our proposals for its replacement. We are still not entirely clear about the Opposition's proposals: they seem as mysterious as Zsa Zsa Gabor's age. When we find out what they are, however, we shall want to provide exemplication so that the public know precisely what the consequences would be. In the meantime, until the Opposition produce their next policy, we will get on with the job of governing the country.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos 256 to 264 and 328 and 329 agreed to.[Some with Special Entry.]
    section 12 above or arises under that section read with section 13 above.
    (4) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above may be prescribed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State sees fit; and in particular such factors may include all or any of the following—

    (a) rates for a period before 1 April 1990;

    (b) the circumstances of, or other matters relating to, the person concerned;

    (c) an amount relating to the authority concerned and specified, or to be specified, for the purposes of the regulations in a report laid, or to be laid, before the House of Commons;

    (d) such other amounts as may be prescribed or arrived at in a prescribed manner;

    (e) the making of an application by the person concerned.

    (5) The rules mentioned in subsection (2) above may be prescribed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State sees fit; and in particular such factors may include all or any of the factors mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d) above.
    (6) Without prejudice to the generality of section 143(2) below, regulations under this section may include—

    (a) provision requiring the Secretary of State to specify in a report, for the purposes of the regulations, an amount in relation to each charging authority;

    (b) provision requiring him to lay the report before the House of Commons;

    (c) provision for the review of any prescribed decision of a charging authority relating to the application or operation of the regulations;

    (d) provision that no appeal may be made to a valuation and community charge tribunal in respect of such a decision, notwithstanding section 23(2) below.

    (7) To the extent that he would not have power to do so apart from this subsection, the Secretary of State may—

    (a) include in regulations under this section such amendments of any social security instrument as he thinks expedient in consequence of the regulations under this section;

    (b) include in any social security instrument such provision as he thinks expedient in consequence of regulations under this section.

    (8) In subsection (7) above "social security instrument" means an order or regulations made, or falling to be made, by the Secretary of State under the Social Security Act 1986."
    "2D. In section 16 (joint and several liability: spouses) in subsection (l)(b) for "(read with section 13 above, where it is appropriate)" there shall be substituted "(or that section read with section 13 or 13A above, or both)"."
    Read a Second time.
    Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (f), in line 66, at end insert—
    13B—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations which—

    (a) quantify the aggregate amount of reduced liabilities calculated under a proposed scheme of reduced liability on an individual basis under Section 13A above.

    (b) amend any regulations made under Section 135 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to distribute the amount calculated under (a) above by way of increased community charge benefit.

    (2) Before deciding whether to make regulations under this section or under Section 13A above the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies representing local government, families with children and old age pensioners as appear to him to be concerned,'.—[Mr. Blunkett]
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 278.

    Division No. 369]

    [11.18 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Boyes, Roland

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Bradley, Keith

    Allen, Graham

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Alton, David

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Ashton, Joe

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Buchan, Norman

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Buckley, George J.

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Caborn, Richard

    Battle, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    Beckett, Margaret

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Beith, A. J.

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

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

    Canavan, Dennis

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cartwright, John

    Blair, Tony

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Blunkett, David

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Boateng, Paul

    Clay, Bob

    795

    Clelland, David

    Livingstone, Ken

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Cohen, Harry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Coleman, Donald

    McAllion, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    McCartney, Ian

    Corbett, Robin

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    McFall, John

    Cousins, Jim

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Crowther, Stan

    McLeish, Henry

    Cryer, Bob

    McNamara, Kevin

    Cummings, John

    McWilliam, John

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Madden, Max

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Dalyell, Tam

    Marek, Dr John

    Darling, Alistair

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

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

    Martlew, Eric

    Dixon, Don

    Maxton, John

    Dobson, Frank

    Meacher, Michael

    Doran, Frank

    Meale, Alan

    Douglas, Dick

    Michael, Alun

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Eadie, Alexander

    Morley, Elliot

    Eastham, Ken

    Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Mullin, Chris

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Murphy, Paul

    Fatchett, Derek

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Faulds, Andrew

    O'Brien, William

    Fearn, Ronald

    O'Neill, Martin

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

    Parry, Robert

    Fisher, Mark

    Patchett, Terry

    Flannery, Martin

    Pendry, Tom

    Flynn, Paul

    Pike, Peter L.

    Foster, Derek

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Fraser, John

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Fyfe, Maria

    Radice, Giles

    Galloway, George

    Randall, Stuart

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Redmond, Martin

    George, Bruce

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Reid, Dr John

    Gordon, Mildred

    Richardson, Jo

    Gould, Bryan

    Robertson, George

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hardy, Peter

    Ruddock, Joan

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Sheerman, Barry

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Short, Clare

    Henderson, Doug

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hinchliffe, David

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Smith, J. P.(Vale of Glam)

    Hogg, N.(C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Snape, Peter

    Home Robertson, John

    Soley, Clive

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Howells, Geraint

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Stott, Roger

    Hoyle, Doug

    Straw, Jack

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Illsley, Eric

    Turner, Dennis

    Ingram, Adam

    Vaz, Keith

    Janner, Greville

    Wall, Pat

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Wallace, James

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Warded, Gareth (Gower)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Lambie, David

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Lamond, James

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)

    Leighton, Ron

    Wilson, Brian

    Lewis, Terry

    Winnick, David

    Litherland, Robert

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    796

    Worthington, Tony

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Alexander, Richard

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Amess, David

    Forman, Nigel

    Amos, Alan

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Franks, Cecil

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Freeman, Roger

    Ashby, David

    French, Douglas

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Gale, Roger

    Atkins, Robert

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

    Gill, Christopher

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Baldry, Tony

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Batiste, Spencer

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gorst, John

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gow, Ian

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gregory, Conal

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Boswell, Tim

    Grist, Ian

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Ground, Patrick

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Grylls, Michael

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bowis, John

    Hague, William

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Brazier, Julian

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hannam, John

    Buck, Sir Antony

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

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Harris, David

    Burns, Simon

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Burt, Alistair

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Butcher, John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Butler, Chris

    Hayward, Robert

    Butterfill, John

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Heddle, John

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Cash, William

    Hill, James

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hind, Kenneth

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Holt, Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Churchill, Mr

    Howard, Michael

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

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

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

    Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Conway, Derek

    Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Couchman, James

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cran, James

    Irvine, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Irving, Charles

    Day, Stephen

    Jack, Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Janman, Tim

    Dicks, Terry

    Jessel, Toby

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Dover, Den

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Dunn, Bob

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Eggar, Tim

    Key, Robert

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Kilfedder, James

    Evennett, David

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Fallon, Michael

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Favell, Tony

    Knapman, Roger

    797

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Knox, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Paice, James

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Patnick, Irvine

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Lightbown, David

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Lilley, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Lord, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Portillo, Michael

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Powell, William (Corby)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Price, Sir David

    Maclean, David

    Rathbone, Tim

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Redwood, John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Renton, Tim

    Mans, Keith

    Riddick, Graham

    Marland, Paul

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Marlow, Tony

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Rost, Peter

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Rowe, Andrew

    Mills, lain

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Ryder, Richard

    Moate, Roger

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Moss, Malcolm

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Mudd, David

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Neale, Gerrard

    Shelton, Sir William

    Nelson, Anthony

    Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Shersby, Michael

    Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)

    Sims, Roger

    Tracey, Richard

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Tredinnick, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Trotter, Neville

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Speller, Tony

    Viggers, Peter

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Walden, George

    Squire, Robin

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Waller, Gary

    Steen, Anthony

    Ward, John

    Stern, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Warren, Kenneth

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Watts, John

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Wheeler, John

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Whitney, Ray

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Summerson, Hugo

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wilkinson, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Yeo, Tim

    Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Thorne, Neil

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thumham, Peter

    Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mr. Tony Durant.

    "Schedule 11 (tribunals) shall be amended as follows.

    (2) In paragraph 2 (jurisdiction) the following paragraph shall be inserted at the end—

    "(c) paragraph 5 of Schedule 4A above,"

    (3) In"

    Read a Second time.
    Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 5, leave out '5' and insert—[Mr. Chris Patten.]
    Lords amendment No. 400, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 401 to 424 agreed to.

  Clause 34

    GUIDANCE AND CONSULTATION ABOUT PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
    Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 40, line 46, after "available" insert—

    "(i) to such bodies as are representative of commercial or industrial undertakings in their area;

    (ii)"

    11.30 pm
    Mr. David Hunt: 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. 14 to 19, 309 and 310.
    Mr. Hunt: These amendments bring us to part III of the Bill, which is concerned primarily with providing a new economic development power for local authorities and tidying up the scope of their existing discretionary spending power under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.
    Question accordingly negatived.
    Lords amendments Nos. 330 to 399 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]
    Lords amendment: No.400, in page 173, line 35, leave out "In Schedule 11, in" and insert—
    Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 relate to the consultation required for local authorities which wish to undertake economic development under the new power. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce argued that where there was a chamber of Commerce, it should be consulted. The amendment will ensure that it is the local authority's duty to do so. It will, of course, remain a matter for the local authority's discretion what other persons or organisations should also be consulted.
    Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 provide a power by which the Secretary of State will be able to set out in regulations how the relevant population for section 137 is to be calculated.
    Amendment No. 18 will raise from £500 to £2,000 the level of grant provided under section 137 below which a local authority is not required to insist on a report from a voluntary organisation on how the grant was used. Spokesmen for voluntary organisations argued that that would be an appropriate figure, and we are happy to accept that advice.
    Amendment No. 19 introduces a new power for local authorities to fund advice agencies. We are glad to accept the suggestion of Baroness Strange, speaking in another place for a number of advice organisations, for an amendment to provide a new general power for local authorities to assist advice agencies. This is done by extending the provisions of section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972, which currently only provides for a power for local authorities to make or assist in the

    799
    making of arrangements for the provision of information. The fact that local citizens advice bureaux are no longer just providing information but are giving good advice to local people demonstrates how far they have gone with their expertise and experience.
    Mr. Paul Murphy: The Opposition generally welcome the amendments on economic development, especially in so far as they affect voluntary organisations and advice services. We are worried because all these changes can come into effect only if the Secretary of State does not use all the powers that are enshrined in the Bill. Clause 33 in particular gives the Secretary of State extremely wide powers under which he can cap economic development expenditure. The clause effectively says that areas with unemployment above the national average will be unable to use economic development power for financial assistance purposes. We believe that this obscures local pockets of unemployment.
    We hope that the Government will announce that the regulations will be used flexibly in future years and will be subject to the widest possible consultations with local authorities and the private sector. This is especially the case on amendments Nos. 13 and 14 where local commercial interests are to be consulted. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments.
    Mr. David Mudd: Although the Bill has gone a long way towards improving answerability to ratepayers about discretionary spending, it still does not seem to cover a worrying anomaly. The Government, in their response to the Widdicombe report, reaffirmed their faith in the local ombudsman system of answerability and referred in paragraph 6.20 to
    "exploiting the strengths of the current arrangements rather than making fundamental changes which may weaken the system as a whole."
    However, one of the weaknesses of the present system is that it can sometimes, by denying ratepayers a chance to argue their complaints, equally deny a local authority the opportunity to clear itself against allegations. In December 1984 and January 1985, Carrick district council passed a minute—No. 1218℄which agreed:
    "as a matter of principle the Council support an officer's legal costs in any libellous or slandrous actions taken; and that the chief excecutive. in consultation with the chairman and vice-chairman of the council, he authorised to approve such actions where the actions arose from the pursuance of an officer of his official duties".
    Between this controversial minute being passed by the committee in December 1984 and the whole council in January 1985, the words
    "the council support an officer's legal costs"
    were strengthened to
    "the council finance an officer's legal costs".
    In effect, a council official could merrily proceed with litigation in the knowledge that the ratepayers would have to foot the bill. This possibility led to the unusually high number of cases which were subsequently initiated and which, the then district auditor noted, clearly gave "cause for concern".
    Despite repeated submissions from the ratepayers about the legality of minute 1218, the council maintained its faith in it for four and a half years. I do not know how many times it was triggered, although I am advised that when one Cornish newspaper published a reader's letter which was mildly critical of Carrick district council, both
    800
    the newspaper and the letter writer received letters from the council's legal department suggesting that correspondence should now cease.
    In July 1987, a group of ratepayers approached me to complain about certain alleged financial and other irregularities involving the council. I was then asked to request my right hon. Friends the then Home Secretary and the then Secretary of State for the Environment to investigate, as the complainants feared that proceedings would be initiated against them under minute 1218 if they persevered with their complaints by using usual channels.
    I established that Devon and Cornwall constabulary was already investigating these matters and that since the creation of the local ombudsman service in 1974 the Secretary of State for the Environment seemingly no longer had powers of independent investigation.
    In 1987, the complainants, believing that they could present prima facie evidence of malpractice, found themselves in an impotent, nightmarish and frustrating Catch 22 of monumental proportions. There was no way in which they could go public through Ministers or the media due to the existence of minute 1218. As manifestations of alleged maladministration affected all, as opposed to a few, of Carrick's ratepayers, the local ombudsman could not act. As the allegations of financial malpractice were being investigated and processed by the police, they in turn had become sub judice.
    At Truro Crown court in April 1989, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence when a district council official appeared charged with financial offences. It was not until July 1989—four and a half years after accepting minute 1218—that Carrick district council sought and accepted the opinion of leading counsel that the minute was ultra vires and should not be invoked further.
    It was estimated that this exercise had cost the ratepayers £2,437. However, it is suspected that that item of discretionary spending may refer only to specific legal advice to officers as opposed to the internal administration charges of the council at various stages of pre-litigation.
    As it was clearly a matter of discretionary spending, the complainants tried to persuade the Audit Commission to re-examine Carrick's books for the disputed years. But the commission then declined to reopen accounts after an audit had been completed.
    The so-called strengths of the current system for investigation and remedy, so warmly supported in the Government's response to Widdicombe, are of dubious value when we consider this experience of ratepayers challenging discretionary expenditure. An ultra vires minute kept a council's officers and a critical public on an unequal basis for four and a half years. Members of the public were thus prevented from defending themselves against attack from the council chamber by or on behalf of council officers.
    The existence of the minute inhibited certain persons from making statements to the police. The district auditor was unwilling to investigate because of the passage of time since the completion of the most recent financial year. The local ombudsman would not investigate because all, rather than individual, ratepayers were potential sufferers from this action. When matters had dragged on for several years, the Audit Commission found itself unable or unwilling to reinvestigate.
    I am aware that an ability to challenge such discretionary expenditure exists under section 22(2) of the

    801
    Local Government Finance Act 1982, under which the Secretary of State may require an extraordinary audit. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will, on this occasion, exceptionally agree to receive and consider a submission from the complainants. In the meantime, under the existing tried, trusted and strong local government ombudsman system, vilification—rather than vindication —will continue to sour the air of Carrick. The complainants will go unheard and, above all, the council will be denied the clearance from the outstanding accusations that it believes it deserves.
    11.45 pm
    Mr. David Hunt: I have always been immensely impressed by the diligence and vigour with which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) has represented his constituents' views. I have listened carefully to what he has said, and I am aware that he has raised a number of serious issues. As he has already said, the question whether expenditure is lawfully incurred is a matter for the Audit Commission, and it is not for me to intervene in the commission's decisions. The case that my hon. Friend has cited shows that electors who are concerned about any item of local authority expenditure should act promptly.
    I ought to preface my remarks by saying that I am certain that most local authorities are scrupulous about the propriety and legality of their expenditure. Where illegality is suspected, there is a perfectly adequate regulatory system. Electors can draw to the local authority auditor's attention any item of expenditure which, in their opinion, has been incurred unlawfully by their council. The auditor can choose to look at any such item brought to his attention and can rule it to be unlawful expenditure under part II of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. If the expenditure is unlawful, the auditor can seek a declaration from the court to that effect and the court may surcharge the expenditure on those who authorised it.
    My hon. Friend has raised matters that go back some considerable time. I therefore propose to ask the Audit Commission to let me have a report on the case and if my hon. Friend will agree to it I shall come back to him when I have made further inquiries.
    The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) asked about the capping reserve power. Clause 33 permits the capping of economic development, but we have made it clear that the power to cap such expenditure is very much a reserve power. We have made it absolutely clear that at present there are no cases in which we would regard it as reasonable to use the power. On the question of flexibility, I remind the House that we have issued a consultation paper. We have received many comments and we are now studying them. We have every intention of using the powers conferred in the Bill flexibly within the overall aim of ensuring that resources are concentrated on the areas that most need assistance. I hope that that reassures Opposition Members.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 19 agreed to, one with Special Entry.
    Lords amendments Nos. 309 and 310 agreed to.

  Clause 64

    APPLICATION OF, AND ORDERS UNDER, PART V
    Lords amendment: No. 81, in page 70, leave out lines 43 to 45.
    Mr. David Hunt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 111.
    Mr. Hunt: These amendments were agreed with the Opposition in another place to improve part V of the Bill which deals with the interests of local authorities in companies. It is our intention to introduce an order setting out the rules for those local authority companies. We have invited responses to the consultation by early December and it is our intention to draft the regulation as soon as possible thereafter.
    Mr. O'Brien: As the Minister explained, part V of the Bill deals with companies in which local authorities have an interest. In Committee and in the other place questions were put to Ministers about issues that are not on the face of the Bill. Part V has consequences for the operations of local authorities which are encouraged by the Government to enter into company organisations for economic development, trusts, charitable trusts, housing associations and for recreation and leisure. Many companies are formed through the co-operation of local authorities and private organisations. Part V raises questions which must be answered.
    We are worried about the influence of the Secretary of State on part V through regulations. In this House and in the other place the Government did not bring forward any substantial evidence of abuse by local authorities and the companies with which they are involved.
    According to part V, companies that fall within the control or influence of a local authority will count against a local authority's capital allocations and thereby raise substantial obstacles to working with the private sector to promote economic regeneration and to conserve local employment. We would like to see part V withdrawn.
    We have noted that the Minister referred to the fact that some agreement has been reached, so I hope that he will be able to respond to some points that I want to make now. In Committee I referred to a company that might be formed in west Yorkshire in relation to the mining museum established by the local authorities in Wakefield, Kirklees and the former South Yorkshire county council and the West Yorkshire county council. We asked how the Bill would affect the company that has been formed to run that mining museum, and the Minister replied:
    "Our officials at the Department of the Environment are ready, willing and waiting to give advice on the structure of the trust. At present I do not know what it is. That is nobody's fault. Perhaps the hon. Member for Normanton will ask the secretary of the trust to outline it in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or to me, and we shall do whatever we can to help. We are also prepared to meet representatives of the trust."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 April 1989; c. 767.]
    The representations were made and we were advised that the trust should move from being an involved company to an arms-length company—or one that would not include local authorities to the extent that it had previously.
    In the House of Lords, Lord Hesketh was asked about the difference between a controlled company and an

    803
    influenced company. Officers of the Department advised the trust to which I referred to move from being a controlled company to being an influenced company. What are the benefits of that change?
    In the House of Lords, the Minister was asked:
    "Can the Minister give more information about the difference between a controlled company and an influenced company? The exact difference is not made clear in the Bill. I particularly have in mind the Yorkshire mining museum which at present is a controlled company but has already been advised by the Minister in another place that it might be advisable to consider restructuring. But would restructuring mean for such a company that the restrictions and controls imposed upon it would relate only to the borrowing controls? Would all other financial controls be removed from such an influenced company?
    Would an influenced company still be eligible for a share of local authority provisions through the European Community? Would such a company be able to continue to take advantage of the services of a local authority such as specialised legal, financial, administrative and personnel services?" —[Official Report. House of Lords, 24 July 1989; Vol. 501, c. 1256.]
    Those questions have been asked in this House and in the other place. Lord Hesketh promised that they would be answered in a consultative document which was issued last month. However, only one question was answered. Will the Minister now explain the real consequences of the change from a controlled company to an influenced company? It can affect many companies that are formed and influenced by local authorities. The answers to those questions will help local authorities to decide how to form their interest in certain companies.
    I should like to probe many other issues, but, in view of the lateness of the hour, if the Minister is prepared to answer my questions we will at least obtain some satisfaction.
    Mr. A.. J. Beith: I should like the Minister to consider the question of building preservation trusts—an issue which was fully and effectively raised by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu in another place. Building preservation trusts represent valuable self-help in the preservation of our architectural heritage. In my constituency, the Berwick preservation trust is one of the pioneering bodies in this matter. Most are known as revolving trusts, which carry out a project, sell the resultant improved building, and use the capital on another project, thereby ensuring that many historic buildings in historic towns are saved and that capital continues to be used for further restoration work. That is a million miles from the Government's various anxieties to which the Bill is directed. Leaving aside for a moment whether those anxieties are justified—I seriously doubt it —how will the Minister ensure that building preservation trusts' work is not impaired by provisions which were conceived without reference to their problems and which bore no relation to the world in which they operate?
    My greatest fear is about borrowing powers. Companies caught by the definition in part V of the Bill will be subject to the regulations in part IV affecting local authority borrowing. Many building preservation trusts have a close association with their local authorities, to which they look for practical help and often like to have a good representation of local authority people on them.
    The end result of the provisions could be that borrowing by a controlled or influenced preservation trust from any third party, including the architectural heritage fund, would count against the relevant control total for the
    804
    local authority. Therefore, the local authority will have to approve the building preservation trust's borrowing in advance and to have a degree of influence over it that the, authority would never have sought in the first place. If the provisions are still in that form, and if the Minister cannot give me some fresh assurances, he will end up with local authorities exercising more influence rather than less and doing so in a way that they would not have sought. In addition, the work of preservation trusts in attracting new funds and capital into the projects will he impaired.
    12 midnight
    I know that the Minister in another place, Lord Hesketh, gave assurances that the matter should be discussed. Indeed, a meeting was held in August between the Department of the Environment, English Heritage and the various other bodies involved but, as far as I am aware., we are not a lot further forward except that we know that the Minister may make some kind of exemption under the powers that have already been referred to. However, it would have been much more satisfactory to have a class exemption, exempting the whole category of building preservation trusts. Anything less than that, which still leaves the borrowing powers under some threat of involvement with local authority borrowing in general, is not satisfactory. I am sure that the Minister does not want to harm the work of building preservation trusts, and I wish that he would make it absolutely clear that he will disentangle them from the Bill.
    Mr. David Hunt: I reassure the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that I recognise the important work done by building preservation trusts. We have said that we shall exempt building preservation trusts that are registered with the architectural heritage fund from being influenced companies. I understand that the exemption has been accepted by English Heritage and the architectural heritage fund as removing any such problems for such companies. If the hon. Gentleman would like to raise any other points with me, perhaps he will get in touch with me after the debate.
    I can advise the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) that I have the consultation paper with me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed annex D, which sets out clearly the differences between influenced companies and controlled companies. There are eight points on influenced companies and five points on controlled companies operating at arms length, with a further four points on other controlled companies. If the hon. Gentleman will look at annex D, he will find that the provisions are set out simply. If he has any further queries, perhaps he will let me know. That would be better than my reading out the whole annex and putting it on the record.
    I understand that my Department's officials had a meeting with the trust about the West Yorkshire mining museum. We understand that the trust is content with the position as explained to it. The Department did not, of course, advise on any particular action because it is for the company to make up its own mind, but the consultation paper that we issued clearly sets out the trust's position. A copy has been sent to the West Yorkshire trust.
    I readily accept that these are technical matters. As the hour is late, I shall simply advise the hon. Member for Normanton that, if he would like to raise any further points, I should be glad to hear from him and perhaps we can deal with them at a later stage.
    Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble to introduce the consultation document. I appreciate its reference to interpretation. However, two points are not made clear in the document. One is the question of the availability of EEC funds for charitable trusts, and in particular for the West Yorkshire mining museum. Secondly, would such bodies still be able to use the expert knowledge of local authority officials, such as their legal, personnel and financing people, without breaching any of the provisions of the Bill?
    As the consultation document does not make those two points clear, I should be grateful if the Minister or his officials would take the time to consider them and to let me have their observations.
    Mr. Hunt: I believe that it is clearly set out, but I shall write in more detail to the hon. Gentleman.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 111 agreed to.

  Clause 37

    APPLICATION OF PART IV
    Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 44, line 32, at end insert—
    "(bb) a trust to which, by virtue of an order under section 69 below, the provisions of section 66 below are applicable; or"
    Mr. Hunt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 45, 46 and amendment (a) thereto, 47 to 80 and 311 to 317.
    Mr. Hunt: These are technical amendments. Part IV replaces a ramshackle collection of legislative provisions spread across 31 Acts of Parliament dating back to 1875.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Aha! The last Labour Government.
    Mr. Hunt: Part IV replaces the present capital control system which, in recent years, has served the interests of neither central nor local government.
    The regulation-making powers concerning the reserved part of capital receipts have been widened. We intend to use them to give exemptions, by regulations, in the new system for what are known as in-and-out schemes in the present system. We are consulting on our proposals. We have also announced proposed exemptions that will help local authorities to dispose of land for subsidised rented housing.
    We have taken a regulation-making power to allow local authorities that have set aside more than sufficient sums to repay all their debt to use the surplus for specified purposes. We intend to allow debt-free authorities generally to spend all their future receipts, with the exception of receipts from large-scale housing transfers or other housing sales that are not to sitting tenants. We hope to reach a decision on the treatment of such housing transfers shortly.
    I believe that the new system of capital finance will ensure a much fairer and more rational distribution of capital resources between local authorities.
    Mr. Murphy: I do not agree with the Minister's latter comments, but we welcome some of the changes that have been made in another place.
    806
    I shall concentrate on amendment (a) to the Lords amendment No. 46. The fact that my comments will be short and that we will not press the amendment to a Division does not indicate its significance. The amendment would reduce from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. the reserved part of capital receipts. As a result, local authorities would be able to spend the money that they were responsible for creating. They built the houses. They provided the initiative and the houses that are being sold. It is clear to any sensible person that receipts from sales of those houses should go back to the local authority areas. The amendment asks the Government, yet again, to consider reducing the amount of capital receipts that is reserved, so that half of the money can be put back into the local authority area which generated it.
    District councils in Wales recently highlighted the depressed level of provision for housing in Wales, which is at a very low £80 million net. We must also consider the problems of people who are waiting for houses. Some 70,000 people in Wales alone are waiting to be housed. Only this week it was announced that homelessness in the Principality has risen by some 20 per cent. The possibility of houses being built for the homeless, the disabled, single people and elderly people could be achieved at a stroke if these capital controls were altered.
    Local authority associations are pressing the Government to allow them to retain the additional spending power of receipts as a major incentive to themselves. I agree. They also draw attention to the bad effects of restricting the use of receipts.
    These arguments were well expressed in Committee, and they were highlighted again in the other place. This is the last time when we can tell the Government that the issue of capital receipts is by no means technical, but one that affects the lives of millions of people.
    The Government have said that if the amount of spending power from receipts increases, the amount available for distribution through credit approvals, on the basis of needs, decreases. Thus, high need, low capital receipt authorities will be disadvantaged if the reserved part provisions are relaxed. Ministers have been quick to point out that local authority associations that represent those high need, low resources authorities have not been vociferous in their opposition to the Government's proposals. That is not the case. Local authority associations in general think that the aggregate provision is inadequate to deal with today's housing problems.
    We believe that a reduction in the reserve part of housing capital receipts from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. would generate £900 million spending power in one year. I believe that the Government would change their mind as quickly as possible if they considered what that sum of money could do to alleviate our housing problems.
    The local government associations have voiced great concern about the timing of the introduction of the new capital control system in 1990–91. The Minister, and all hon. Members who have been involved with local government, would agree that one of the problems in the past has been the inability to plan for housing or any sort of capital provision over a number of years. Unless Parliament and Government give local authorities the opportunity to spend money in a planned programme, well in advance, nothing substantial will be achieved.
    The Government should reconsider such changes so that local authorities in Wales and England can plan their housing provision for years to come.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The sale of council houses and the way in which local authorities have been effectively conned by the Government is now becoming palpably clear even to the most myopic Conservative Members.
    The policy was effectively sold on the ground that the money that local authorities got in capital receipts from the sale of council housing could then be applied to the building of further council housing. There was a certain symmetry in that argument that appealed to Conservative Members and even to some Labour Members. We now realise that that is no longer the case. Gradually the amount of money that can be applied in any given year has been steadily reduced, but. until the most recent changes, at least it still meant that 100 per cent. of capital receipts over a period of time could be used for further capital investment in council housing stock. That is no longer the case and tonight is the final twist in Government policy. Conservative Members used the Government's argument about the sale of council housing to justify accepting it hook, line, and sinker. I hope that they now realise that they have been conned by their Government.
    A vigil is now being held outside No. 10 Downing street for homeless people in London. The plight of the homeless in London has now reached a crisis level that one could never have dreamt of in one's worst nightmares five years ago. The Government must realise that the situation in London is so dire that unless local authorities are allowed to go back to the full construction of council housing one trembles to think what London will be like in five years time.
    Surely the Government must realise that their sale of council housing policy, linked to a refusal to allow local authorities to use capital receipts for further construction, is a disaster. It was a twist and a con from the start; now it has turned into a tragedy for millions of people who are desperately anxious for improved accommodation.
    There are now hundreds of thousands of homeless in London and they will be pointing their fingers at the Government and blaming them for the housing crisis that now afflicts London and the nation.
    Mr. David Hunt: It is a question of getting the balance right. Part IV of the Bill is designed to redress the balance between spending from allocations and receipts to ensure not only that needs are met, but that those authorities that generate receipts get a reasonable benefit from doing so.
    The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) pointed out that my predecessors highlighted the fact that similar amendments in the past would have resulted in a cut of £900 million in credit approvals. That means that £900 million less would be targeted on the authorities that need to house the homeless. No doubt the answer would be simple to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—let local authorities spend the receipts, but do not cut the credit approvals. That may be the Labour party's response, but it is not the response of any party which aspires to responsible control of public expenditure, and it certainly will not be this Government's response.
    808
    We have heard a lot about local authorities being unable to spend their own resources on their own priorities. Let us be plain about what those resources are. They are the proceeds of assets which the local authority has sold, the original purchase of which was mainly financed by borrowing. The cost of that borrowing has been, and often still is, supported by the national tax payer through housing subsidy, Government grant and the like. Why should that continue once the asset has been sold? We are not taking the resources away, but simply saying that it is right that some of them should be used to repay the authority's debt.
    12.15 am
    It is not as if we are stopping local authorities using any of their receipts for new capital expenditure, because next year local authorities will be able to spend nearly £4 billion from their receipts. That is a huge sum in anybody's terms.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Minister realise that all his hon. Friends in the Association of District Councils which are Conservative controlled, as well as Lady Anson, who is a Conservative and chairs that organisation, think that he is totally wrong and that the Government should do what my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) suggests? Why does he say that all Conservative-controlled ADCs have got it so badly wrong and he is the only person to have it right?
    Mr. Hunt: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, his analysis is badly wrong. I am saying that the Government believe that what we are proposing represents the right balance between targeting resources on needs and having a proper incentive and reward for generating receipts, which is why I urge the House to resist the Opposition amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 111, 20 to 80 and 311 to 317 agreed to, one with Special Entry.
    Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Sackville.]
    To be further considered this day.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents.)

    DISCHARGE OF DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES TO WATER
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8337/88 and the Supplementary Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 10th July 1989 relating to the control of discharges of dangerous substances to water, and supports the Government's efforts to secure the future selection of substances for priority action according to clear, scientific criteria.℄[Mr. Sackville.]
    Question agreed to.

    Health Care, Hackney
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville]
    11.18 pm
    Ms. Diane Abbott: I wish to address the problems of the Health Service, specifically those in Hackney. The crisis faced by the Health Service is multi-dimensional. I do not intend to deal with every aspect, but I cannot let time pass without referring to the imminent and horrifying possibility, for those interested in patient care, of the Army being used as strike-breakers in an ambulance workers' dispute in which the ambulance workers have at no time threatened emergency care or services.
    I wish to deal with three aspects of health care in Hackney: first, the cuts in the level of provision; secondly, the horror of free market principles being applied to the Health Service; and, thirdly, the future of St. Bartholemew's hospital. We hear a lot from the Government about their notion of themselves as the custodians of our Health Service. We have heard the Prime Minister say that the Health Service is safe in the Government's hands. We in Hackney are not aware of this. All that we have seen in the past is a series of savage cuts in the level of provision.
    In the past few years in my part of London we have seen not one, but six, hospitals close down. We have lost the Mothers' hospital, most of the provision on the site of the Hackney hospital, the German hospital, St. Leonard's hospital and the Metropolitan hospital.
    When the Mothers', Hackney and the German hospitals were closed, we were promised compensatory provisions at the new Homerton hospital. The promise of a new hospital dates back to 1976, and, although phase 1 was built, phase 2 has been delayed for almost a decade. The consequence is that a small group of some of the most pathetic patients—the elderly, the mentally ill and the psychogeriatric patients—remain in what is left of the site of the old Hackney hospital.
    I challenge the Minister to visit that site, which is now almost wholly evacuated. It is like a ghost hospital. The buildings are more than 100 years old and they are a fire risk, yet it is there that some of the most pathetic and deprived clients of the Health Service are forced to live out their days. The conditions have been described by consultants as both unpleasant and inappropriate. Despite the superhuman efforts and dedication of the staff, many of my constituents—vulnerable, elderly and psychiatrically ill patients—are being forced to linger on in a derelict, virtually slum environment.
    It appears that phase 2 of the Homerton hospital, which would save those psychiatrically ill patients from such conditions, may be postponed indefinitely. That shows a shocking lack of good faith by the health authority. Therefore, I have raised this matter this evening for one main reason—to urge a swift commitment from the appropriate authorities to end the years of delay and forthwith to set in train the building of phase 2. Hundreds and hundreds of pathetically ill, elderly and psychiatric patients are waiting for an answer to the problem.
    There have been cuts in provision and the closure of local hospitals without any compensatory new facilities. Further cuts in provision have occurred because the health authorities are very short of money, through no fault of
    810
    their own, because of the consequences of inflation, under-funded wage settlements, increasingly complex cases and the increasing price of drugs.
    As a consequence of that under-funding and the shortage of money, the City and Hackney are suffering a series of bed closures. St. Bartholomew's hospital has a capacity for 850 beds, but it is funded for only 600 and currently it is virtually half empty. It is a flagship hospital —the oldest hospital in London—that has marvellous, purpose-built wards for cancer, geriatric and psychiatric patients, but they are mothballed and empty. If that is the operation of the free market, it is the economics of the madhouse. Week in and week out I receive letters from my constituents who for years wait in pain for surgery while Bart's is half empty because of the Government's refusal to make the funds available to enable the hospital to utilise all its beds.
    During the past few weeks there has been an announcement that, because of chronic under-funding, 75 beds at Bart's are to be closed, 100 agency nurses are to go, cleaning and catering jobs are to be cut, and offices are to be cleaned only once a fortnight. General practitioners are complaining locally that it is far more difficult now to get acutely ill patients into hospital. Patients arrive and have to wait six hours for a bed. Bart's however, has been forced to stop using 75 beds.
    How can the Government say that the Health Service is safe in their hands? Bart's is famed for its health care throughout the world. It is full of doctors, student doctors, nurses and ancillary workers who wish only to serve the public, and there is the poor community of Hackney with its pressing needs. I repeat the question: how can the Government say that the Health Service is safe in their hands? As a result of their failure to make the correct level of funding available, Bart's is having to close beds and mothball wards. The part of east London which I represent has had to face real cuts in provision.
    A new and grotesque concept that the caring Clarke, the Secretary of State for Health, has presented to the Health Service is called acute sector productivity. What does that term mean? It is one of many euphemisms that have been presented to us over the years for cuts in provision. This so-called productivity means more patients using the same number of beds with the same number of staff, or fewer staff. Patient throughput might make sense in terms of a production line in industry, but when it is applied to health care it is grotesque and leads to real suffering.
    One of my constituents, Mrs. Mann, lives on the Woodberry Down estate. She is 88 years of age and registered as blind. She has been treated for Parkinson's disease. She has high blood pressure and a heart condition. In June, she was admitted to the Whittington hospital. After a stay of about one month she was discharged because her bed was needed. Within 24 hours of discharge she was found collapsed on the floor of her flat. She was taken to the Homerton hospital the same evening but sent home again because no bed was available. In the end, because of the direct intervention of her GP, she was readmitted to the Whittington hospital, but only for three days. Once more, she was discharged. All that happened in the name of increased throughput. On Friday 8 September, when she was discharged, she found herself sitting in a chair day and night because she was unable to

    811
    get herself in and out of bed. Eventually her home help became so concerned that she called the GP, who diagnosed a chest infection and hypothermia.
    Ministers seem not to understand that increased patient throughput leads inevitably to an increased level of readmission. That is the result of patients being sent home far too early. In Hackney, there is poor housing and social services are overstretched. There is insufficient support for those who were hospital patients. A consultant at Bart's has said:
    "Consultants are already cutting corners in order to get patients out of hospital, in many cases before they are ready to cope in their home circumstances."
    What sort of political and managerial philosophy lies behind the treatment of my constituent, Mrs. Mann? I believe that it stems from a balance sheet. It is based on figures and ignores patient care and the social and economic realities that face many of those who are dependent on the Health Service. It seems to me that the philosophy of the so-called "caring Mr. Clarke" will downgrade the traditional, solicitous in-patient care to the status of a hokey-cokey hospital service—in, out, in, out, shake them all about.
    The notion that money can be saved in the Health Service by increasing throughput—particularly when applied to hospitals serving the kind of deprived constituency that I represent℄although it may lead to increased patient throughput in the short term, will lead to increased patient misery in the medium term, along with a decrease in service and care, and a decline in the high standards that we have come to expect from our Health Service.
    I want to talk about the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital, because it is a subject of great concern to the people of Hackney. They look to Bart's as the major teaching hospital with Hackney in its catchment area. Bart's is the oldest hospital in London: it was founded in 1123, and founded with a mission—I quote from the original draft℄to
    "minister to the necessities of the poor gathered together in that place"
    and to be a house for
    "the care of the sick poor".
    What will the proposal for Bart's, the Homerton and the other hospital in the district to opt out as a self-governing trust mean to the necessities of the poor, and the care of the sick poor? I believe—and the people of Hackney believe—that it will inevitably mean that the needs and demands of the working class people in the vicinity of Bart's will be neglected in the drive for profit and profitable specialties.
    We hear of plans involving sponsorship from Marks and Spencer and, for the first time, private wards at Bart's. That is an extraordinary falling-off from the original idealism of more than 800 years ago, and I suspect that St. Bartholomew is turning in his grave as our thoroughly modern Ministers, with their free-market slide rules, slowly demean a still great hospital to the production-line numbers game of a battery-hen factory.
    The plan for Bart's—to open it up to private medicine so that it can minister to the yuppies of the City—can, I believe, be achieved only at the expense of health care for the immediate community. If that is not the case—if Ministers are convinced that for such a hospital to opt out will mean no dropping-off in service, and possibly even an improvement—I challenge them to allow the local community to have a say in whether their local teaching
    812
    hospital should be allowed to opt out. I suspect that they will not be allowed it, for at no point in the documentation issued on the matter are local people or patients given any say in whether their hospitals opt out.
    The future of Bart's, that great old teaching hospital —that great old centre of learning, teaching and care, in the words of its founders, "for the sick poor"—is, I feel, a paradigm for the future of the Health Service. The market is to be all; the local community and patients are not to be allowed a say. It will all be reduced to the managerial philosophy of the accountant, of the balance sheet, of making the figures match.
    We know from talking to consultants, doctors, nurses and ancillary workers at Bart's that, although the majority have been prepared to declare an interest in the proposal, that majority also feel that they have no option. If they had a free choice, they undoubtedly would not choose to opt out.
    Inner London, particularly my district of Hackney in east London, will face a Health Service crisis at Christmas. If we have a severe winter and a rise in the number of people using the accident and emergency unit, the number of bed closures will mean that we shall be unable to cope. Due to the Government's and balance sheet manipulation, due to their failure to fulfil promises about new build in the district, and, above all, due to their mindless espousal of market forces as opposed to the humanitarian and caring impulses of the founders of hospitals such as Bart's, the people of Hackney are facing a health care crisis as never before.
    I challenge the Minister to dispute that fact. I challenge him to say that he will make money available so that Bart's can fill its beds instead of being obliged to have closed wards. I challenge him to say that he will make money available so that Bart's will be able to make good the 100 or so agency nurses that it has had to get rid of. Above all, I challenge the Minister to say that the Government will make a reality of their boast about the National Health Service and that they will face up to the real meaning of market place ethics when they are applied to health care.
    I challenge the Government to commit themselves to making available money for the building of phase 2 of the Homerton hospital. Finally, I challenge them to admit here what the founders of Bart's knew 800 years ago: that when it comes to the care of the sick, when it comes to the needs of the sick poor, when it comes to
    "waiting upon the sick with diligence"
    the ethics and thinking of the market place have no real place. Even at this late hour and at this late stage, I challenge the Government to reconsider their far-reaching proposals for the Health Service, to think about the damage that they are wreaking, and to reflect upon the health care crisis that is facing the inner cities.
    12.37 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I share the great concern of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) for the wellbeing of the citizens who live in the catchment area of the district health authority. I part company, however, with her analysis of the district health authority's problems and her prescriptions for the future. I do not share her view that it is an and exercise to consider resource implications. Governments of whatever political persuasion have to consider the proper allocation of

    813
    resources so as to ensure that the money allocated to district health authorities is used in the most efficient way possible.
    The hon. Lady knows that by professional background and training I am an accountant. I do not believe that the application of sound financial management and practice is inhumanitarian. The reverse is the case. The most humanitarian way to run the National Health Service is always to be concerned about using scarce resources in the most efficient way. She knows that in 1989–90 the City and Hackney district health authority has been allocated just over £100 million. She also knows that there have been no cuts in that district. Gross revenue expenditure by the City and Hackney district health authority rose from some £70 million in 1982–83 to just over £100 million in the current financial year. That represents a very significant increase in cash terms and in real terms. I find the hon. Lady's reference to cuts in the district difficult to comprehend.
    Ms. Abbott: Is it not the case that Bart's has recently had to close 75 beds?
    Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Lady will permit me, I shall be happy to deal with that in the eight minutes left of this Adjournment debate.
    Before I do so, I should like to tell the hon. Lady that I visited Hackney earlier this year to look at the community psychiatric services. I know that the hon. Lady will join me in congratulating the district health authority on its organisation of those excellent services. I visited the community psychiatric research unit which is based at the hospital. The unit was funded originally through the generosity of David Sainsbury and is now funded by the district health authority. I met the directors, Dr. Turner and Mr. Adrian Lovet, and I visited two people who were living in their own flats with support from the district health authority, having left psychiatric care at the hospital. I also visited two group homes, one at Clapton common which is run by the local mental health association and one in E8 run by a local voluntary organisation called Vanguard Housing. I was very impressed by what I saw. I have reached the conclusion that community psychiatric care is working in Hackney and I congratulate all those involved.
    The hon. Lady referred to patient throughput. I remind the House that the discharge of patients from hospital is a matter of clinical responsibility. Doctors, not hospital administrators, take decisions about when people are discharged. The national trend in Britain, together with many other western European countries, is that the average stay in hospital is getting shorter. That is to be welcomed. Patients generally prefer to leave hospital as quickly as possible after they have been medically treated. I am advised that in the City and Hackney district health authority, day surgery increased by 22 per cent. between 1982 and 1986. That is excellent.
    The Labour party's common belief that the quantity, though not necessarily the quality, of health care in the National Health Service can be measured by the number of beds available is misleading. What counts is not the number of beds but the number of patients treated. Patient throughput in the City and Hackney area has gone up, and that is the best measure of health care.
    814
    The hon. Lady might be interested in the 1987–88 Kôrner Health Service indicators for the City and Hackney. I hope that she has studied them, but if she has not had the chance to do so I should be happy to send her the statistics. The document states:
    "Throughput values ranged from the high values for Ophthalmology and Gynaecology to the low values for Trauma and Orthopaedics and General Surgery/Urology. Lengths of stay for patients over 65 years were high or very high for all specialties except Ophthalmology. For patients age 16–64 years they were mostly mid range except for very high value for General Surgery/Urology. They were also very high for Paediatrics. Day case rates were mainly mid range except for the high values for Ophthalmology and Gynaecology."
    Therefore, patient throughput needs to be examined by specialty.
    The hon. Lady asked me to comment on the situation at Bart's and I am happy to do so. Three wards have been closed temporarily. The hon. Lady knows that two have been closed for operational reasons of maintenance and fire safety and one has been closed for financial reasons. The hon. Lady mentioned the financial difficulties not only for Bart's, but for the entire health district. North East Thames regional health authority recognises the position of the City and Hackney and is in discussion with the district about what can be done to ameliorate the present situation.
    One of the main causes of the potential overspend in City and Hackney health authority is due to the increased numbers of cases being referred to St. Bartholomew's hospital from outside the district requiring complex and intensive nursing care. As a result, the authority has had to use additional agency nurses and ask nurses to work increased overtime.
    The hon. Lady will know, if she has studied the White Paper "Working for Patients", that that document carries an excellent message of hope for Bart's, a major teaching hospital, and I trust that she will join me in hoping that legislation, if presented, will receive a swift passage, since it will bring hope to her constituents and represents an excellent message for the medical staff at St. Bartholomew's.
    That will be the position because money will follow the patient. The hon. Lady will know that only about 30 per cent. of patients treated at Bart's live in the district. About 70 per cent. come from outwith the district. Thus, our proposal that money should follow the patient will mean that, through the mechanism of contracts, resources will flow from surrounding districts to Bart's in those specialties in which, as the hon. Lady rightly said, Bart's has an outstanding reputation.
    We shall end the efficiency trap by which consultants and doctors who work hard eat up the fixed resources in their budgets more quickly and then, halfway or two thirds of the way through the year, find themselves having exhausted their budgets and having to curtail their activities. We do not want that to happen in future. We want greater flexibility in the funding of the NHS, and the Government's White Paper, presented earlier this year, foreshadowing legislation, will be of great assistance, not only to the hon. Lady's constituents but to the NHS in general.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bostik
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received representations concerning the proposed sale by Black and Decker of Bostik of Leicester to Orkem.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am not aware of having received any such representations.

  Computer Codes
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to construct satisfactory criteria to be met by all computer codes which may be used as part of the decision-making processes involving public safety.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government are particularly concerned to ensure that safety-related systems are constructed to satisfactory standards; the identification and apportionment of risk attributable to software within systems is part of this process. They are actively taking steps to encourage the development of suitable standards and guidelines, at both national and international levels, to be met by all systems incorporating software on which public safety may in some way depend. The work is motivated not by a recognition of particular present dangers; rather by a desire to anticipate and forestall hazards which may arise with the very rapid pace of technical change.

  Activity is being co-ordinated by a working group of the Interdepartmental Committee on Software Engineering (ICSE) on which all interested Government Departments are represented.

  The working group, drawing on expertise from outside Government, is currently devising a strategy which includes the development of a requirement for harmonised standards applicable to the civil and defence sectors. The strategy will also embrace research and development, education and training, and the encouragement of technology transfer to equip software producers for the high quality of work to be demanded. The ICSE work on safety-related software is a particular aspect of the efforts of the Department of Trade and Industry to encourage

  Number of inward investment decisions

  Regional breakdown

  Scotland

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1979

  28 (15·3)

  2,757 (19·3)

  n/a

  2,757 (19·3)

  15·8

  1980

  31 (20·0)

  4,474 (24·0)

  n/a

  4,474 (24·0)

  18·8

  1981

  28 (21·0)

  5,756 (35·1)

  n/a

  5,756 (35·1)

  22·1

  1982

  28 (21·0)

  2,258 (21·4)

  n/a

  2,258 (21·4)

  13·6

  400
  higher quality software in general through the promotion of best practice, support for standards-making, and the establishment of certification schemes where appropriate.

  A number of studies have recently been carried out, for example, by the Health and Safety Executive, and jointly by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Computer Society (with financial support from the Department of Trade and Industry). The recommendations resulting from this work are being considered by ICSE in the development of its strategy. In particular, ICSE is working on a standards framework proposed by the Health and Safety Executive, which will take into account interim defence standards 00–55 (requirements for the procurement of safety critical software in defence equipment) and 00–56 (requirements for the analysis of safety critical hazards) as well as international standards currently being produced. The framework which eventually emerges from the ICSE work will, after normal consultation with United Kingdom industry, be presented to the International Electro Technical Commission, a body with a wide membership, whose responsibilities include the production of international standards for computer-based systems and the software used therein.

  "Single Market News"
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidelines are followed when allowing firms to advertise within his departmental publication "Single Market News".

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: Advertising is accepted on normal commercial terms and in accordance with the British code of advertising practice.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give a breakdown of inward investment in the United Kingdom, by standard English regions and for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for each of the years 1979–80 to 1988–89 inclusive showing(a) the total number of investments, (b) the number received as a percentage of the total in each year, (c) the total number of associated jobs both new and safeguarded, (d) the number of jobs as a percentage of the total in each year and (e) the total amount of Government financial assistance provided.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: The table sets out the number of inward investment decisions known to the invest in Britain bureau for the calendar years 1979–88, together with the value of regional selective assistance offers to foreign-owned companies in England, Scotland and Wales and the financial assistance offered in Northern Ireland to such companies. It is currently not possible to provide all the information requested on a financial year basis.
  401

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1983

  49 (20·8)

  5,135 (33·0)

  3,432 (22·5)

  8,567 (27·8)

  25·9

  1984

  74 (22·6)

  8,761 (32·3)

  1,463 (7·6)

  10,224 (22·0)

  45·8

  1985

  57 (15·2)

  4,971 (19·4)

  2,922 (15·6)

  7,893 (17·8)

  36·8

  1986

  36 (10·6)

  1,881 (11·6)

  607 (5·6)

  2,488 (9·2)

  12·7

  1987

  31 (10·2)

  3,704 (18·6)

  2,061 (12·1)

  5,765 (15·6)

  22·1

  1988

  58 (17·6)

  5,392 (20·3)

  1,978 (10·9)

  7,370 (16·5)

  24·8

  n/a = Not available.

  Notes:

  Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region. These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves. The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term.

  Figures for Government assistance in England, Scotland and Wales are for offers of Regional Selective Assistance accepted by foreign-owned companies in the years shown. (NB: by no means all inward investment projects receive RSA.) Comparable information on other forms of financial assistance is not available.

  Wales

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1979

  18 (9·8)

  854 (6·0)

  n/a

  854 (6·0)

  3·7

  1980

  16 (10·3)

  3,332 (17·9)

  n/a

  3,332 (47·9)

  4·5

  1981

  20 (15·0)

  1,986 (12·1)

  n/a

  1,986 (12·1)

  11·6

  1982

  17 (12·8)

  901 (8·6)

  n/a

  901 (8·6)

  13·5

  1983

  31 (13·1)

  2,116 (13·6)

  1,913 (12·5)

  4,029 (13·1)

  10·9

  1984

  42 (12·8)

  3,958 (14·6)

  5,015 (26·0)

  8,973 (19·3)

  29·8

  1985

  45 (12·0)

  2,416 (9·4)

  1,350 (7·2)

  3,766 (8·5)

  21·6

  1986

  49 (14·5)

  2,364 (14·5)

  2,232 (20·7)

  4,596 (17·0)

  14·6

  1987

  57 (18·8)

  3,954 (19·9)

  877 (5·6)

  4,831 (13·1)

  18·1

  1988

  55 (16·7)

  5,856 (22·1)

  2,085 (11·5)

  7,941 (17·8)

  14·9

  n/a = Not available.

  Notes:

  Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region. These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves. The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term.

  Figures for Government assistance in England, Scotland and Wales are for offers of Regional Selective Assistance accepted by foreign-owned companies in the years shown. (NB: by no means all inward investment projects receive RSA.) Comparable information on other forms of financial assistance is not available.

  Northern Ireland

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance1 (£ million)

  1979

  18 (9·8)

  2,794 (19·5)

  n/a

  2,794 (19·5)

  —

  1980

  20 (12·9)

  2,760 (14·8)

  n/a

  2,760 (14·8)

  —

  1981

  15 (11·3)

  2,429 (14·8)

  n/a

  2,429 (14·8)

  —

  1982

  6 (4·5)

  1,893 (18·0)

  n/a

  1,893 (18·0)

  —

  1983

  11 (4·7)

  548 (3·5)

  1,192 (7·8)

  1,740 (5·6)

  20·4

  1984

  27 (8·2)

  2,256 (8·3)

  2,876 (14·9)

  5,132 (11·1)

  42·1

  1985

  22 (5·9)

  771 (3·0)

  1,424 (7·6)

  2,195 (5·0)

  31·0

  1986

  18 (5·3)

  693 (4·3)

  1,722 (16·0)

  2,415 (8·9)

  27·1

  1987

  17 (5·6)

  946 (4·8)

  1,341 (7·9)

  2,287 (6·2)

  25·6

  1988

  22 (6·7)

  2,610 (9·8)

  916 (5·1)

  3,526 (7·9)

  57·5

  1 Figures for financial assistance in Northern Ireland are only available since the Industrial Development Board was established and are only available on a financial year basis.

  n/a = Not available.

  Notes:

  Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region. These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves. The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term.

  Figures for Government assistance in England, Scotland and Wales are for offers of Regional Selective Assistance accepted by foreign-owned companies in the years shown. (NB: by no means all inward investment projects receive RSA.) Comparable information on other forms of financial assistance is not available.

  North East

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1979

  21 (11·5)

  1,466 (10·2)

  n/a

  1,466 (10·2)

  7·1

  1980

  19 (12·3)

  2,923 (15·7)

  n/a

  2,923 (15·7)

  5·6

  1981

  14 (10·5)

  1,021 (6·2)

  n/a

  1,021 (6·2)

  8·5

  402 403

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1982

  15 (11·3)

  539 (5·1)

  n/a

  539 (5·1)

  4·1

  1983

  20 (8·5)

  1,066 (6·9)

  720 (4·7)

  1,786 (5·8)

  1·9

  1984

  29 (8·8)

  4,589 (16·9)

  230 (1·2)

  4,819 (10·4)

  42·8

  1985

  26 (6·9)

  1,987 (7·8)

  1,572 (8·4)

  3,559 (8·0)

  10·2

  1986

  30 (8·8)

  1,581 (9·7)

  1,158 (10·8)

  2,739 (10·1)

  6·9

  1987

  31 (10·2)

  3,491 (17·5)

  852 (5·0)

  4,343 (11·8)

  15·6

  1988

  22 (6·7)

  2,041 (7·7)

  31 (0·2)

  2,072 (4·6)

  17·1

  n/a = Not available.

  Notes:

  Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region. These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves. The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term.

  Figures for Government assistance in England, Scotland and Wales are for offers of Regional Selective Assistance accepted by foreign-owned companies in the years shown. (NB: by no means all inward investment projects receive RSA.) Comparable information on other forms of financial assistance is not available.

  North West

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1979

  9 (4·9)

  379 (2·6)

  n/a

  379 (2·6)

  7·5

  1980

  15 (9·7)

  913 (4·9)

  n/a

  913 (4·9)

  2·9

  1981

  12 (9·0)

  1,177 (7·2)

  n/a

  1,177 (7·2)

  5·9

  1982

  14 (10·5)

  1,291 (12·3)

  n/a

  1,291 (12·3)

  3·1

  1983

  22 (9·3)

  709 (4·6)

  1,114 (7·3)

  1,823 (5·9)

  1·9

  1984

  40 (12·2)

  1,135 (4·2)

  1,911 (9·9)

  3,046 (6·6)

  1·2

  1985

  28 (7·5)

  2,271 (8·9)

  1,378 (7·4)

  3,649 (8·2)

  10·1

  1986

  34 (10·0)

  1,400 (8·6)

  1,389 (12·9)

  2,789 (10·3)

  17·2

  1987

  22 (7·3)

  356 (1·8)

  1,946 (11·4)

  2,302 (6·2)

  16·1

  1988

  24 (7·3)

  1,604 (6·0)

  3,169 (17·5)

  4,773 (10·7)

  18·7

  n/a = Not available.

  Notes:

  Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region. These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves. The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term.

  Figures for Government assistance in England, Scotland and Wales are for offers of Regional Selective Assistance accepted by foreign-owned companies in the years shown. (NB: by no means all inward investment projects receive RSA.) Comparable information on other forms of financial assistance is not available.

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1979

  27 (14·8)

  1,176 (8·2)

  n/a

  1,176 (8·2)

  5·4

  1980

  17 (11·0)

  890 (4·8)

  n/a

  890 (4·8)

  1·6

  1981

  6 (4·5)

  167 (1·0)

  n/a

  167 (1·0)

  0·3

  1982

  7 (5·3)

  104 (0·9)

  n/a

  104 (1·0)

  1·9

  1983

  10 (4·2)

  345 (2·2)

  502 (3·3)

  847 (2·7)

  0·4

  1984

  7 (2·1)

  119 (0·4)

  860 (4·5)

  979 (2·1)

  1·1

  1985

  16 (4·3)

  2,263 (8·8)

  2,969 (15·9)

  5,232 (11·8)

  6·7

  1986

  11 (3·2)

  158 (0·9)

  57 (0·5)

  215 (0·7)

  7·9

  1987

  22 (7·3)

  938 (4·7)

  961 (5·7)

  1,899 (5·1)

  4·3

  1988

  14 (4·2)

  1,507 (5·7)

  250 (1·4)

  1,757 (3·9)

  2·4

  n/a = Not available.

  Notes:

  Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region. These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves. The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term.

  Figures for Government assistance in England, Scotland and Wales are for offers of Regional Selective Assistance accepted by foreign-owned companies in the years shown. (NB: by no means all inward investment projects receive RSA.) Comparable information on other forms of financial assistance is not available.

  West Midlands

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1979

  11 (6·0)

  864 (6·0)

  n/a

  864 (6·0)

  0·0

  1980

  3 (1·9)

  1,040 (5·6)

  n/a

  1,040 (5·6)

  0·0

  1981

  7 (5·3)

  425 (2·6)

  n/a

  425 (2·6)

  0·0

  1982

  1 (0·7)

  100 (0·9)

  n/a

  100 (0·9)

  0·0

  404 405

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1983

  13 (5·5)

  1,201 (7·7)

  3,179 (20·8)

  4,380 (14·2)

  0·0

  1984

  14 (4·3)

  1,531 (5·6)

  5,240 (27·2)

  6,771 (14·6)

  0·0

  1985

  63 (16·8)

  5,197 (20·3)

  1,375 (7·4)

  6,572 (14·8)

  2·7

  1986

  74 (21·8)

  4,393 (27·0)

  1,899 (17·7)

  6,292 (23·3)

  5·1

  1987

  50 (16·5)

  3,002 (15·1)

  1,952 (11·5)

  4,954 (13·4)

  18·1

  1988

  66 (20·0)

  3,656 (13·8)

  7,824 (43·2)

  11,480 (25·7)

  8·3

  n/a = Not available.

  Notes:

  Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region. These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves. The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term.

  Figures for Government assistance in England, Scotland and Wales are for offers of Regional Selective Assistance accepted by foreign-owned companies in the years shown. (NB: by no means all inward investment projects receive RSA.) Comparable information on other forms of financial assistance is not available.

  East Midlands

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1979

  15 (8·2)

  1,174 (8·2)

  n/a

  1,174 (8·2)

  0·2

  1980

  5 (3·2)

  276 (1·5)

  n/a

  276 (1·5)

  0·8

  1981

  8 (6·0)

  290 (1·8)

  n/a

  290 (1·8)

  0·5

  1982

  13 (9·8)

  848 (8·1)

  n/a

  848 (8·1)

  0·7

  1983

  12 (5·1)

  939 (6·0)

  80 (0·5)

  1,019 (3·3)

  3·6

  1984

  11 (3·4)

  658 (2·4)

  303 (1·6)

  961 (2·1)

  2·5

  1985

  19 (5·1)

  778 (3·0)

  0 0

  778 (1·8)

  1·9

  1986

  15 (4·4)

  557 (3·4)

  20 (0·1)

  577 (2·1)

  0·4

  1987

  11 (3·6)

  456 (2·3)

  398 (2·3)

  854 (2·3)

  0·2

  1988

  16 (4·8)

  836 (3·1)

  880 (4·9)

  1,716 (3·8)

  0·7

  n/a = Not available.

  Notes:

  Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region. These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves. The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term.

  Figures for Government assistance in England, Scotland and Wales are for offers of Regional Selective Assistance accepted by foreign-owned companies in the years shown. (NB: by no means all inward investment projects receive RSA.) Comparable information on other forms of financial assistance is not available.

  South East

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1979

  23 (12·6)

  908 (6·3)

  n/a

  908 (6·3)

  0·0

  1980

  23 (14·6)

  1,046 (5·6)

  n/a

  1,046 (5·6)

  0·0

  1981

  15 (11·3)

  967 (5·9)

  n/a

  967 (5·9)

  0·0

  1982

  25 (18·8)

  1,300 (12·4)

  n/a

  1,300 (12·4)

  0·0

  1983

  59 (25·0)

  3,036 (19·5)

  2,667 (17·5)

  5,703 (18·5)

  0·0

  1984

  70 (21·3)

  2,731 (10·1)

  810 (4·2)

  3,541 (7·6)

  0·0

  1985

  84 (22·4)

  3,649 (14·3)

  5,712 (30·5)

  9,361 (21·1)

  0·0

  1986

  60 (17·7)

  2,118 (13·0)

  1,148 (10·7)

  3,266 (12·1)

  0·0

  1987

  50 (16·5)

  2,503 (12·6)

  599 (3·5)

  3,102 (8·4)

  0·0

  1988

  45 (13·6)

  2,240 (8·4)

  983 (5·4)

  3,223 (7·2)

  0·0

  n/a = Not available.

  Notes:

  Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region. These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves. The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term.

  Figures for Government assistance in England, Scotland and Wales are for offers of Regional Selective Assistance accepted by foreign-owned companies in the years shown. (NB: by no means all inward investment projects receive RSA.) Comparable information on other forms of financial assistance is not available.

  South West

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1979

  13 (7·1)

  1,938 (13·5)

  n/a

  1,938 (13·5)

  1·5

  1980

  6 (3·9)

  1,008 (5·4)

  n/a

  1,008 (5·4)

  0·5

  1981

  8 (6·0)

  2,199 (13·4)

  n/a

  2,199 (13·4)

  0·1

  1982

  7 (5·3)

  1,295 (12·3)

  n/a

  1,295 (12·3)

  4·3

  1983

  9 (3·8)

  451 (2·9)

  458 (3·0)

  909 (2·9)

  1·2

  406 407

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1984

  14 (4·3)

  1,364 (5·0)

  586 (3·0)

  1,950 (4·2)

  3·1

  1985

  15 (4·0)

  1,281 (5·0)

  19 (0·1)

  1,300 (2·9)

  1·2

  1986

  12 (3·5)

  1,129 (6·9)

  528 (4·9)

  1,657 (6·1)

  1·8

  1987

  11 (3·6)

  564 (2·8)

  328 (1·9)

  892 (2·4)

  1·5

  1988

  5 (1·5)

  479 (1·8)

  0 (0)

  479 (1·1)

  3·3

  n/a = Not available.

  Notes:

  Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region. These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves. The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term.

  Figures for Government assistance in England, Scotland and Wales are for offers of Regional Selective Assistance accepted by foreign-owned companies in the years shown. (NB: by no means all inward investment projects receive RSA.) Comparable information on other forms of financial assistance is not available.

  United Kingdom (not specified)

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance (£ million)

  1987

  1 (0·3)

  — —

  5,700 (33·5)

  5,700 (15·4)

  —

  1988

  3 (0·9)

  325 (1·2)

  0 (0)

  325 (0·7)

  —

  Notes:

  Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region. These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves. The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term.

  Figures for Government assistance in England, Scotland and Wales are for offers of Regional Selective Assistance accepted by foreign-owned companies in the years shown. (NB: by no means all inward investment projects receive RSA.) Comparable information on other forms of financial assistance is not available.

  Total United Kingdom

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs (New jobs + Safeguarded jobs)

  Government assistance1 (£ million)

  1979

  183

  14,310

  n/a

  14,310

  41·2

  1980

  155

  18,662

  n/a

  18,662

  34·7

  1981

  133

  16,417

  n/a

  16,417

  49·0

  1982

  133

  10,529

  n/a

  10,529

  41·2

  1983

  236

  15,546

  15,257

  30,803

  45·9

  1984

  328

  27,102

  19,294

  46,396

  126·3

  1985

  375

  25,584

  18,721

  44,305

  91·2

  1986

  339

  16,274

  10,760

  27,034

  66·6

  1987

  303

  19,914

  17,015

  36,929

  96·0

  1988

  330

  26,546

  18,116

  44,662

  90·2

  1 Excludes Northern Ireland.

  n/a = Not available.

  Notes:

  Figures for Government assistance in England, Scotland and Wales are for offers of Regional Selective Assistance accepted by foreign-owned companies in the years shown. (NB: by no means all inward investment projects receive RSA.) Comparable information on other forms of financial assistance is not available.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are(a) the most recent figures for homelessness by county and metropolitan district in England and (b). as a percentage of the population in county and metropolitan districts in England;

  (2) what are the most recent figures for homelessness for England and by English regions as a percentage of the population;

  (3) what are the most recent figures for homelessness for England, with regional breakdowns.

  Mr. Chope
  Figures for homelessness for non-metropolitan and metropolitan districts appear in table 7 of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness 408
  provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the second quarter 1989. Supplementary Tables". This table gives the numbers of homeless acceptances and acceptances per 1,000 households for those districts which reported.

  The latest estimates of households accepted as homeless expressed as numbers and per 1,000 households for England and by regions appear respectively in tables 1(a) and 1(b) of the same publication. Tables 1(a) and 1(b) include estimates for non-responders.

  A copy of the supplementary tables is available in the Library.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of young people under 18 years of age who are currently homeless; and how these estimates have changed over the last three years.
  409
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: The numbers of young people among the households accepted as homeless are not reported by local authorities and my Department has no estimates.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on the length of time taken to respond to letters from hon. Members.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department's records of correspondence from hon. Members are stored on a computer system. The system incorporates certain basic data for each case, including the length of time taken to send a reply to each letter.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is considering introducing any new schemes to promote the sale of council homes in England.

  Mr. Chope
  I shall be considering the experimental schemes recently announced in Scotland and Wales to enable tenants to buy their homes while deferring payment of part of the purchase price.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council homes were sold in 1988; what were the figures for five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is as follows:

  Local authority and new town sales, England

  (Thousands)

  1973

  1978

  1983

  1988

  Number of sales

  39

  30

  137

  142

  It is clear that the right to buy, introduced in 1980, continues to meet the desire of very many tenants to take on the responsibilities of home ownership.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold in the northern region since 1980.

  Mr. Chope
  From April 1980 to June 1989 an estimated 74,000 dwellings were sold by local authorities and new towns in the northern region.

  Housing (Rents)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average(a) council home rent, (b) new town development corporation home rent, and (c) housing association rent in England.

  Mr. Chope
  The estimated average weekly unrebated rent for local authority dwellings in England in April 1989 was £20·62; for new town dwellings it was £21·20.

  For housing associations the average rent for fair rent lettings in the first half of 1989 was £26·47. Since January this year most new lettings by housing associations have been on assured tenancies but information about the rents charged under such tenancies is not yet available.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Housing Corporation has been given permission to issue index-linked housing loan stock to participants in self-build schemes for rent.

  Mr. Chope
  The Housing Corporation and the Department are currently examining a proposition of this kind.

  European Environment Agency
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which body will make the final decision about the location of the European Environment Agency.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It will be for the Council of Ministers to make the final decision about the location of the European Environment Agency.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of publicly-owned land in the northern region have been sold since 1980; and how many are still held.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not held centrally. The Department's land register for public bodies covered by part X of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 records unused and underused land. At 30 September the register shows that in the northern region pubic bodies had disposed of 4,700 acres of such land since 1980; 10,100 acres remained on the register.

  Hazardous Waste Cargoes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the requirements for cargo checks and physical assay of hazardous and toxic waste cargoes imported into the United Kingdom when border deregulation is implemented with the single European Market on 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Trippier
  Controls over tranfrontier movement of hazardous wastes are based on prior notifications to the waste disposal authority responsible for the intended disposal facility and do not depend on cargo checks or assay at borders. Waste disposal authorities already have wide powers to inspect and take samples, wherever necessary, in the performance of their functions. The European Commission has accepted that after the creation of the single market controls on movements of hazardous waste between member states will still be necessary.

  Industrial Pollution
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public money was spent on clearing up pollution and environmental damage resulting from the release of pollutants into the environment by industry, in each of the last 10 years for the United Kingdom as a whole; and how much of this sum was spent in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not collected in the form requested. Some expenditures incurred by public undertakings in dealing with
  411
  environmental pollution are published for England and Wales in my Department's digest of environmental protection and water statistics but these cover much more than clearing up.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the community charge legislation in order to exempt from liability to pay the charge all persons who are in receipt of attendance allowance.

  Mr. Chope
  No, but my right hon. Friend intends to amend the legislation by order to enable anyone who is in receipt of attendance allowance, or constant attendance allowance, and who is severely mentally impaired to be exempt from the community charge. This will enable people suffering from degenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease to qualify for exemption.

  Radioactive Waste, Drigg
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the letter dated 6 October from the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Woodgreen relating to the Sixth Report of the Environment Committee, session 1988–89 "Disposal of Low-level Radioactive Waste at Drigg."

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes. The text of my hon. Friend's letter is as follows:"I was interested to see your Committee's report on the "Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste at Drigg" which was published in August. I am pleased that the Committee welcomed the progress that has been made by British Nuclear Fuels plc to respond to the Committee's earlier criticisms of the Drigg operation and to implement the Committee's recommendations.
  BNFL has made substantial efforts to improve the Drigg site and to reduce any environmental impact. This, and the company's commitment to further improvements, is encouraging news.
  I note, however, that the Committee considers there is still some work to be done in reducing the volume of waste being sent to the site. The Department agrees and will continue to press the waste producers to reduce the volume of the waste prior to disposal".

  Pollution
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what safeguards there are to ensure that public funds do not go to businesses or activities which cause pollution and environmental damage.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have a legislative framework which provides systems for controlling pollution across all environmental media. We have strengthened the control of water pollution with the passage of the Water Act 1989. We propose to improve the effectiveness of other control systems with further environmental protection legislation. This framework provides the safeguard, and industrial and other activities, whether supported by public funds or not, must be regulated by these controls.

  Public Standpipes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how payment is to be made to water undertakers for water taken from a public standpipe for domestic use when drought conditions exist.
  412
  Mr. Howard
  There is no separate charge to domestic consumers for water taken from public standpipes erected during a period of water shortage.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report details of those sections of his Department which have been relocated in the last five years, indicating the sites to which they have been moved; whether consideration is being given to future relocation of London-based sections of his Department to sites outside London; and whether the central Borders of Scotland has been identified as a suitable area for any future moves.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Around 38 per cent. of the Department of the Environment's staff of approximately 6,000 (excluding the Property Services Agency) are already located outside London, 24 per cent. outside the south-east. The Department's eastern regional office moved from London to Bedford last year. Staff working for the newly-established Historic Royal Palaces Agency have recently moved from central London to Hampton Court palace.

  Information about the Department's review currently being carried out of the scope for further relocation was given in reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on 21 July (Official Report, Vol. 157, col. 785.)

  Apart from the Property Services Agency, the Department's work is principally concerned with policies affecting England. We have not, therefore, considered locating posts in Scotland.

  Seventy per cent. of the PSA's staff of 22,800 are already located outside London, 45 per cent. outside the south-east. The PSA is being restructured in preparation for privatisation, and the scope for further relocation is being examined through the business planning process.

  Council House Building
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council dwellings were started in England and Wales for 1988; and how many starts have occurred in 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  Figures of local authority and new town housebuilding starts in England appear in table 2 of my Department's press release number 577 issued on 2 November 1989, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  For information on Wales I refer to the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement in respect of damage in Yorkshire and Humberside to sites of special scientific interest(a) at Thorne, Crowle and Goole Moors (b) Sandall Beat wood and (c) Shirley Pool.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The latest information on these sites is being assembled by the Nature Conservancy Council. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update the table placed in the Library on 19 July illustrating the impact, in each local authority area, of a system of local government finance based on a local income tax and on a system which combines local income tax with capital value based domestic rates, making the same assumptions but reflecting his estimates of 1990–91 expenditure, standard spending assessments and aggregate external finance.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today placed a table in the Library showing the figures requested, consistent with the announcements my right hon. Friend made in his statement today and with the exemplications of his proposals which he has sent to local authorities.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the terms for the payment of community charge transitional relief in 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what will be the amount of relief granted.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  On 11 October my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced in the other place details of the community charge transitional relief scheme. In 1990–91 the estimated cost of relief is £300 million. Transitional relief will be phased out over a three year period. The arrangements for future years are that in 1991–92 the amount of relief granted to an individual in 1990–91 will be reduced by 25p a week and by a further 25p in 1992–93. The cost of relief in 1991–92 is estimated to be £230 million and in 1992–93 £180 million.

  Travel Passes
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to provide the money to local authorities to ensure that free bus travel passes are available for retired persons.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: The main avenue for Government support for local authority services will be revenue support grant, which is in aid of services generally. It is for local authorities to decide how much to spend on any particular activity, and in particular to decide the extent to which they support concessionary fare schemes.

  Housing (Barnsley)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met Barnsley metropolitan borough council to discuss its housing needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: My officials met Barnsley metropolitan borough council on 3 October 1989 to discuss the district's housing needs and the council's proposed housing investment programme. The outcome of these discussions will be taken into account when the decisions are taken on the allocation of housing resources to Barnsley for the next financial year.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many right-to-buy applicants in each of the London boroughs were awaiting the determination of appeals to the district valuer at the most recent convenient date.
  414
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: The following table gives the number of right to buy valuation appeals awaiting determination by district valuers at 19 October. It excludes appeals which have not yet passed to district valuers or which have recently been the subject of determination reports to the local authority and the applicant:

  District

  Number

  Barking

  20

  Barnet

  19

  Bexley

  4

  Brent

  24

  Bromley

  2

  Camden

  323

  Croydon

  44

  Ealing

  11

  Enfield

  8

  Greenwich

  384

  Hackney

  33

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  36

  Haringey

  18

  Harrow

  4

  Havering

  38

  Hillingdon

  4

  Hounslow

  21

  Islington

  51

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3

  Kingston

  3

  Lambeth

  34

  Lewisham

  81

  Merton

  9

  Newham

  68

  Redbridge

  18

  Richmond

  2

  Southwark

  59

  Sutton

  18

  Tower Hamlets

  93

  Waltham Forest

  11

  Wandsworth

  17

  Westminster

  29

  City

  0

  These figures suggest that the boroughs with very high numbers of appeals to the district valuer should be reviewing their valuation policies.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the arrangements that have been made to assist overseas Governments, should they have a major nuclear accident.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom signed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) convention on assistance in the case of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency as soon as it was opened for signature in September 1986. As at 28 September 1989 this convention had been signed by 70 states and ratified by 37 states. Copies of this convention are available in the Library (Cm. 566).

  We undertook, on signature, to act as if bound by the convention pending ratification which is expected to take place early next year.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will set up a special unit in Downing street to deal with the problem of child abuse.
  415
  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  United Nations Environment Programme
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to announce an increase in the United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations environment programme when she addresses the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 8 November.

  The Prime Minister
  I announced in March this year that the United Kingdom will increase its contribution to the United Nations environment programme to £3 million.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will appoint a Minister of the House responsible for policy relating to the textile industry; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I am satisfied with the present arrangements.

  Immigration and Nationality Policy
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister why responsibility for immigration and nationality policy has been passed to a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Responsibility for immigration and nationality policy rests with the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He will be assisted in the discharge of this duty by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd). They will continue the firm and fair administration of our immigration laws.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the model transitional agreements which he has suggested as viable contractual agreements between British Coal and National Power and Power Gen to take effect after the privatisation of electricity.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Coal contracts are a matter for commercial negotiation between British Coal and the generators.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what date has now been fixed for the sale to the private sector of each component branch of the electricity supply industry; and what level of certainty he attaches to the proposed date of each such sale.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government are firmly committed to completing the privatisation of the industry within this Parliament. The area boards will be offered for sale in autumn 1990. The two generating companies will be offered for sale in the first half of 1991. The precise timing for this has yet to be settled.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the likely effects of electricity privatisation on levels of employment in the British coal mining industry.
  416
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The coal industry will need to ensure that its future output and prices meet the needs of its main customers including the privatised electricity generators. Employment in the industry will depend both on demand for coal and future productivity gains. It is for British Coal to determine what its manpower requirements are and how it will meet them.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in the Official Report details of those sections of his Department which have been relocated in the last five years, indicating the sites to which they have been moved; whether consideration is being given to future relocation of London-based sections of his Department to sites outside London; and whether the central borders of Scotland has been identified as a suitable area for any future moves.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There are no plans for relocation. As I told the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on 26 July 1989 (col.720), the position will be reviewed in early 1991 when the Department will have had some 18 months' experience of working in its new headquarters building. No sections of my Department have been relocated in the last five years.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the energy cost of each Government Department for the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Property Services Agency is currently responsible for paying fuel bills on behalf of most Departments. They will be writing to my right hon. Friend giving the precise information within two weeks.

  Energy Savings (London)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the energy savings of each London borough council for the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Information on the energy savings of each London borough council is not available centrally.

TRANSPORT

  Concessionary Fares Scheme
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals there are for changes to the operation of the concessionary fares scheme in Greater London.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am not aware of any such proposals. Decisions on concessionary fares rest with the London local authorities in negotiation with London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will amend the law to provide that any fares imposed on users of concessionary travel permits in London will require parliamentary approval.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is a matter for the London boroughs and the City of London who pay for the concessionary fares scheme.

  Passenger Rail Services
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail management about reopening to passenger traffic lines now used only for freight traffic, or where the trackbed remains wholly or substantially intact; if he has discussed the case put by the Wealden line campaign for the reopening of the Lewes-Uckfield link; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am aware of the campaign to re-open the Lewes-Uckfield line. It is for the British Railways Board to decide on the re-opening of freight railway lines to experimental passenger services, as they are empowered to do under the Transport Act 1962 (Amendment) Act 1981, (the "Speller" Act).

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assurance he has received from British Rail regarding the availability for use when the tunnel opens of a high-speed rail link to London from the Channel tunnel for passengers and freight.

  Mr. Portillo
  In the early years of the tunnel's operation, BR plan to use existing lines, upgraded as necessary, for international passenger and freight services. British Rail and their joint venture partners, Eurorail, are planning to build a new passenger rail link between the Channel tunnel and London to overcome capacity constraints on the existing network. This new line, which is expected to be operational in 1998, will release additional capacity on existing lines for the growth of international freight traffic.

  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assurance he has received from British Rail regarding the availability of the station facilities required in the Ashford area for the Channel tunnel link at the opening of cross-Channel services.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail and Eurorail have reaffirmed their intention to have an international passenger station at Ashford when the Channel tunnel opens. To this end the board has announced its intention to introduce a private Bill later this month to seek powers to change the proposed location of Ashford IPS in order to fit in with the proposed new Channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what engineering and costing investigations have been made by his Department into the viability of tunnelling the high-speed rail link to King's Cross through south-east London.

  Mr. Portillo
  Engineering and costing investigations for the Channel tunnel rail link are for British Rail and Eurorail, not the Department.

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley,Official Report, 23 October, columns 371–72, he will state (a) how many of the 1,815 acres of land and buildings not directly or immediately required for airport operations were adjacent to Prestwick airport and (b) what was the value of land not directly or immediately required for airport operations at or adjacent to Prestwick airport at 8 July 1987.
  418
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The prospectus issued when BAA plc shares were offered for sale noted that of these 1,815 acres, 938 acres were at BAA's Scottish airports, predominantly at Prestwick. Plans showing this land are in the House Library.

  The gross current cost valuation of land and buildings at Prestwick, shown in the 1987 BAA company accounts, includes the value of land and buildings not immediately or directly required for airport operation. A separate valuation was not identified.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Disarmament
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any proposals from the Soviet Union for its complete unilateral disarmament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Lockerbie Air Crash
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will hold urgent talks with the West German Government about the level of co-operation available to the Scottish police force investigating the Lockerbie crash.

  Mr. Maude
  No such talks are necessary. The close contact which the investigating authorities have enjoyed with their West German colleagues has been an important and productive feature throughout the investigation and will continue.

  Dashevsky Family
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Soviet Government so as to obtain permission for Vladimir Dashevsky of 26 Bakinskich Icomissarov, Moscow, to leave the Soviet Union to travel to Israel together with his wife and three children.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We take every opportunity to press the Soviet authorities on individual refusenik cases such as Vladimir Dashevsky. My right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised this case most recently when he met Mr. Shevardnadze in New York on 29 September. We shall maintain our pressure until Vladimir Dashevsky is given permission to emigrate from the Soviet Union.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report details of those sections of his Department which have been relocated in the last five years, indicating the sites to which they have been moved; whether consideration is being given to future relocation of London-based sections of his Department to sites outside London; and whether the central Borders of Scotland has been identified as a suitable area for any future moves.

  Mr. Maude
  The diplomatic wing has not relocated any jobs in the last five years, but some 250 jobs, (mainly in
  419
  administration departments) have been identified for relocation from central London to the FCO estate at Hanslope park near Milton Keynes by 1995.

  In the aid wing, 18 jobs have been relocated to the East Kilbride office in the last five years following the relocation of 427 jobs there in 1981; and some 390 jobs from the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute are being relocated from London and the Thames Valley to Chatham between 1988 and 1990, most of which have already been transferred. In addition, about 100 further aid wing jobs will move from London, mostly to East Kilbride. The exact number of jobs and timing have yet to be decided.

  Mr. Raghubinder Singh
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department's migration and visa correspondence unit intends to reply to the letter dated 4 September from the hon. Member for Woolwich about the case of Mr. Raghubinder Singh.

  Mr. Maude
  The hon. Member's letter has not been received in the MV correspondence unit. I understand that he is sending a duplicate, which will receive prompt attention.

  Missile Technology Control
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are taking place between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government concerning ways of strengthening the missile technology control regime.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have had frequent discussions of this subject with the American Government at both ministerial and official level. We are agreed that the most effective means of strengthening the regime is to encourage more countries to participate. We hope in the near future to host a meeting of partners to discuss expanding the regime.

  ASEAN
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has received or sent to the Association of South-East Asian Nations countries concerning their nuclear-free policies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There have been no communications on this issue recently with the member states of the Association of South-East Asian Nations.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the claims of the South African Foreign Minister arising from interception of communications of United Kingdom units serving as UNTAG border monitors.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  United Nations' investigations have found no evidence to support the South African claims. We have no reason to question this judgment.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Nursery School Places
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he plans to take to increase the number of nursery school places to encourage mothers to return to work; and what representations he has had on this subject.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Nursery education takes place within the hours of the school day and children commonly attend part time. Day care facilities such as day nurseries play a more important part in enabling mothers to return to work. They are the responsibility at Government level of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how he plans to take account of the additional costs for disabled students in his current proposals in the White Paper on top-up loans for students.

  Mr. Jackson
  Disabled students will continue to qualify for the additional allowances available with the grant. They are also specifically exempted from the ending of students' benefit entitlements. After their courses, they will be protected by the provisions for deferment of repayments and write-off of the debt if their income is low.

  Teachers
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what assessment has made of whether the 5·3 per cent. salary offer to teachers in maintained further education colleges will attract and retain top quality graduates and people with industrial and business expertise;

  (2) what steps he will take to ensure that teachers remain attracted and committed to a career in further education; whether he has received the report by Hay Management Consultants on pay of principals of maintained sector colleges and if he will make a statement.

  (3) whether he will bring forward proposals to establish for those teachers employed in adult education a properly graded salary structure.

  Mr. Jackson
  The pay and conditions of lecturers in further education, including adult education, are a matter for their local authority employers. At national level, they are negotiated by the employers and the lecturer unions in the National Joint Council (Further Education).

  Human Genome Organisations
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what financial contributions he expects will be made from United Kingdom sources to the human genome organisations in 1989–90 and in each of the following four financial years.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that the Medical Research Council has not been approached to make a financial contribution to the human genome organisation. We have no information about possible approaches to private funding sources.

  Disabled Students' Grant
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities follow procedures which enable them to pay the full three years disabled students' grant in a single lump sum.

  Mr. Jackson
  This informaton is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, how many local education authorities have guidelines governing the award of disabled students' grants.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations empower local education authorities to assess extra grant in respect of certain types of expenditure incurred by disabled students. Within the framework specified in the regulations, how this power is exercised is a matter for individual authorities. Information about their procedures is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to how many disabled students following higher education courses incur costs related to their disability that exceed the level of the disabled students' grant.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Fire Safety (Schools)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken or is considering to improve fire safety in schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 23 October 1989 at column 323.

  Top-up Loans
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to amend the financial assumptions upon which the top-up loans White Paper is based.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have no plans to adjust the assumptions made for the purpose of Cm. 520 as to the long-term rates of take-up, deferment, default or inflation. The size of the loan facility offered to students in any year will be determined the previous autumn in the light of actual and anticipated cost increases.

  Open University
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision for inflation he will make in calculating grant aid to the Open university in 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Treasury's expectation of price movements in the economy in 1990–91 will be announced in the Autumn Statement. Changes in the planned provision for the Open university in the forthcoming three years will be announced following the Autumn Statement.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Justice Act
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to bring section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 into effect.

  Mr. John Patten
  Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 came into effect on 31 July this year. By subsection (5), the wider power it gives the Court of Appeal to order a retrial does not apply where notice of appeal or application for leave to appeal was given before that date.

  Drug Prevention Units
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy when considering the location for the recently announced drug prevention units, to consider Bolton as a base for a unit.

  Mr. Mellor
  Drug prevention units will be located in those areas judged most at risk from drug misuse and in particular from a threat of cocaine and crack. We are not yet in a position to announce which areas will be chosen.

  Bingo
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to amend section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968 to allow bingo organisers to advertise specific games of bingo at pre-arranged times and places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 1 November at column 185 to an earlier question from him about the advertising of licensed bingo clubs.

  Guildford Four
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that interim compensation is paid immediately to Paul Hill, Gerard Conlon, Patrick Armstrong and Carole Richardson in light of the Appeal Court's decision in their case.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made interim payments of compensation to all four.

  May Inquiry
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that Sir John May's inquiry into the case of the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven be held in public.

  Mr. John Patten
  The conduct of the inquiry is a matter for Sir John May, but I understand that it is his intention that as much of the evidence as possible will be heard in public.

  Terrorism Suspects (Interviews)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure tighter safeguards for persons in custody on suspicion of terrorist offences; and if he will introduce video and sound recordings of all interviews of such persons, and immediate access to legal advice.
  423
  Mr. Waddington
  There are already safeguards in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 to ensure that interviews under the terrorist provisions are carried out properly and that those detained are properly treated. New provision was made in schedule 3 of the 1989 Act, in accordance with Lord Colville's recommendations in his report on the workings of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984, for the supervision of the detention and examination powers in the Act by means of regular reviews during the first 48 hours. Any extension of detention beyond that period (up to a maximum of a further five days) requires my authority.

  Preparatory work is now underway for the trial use of tape-recording in interviews with those held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. There are no proposals for video recordings in these cases.

  There is already a right of access to legal advice for those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act but I believe that it is essential that the police should continue to have the power to delay the exercise of that right for a prescribed period where it is necessary to do so and the statutory criteria are met.

  Prisoner No. B51715
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received an application for the temporary transfer of prisoner No. B51715 from Frankland prison to a prison in Northern Ireland; if he will outline the compassionate grounds on which the application was based; and if he will give sympathetic consideration to immediately granting this application.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 14 August 1989 the inmate concerned submitted a petition requesting temporary transfer to a prison in Northern Ireland in order to receive accumulated visits from members of his family who live in Belfast. The petition expressed concern about the strain being experienced by the inmate's family and particularly about the wellbeing of the inmate's wife, daughter and mother. We and the Northern Ireland Office need to take both security and compassionate considerations into account before deciding whether the request can be granted. No decision has yet been reached. I should add that the inmate has also submitted a petition for permanent transfer to Northern Ireland. This, too, is being carefully considered.

  James Armstrong
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the internal inquiry into the death of James Armstrong at Risley remand centre revealed.

  Mr. Mellor
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the inquiries which, in accordance with standard practice, were carried out at the time by the governor of Risley into Mr. Armstrong's death. Those inquiries established the facts of the case as subsequently disclosed at the coroner's inquest and as summarised in correspondence with the hon. Member.

  Cable Authority
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that companies being awarded cable franchises by the Cable Authority proceed to actual cabling within an agreed time scale.
  424
  Mr. Mellor
  This is primarily a matter for the Cable Authority. There is inevitably some delay between the award of a cable franchise and the subsequent issue of the licences under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 and the Telecommunications Act 1984 which enable the operator to start operations. Before franchise holders can be granted such licences they need to be able to satisfy the Cable Authority and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (who is responsible for the issue of licences under the Telecommunications Act) on a range of matters. I understand that the Cable Authority has recently announced that it will review franchises after one year, with a view to withdrawing them if the holder has not made satisfactory progress in this regard.

  Before a Telecommunications Act licence is issued, the cable operator has to agree a schedule for the construction of his system in consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Director General of Telecommunications and the Cable Authority. Monitoring compliance with the Telecommunications Act licence is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish a table showing(a) the list of cable franchises awarded by the Cable Authority, showing the name of the franchise, the successful applicant and the responsibility of the company who has won the franchise, and (b). a list of cable franchises currently on offer by the Cable Authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand from the Cable Authority that a total of 53 cable franchises have been granted, of which 16 have been licensed by the Cable Authority, and 14 are operational. Copies of the lists requested have been placed in the Library.

  Prisons
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will(a). give the optimum operation capacity of each prison in England and Wales and (b) the actual numbers of prisoners currently housed in each prison in England and Wales.

  Mr. Waddington
  The maximum number of inmates an establishment can hold without some overcrowding is known as its certified normal accommodation (CNA).

  The latest figures available for:

  (i) CNA; and

  (ii) population

  of each establishment in England and Wales is as follows:

  Establishment

  Total CNA for September 1989

  Population on 3 November 1989

  Acklington

  448

  441

  Albany

  389

  379

  Aldington

  127

  119

  Ashford

  374

  0

  Ashwell

  404

  404

  Askham Grange

  134

  104

  Aylesbury

  296

  272

  Bedford

  178

  305

  Birmingham

  593

  981

  Blantyre House

  87

  86

  Blundeston

  405

  406

  Bristol

  552

  602

  Brixton

  729

  1,096

  Brockhill

  161

  252

  Buckley Hall

  139

  44

  425

  Establishment

  Total CNA for September 1989

  Population on 3 November 1989

  Bullwood Hall

  126

  151

  Camp Hill

  461

  479

  Campsfield House

  66

  63

  Canterbury

  230

  362

  Cardiff

  337

  428

  Castington

  300

  234

  Channings Wood

  538

  536

  Chelmsford

  242

  407

  Coldingley

  303

  298

  Cookham Wood

  120

  120

  Dartmoor

  631

  614

  Deerbolt

  420

  398

  Dorchester

  152

  235

  Dover

  247

  223

  Downview

  91

  91

  Drake Hall

  288

  260

  Durham

  729

  1,009

  East Sutton Park

  84

  77

  Eastwood Park

  134

  101

  Erlestoke

  218

  212

  Everthorpe

  304

  370

  Exeter

  310

  333

  Featherstone

  509

  574

  Feltham

  846

  713

  Finnamore Wood

  116

  114

  Ford

  536

  505

  Frankland

  447

  385

  Full Sutton

  432

  407

  Garth

  512

  494

  Gartree

  320

  313

  Glen Parva

  600

  584

  Gloucester

  200

  277

  Grendon

  261

  239

  Guys Marsh

  180

  104

  Haslar

  95

  69

  Hatfield

  180

  160

  Haverigg

  337

  385

  Hewell Grange

  136

  109

  High Point

  825

  798

  Hindley

  312

  401

  Hollesley Bay

  451

  355

  Holloway

  517

  482

  Hull

  402

  673

  Huntercombe

  180

  192

  Kingston

  150

  139

  Kirkham

  632

  589

  Lancaster

  186

  253

  Latchmere House

  127

  144

  Leeds

  633

  1,189

  Leicester

  205

  343

  Lewes

  371

  554

  Leyhill

  384

  384

  Lincoln

  391

  568

  Lindholme

  1,001

  850

  Littlehey

  484

  482

  Liverpool

  967

  1,309

  Long Lartin

  432

  422

  Lowdham Grange

  304

  121

  Low Newton

  185

  278

  Maidstone

  550

  551

  Manchester

  997

  1,536

  Morton Hall

  192

  151

  Mount

  484

  346

  New Hall

  120

  96

  Northallerton

  127

  184

  Northeye

  249

  232

  North Sea Camp

  202

  130

  Norwich

  487

  637

  Nottingham

  245

  320

  Onley

  352

  336

  Oxford

  124

  201

  Parkhurst

  261

  235

  Pentonville

  641

  996

  Portland

  527

  476

  Preston

  428

  485

  Pucklechurch

  159

  161

  Ranby

  404

  405

  426

  Establishment

  Total CNA for September 1989

  Population on 3 November 1989

  Reading

  178

  286

  Risley

  318

  378

  Rochester

  375

  332

  Rudgate

  378

  336

  Send

  101

  99

  Shepton Mallet

  173

  240

  Shrewsbury

  174

  249

  Spring Hill

  210

  211

  Stafford

  588

  811

  Standford Hill

  444

  428

  Stocken

  302

  304

  Stoke Heath

  360

  403

  Styal

  258

  249

  Sudbury

  601

  550

  Swaleside

  504

  497

  Swansea

  229

  278

  Swinfern Hall

  124

  131

  Thorn Cross

  300

  198

  Thorp Arch

  156

  146

  USK

  238

  147

  Verne

  595

  599

  Wakefield

  756

  716

  Wandsworth

  1,275

  1,556

  Wayland

  484

  484

  Wellingborough

  344

  290

  Werrington

  110

  75

  Wetherby

  196

  145

  Whatton

  167

  146

  Winchester

  471

  652

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1,024

  1,048

  Wymott

  816

  720

  TOTAL

  44,991

  48,632

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will actively facilitate the transfer of those prisoners in British gaols who have requested to serve their sentences in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mellor
  All such requests are considered in the light of the criteria governing such transfers, which were set out in the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 23 June 1989 at column 263.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make his reply to the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons on conditions within Wandsworth prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) published his response to the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on Wandsworth on 20 October 1989 and a copy was placed in the Library.

  Mr. Lorrain Esme Osman
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish all the representations he has received about Mr. Lorrain Esme Osman.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not normal practice to publish such correspondence, and I can see no reason to make an exception in this case.

  Drugs
  Mr. Sheerman
  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 as to the estimated cost of the Metropolitan police drugs raid on Broadwater Farm estate on 29 September; and what type and quantity of drugs were seized during the raid.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the additional overtime costs were about £42,500. There were some other minor additional costs but these cannot readily be identified. The forensic examination and weighing of the drugs found has not yet been completed, but an initial examination indicates that about a kilo of cannabis was seized as well as some cocaine.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his written answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) of 27 July,Official Report, column 856, if he will indicate the particular section of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order (SI 1983. No. 764) which makes provision to appeal from decision to destroy a dog which has bitten a person.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Article 33(1) of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 requires a court to make an order directing that a dog be destroyed where it appears to the court that the dog has attacked any person or attacked or killed livestock.

  Articles 143 and 146 of the Magistrates Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 as applied and modified by article 33(6) of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 enable an owner to appeal to a county court from an order for the destruction of a dog or, where a point of law is involved, to apply to the magistrates' court to state a case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal.

  Students
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of providing education for European Community students in Northern Ireland in(a) the current academic year and (b) each of the last three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is not possible to disaggregate such overall costs.

  The cost of remitting the tuition fees of eligible European students for the previous three years was:

  Year

  Amount £

  1988–89

  702,650

  1987–88

  418,000

  1986–87

  216,000

  Current year figures are not yet available.

  Mr. Gerard Slane
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the circumstances of 428
  the murder of Mr. Gerard Slane in respect of whether any leaking of official photographs and documents relating to Mr. Slane were involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  No. However, at the request of the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the deputy chief constable of Cambridgeshire, Mr. John Stevens, is already undertaking a full and impartial investigation into the alleged leaking of security material with a view to the earliest possible comprehensive report to the chief constable.

  Seamus Duffy
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present state of investigation by the police and the independent Police Complaints Commission into the circumstances in which Seamus Duffy was killed by a police plastic baton round in Belfast on 9 August.

  Mr. Cope
  The police investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Seamus Duffy is being actively pursued and has reached an advanced stage. The investigation is being closely monitored by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland. Once the investigation has been completed the investigating officer's final report will go to the Commission which will then issue a statement to the chief constable on the conduct of the investigation. The papers will then be passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Until such time as the DPP has issued directions on the case, or any proceedings have terminated, it would not be appropriate to give details of the investigations.

  Prisons
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give(a) the optimum operational capacity of each prison in Northern Ireland and (b) the actual numbers of prisoners currently housed in each prison in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  The optimum operational capacity of each prison in Northern Ireland together with the actual numbers of prisoners currently housed is:

  Population as at 08.30 hours 3 November 1989

  Accommodation

  Number

  Her Majesty 's prison Belfast

  1433

  533

  Her Majesty 's prison Maghaberry

  1486

  2297

  Her Majesty's prison Magilligan

  1300

  266

  Her Majesty's prison Maze

  1750

  517

  1 Single cell accommodation.

  2 Including 23 female prisoners.

  These figures include prisoners on home leave and in outside hospitals.

  In addition, the young offenders centre, Hydebank, has single cell accommodation for 300 and has a current population of 158.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total prison population in Northern Ireland in each of the years since 1980.
  429
  Mr. Cope
  The average prison population in each of the years since 1980 was:

  Numbers

  11980

  2,489

  11981

  2,521

  11982

  2,481

  11983

  2,453

  11984

  2,248

  11985

  2,943

  21986–87

  1,907

  21987–88

  1,947

  21988–89

  1,860

  1 Calendar year.

  2 Financial year.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  IMF/World Bank (Meetings)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's action in response to the outcome of the recent annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 October to my hon. Friend, the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) at column 202. The United Kingdom will play its full part in furthering these policies.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the gross domestic product per head for(a) Wales, (b) England and (c) the United Kingdom for the most recent 10 years;

  (2) if he will list the main components of the gross domestic product per head which result in the total for Wales being lower than the total for England and the United Kingdom for the most recent 10 years.

  Mr. Lamont
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: For the latest estimates of gross domestic product (GDP) per head, I refer the hon. Member to "Economic Trends" No. 421, November 1988, page 90. An industrial analysis of

  Income Tax and NICS Payments at Multiples of Average Earnings, 1989–90

  Multiples of Average Earnings

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Single

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  21·05

  38·27

  55·49

  89·92

  139·27

  249·47

  359·67

  469·87

  690·27

  1,020·87

  2,122·87

  NICS

  10·46

  16·66

  22·86

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  Total

  31·51

  54·93

  78·35

  117·66

  167·01

  277·21

  387·41

  497·61

  718·01

  1,048·61

  2,150·61

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income Tax

  19·86

  36·10

  52·35

  84·83

  131·39

  235·35

  339·31

  443·27

  651·20

  963·08

  2,002·71

  NICS

  9·87

  15·72

  21·57

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  Total

  29·73

  51·82

  73·92

  111·00

  157·56

  261·52

  365·48

  469·44

  677·37

  989·25

  2,028·88

  Percentage of Earnings

  Income Tax (per cent.)

  15·3

  18·5

  20·1

  21·8

  25·3

  30·2

  32·6

  34·1

  35·8

  37·1

  38·5

  NICS (per cent.)

  7·6

  8·1

  8·3

  6·7

  5·0

  3·4

  2·5

  2·0

  1·4

  1·0

  0·5

  Total (per cent.)

  22·9

  26·6

  28·4

  28·5

  30·3

  33·5

  35·2

  36·1

  37·2

  38·1

  39·0

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  13·40

  30·62

  47·84

  82·28

  127·03

  237·23

  347·43

  457·63

  678·03

  1,008·63

  2,110·63

  430
  GDP is given on page 93 of the same article which gives detailed figures for the latest four years; a copy of which is available in the Library. A copy of the information requested on the main components of the gross domestic product for the 10 most recent years has been placed in the Library.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of parents paying tax on the provision or subsidy of child care facilities by employers and the amount of tax collected in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: I regret that information on which to base reliable estimates of the number of parents paying tax on this benefit in kind and the amount of tax collected is not available.

  Families with Children
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families with children fall below the tax threshold.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: In 1989–90, it is estimated that some 1·6 million families with children have taxable incomes below the income tax threshold. The estimate is based on a projection of the 1986 family expenditure survey and is therefore provisional.

  Tax and Insurance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give up to date figures on income tax and national insurance averages on the same basis as in his reply to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) of 10 January,Official Report, columns 633–56, including data for 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: Figures for 1978–79 to 1988–89 were earlier placed in the Library of the House on 13 April 1989. Revised estimates for 1988–89 and estimates for 1989–90 are set out in the tables.
  431

  Multiples of Average Earnings

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  NICS

  10·46

  16·66

  22·86

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  Total

  23·86

  47·28

  70·7

  110·02

  154·77

  264·97

  375·17

  485·37

  705·77

  1,036·37

  2,138·37

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income Tax

  12·64

  28·89

  45·13

  77·62

  119·84

  223·80

  327·76

  431·73

  639·65

  951·54

  1,991·16

  NICS

  9·87

  15·72

  21·57

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  Total

  22·51

  44·60

  66·70

  103·79

  146·01

  249·97

  353·93

  457·90

  665·82

  977·71

  2,017·33

  Percentage of Earnings

  Income Tax (per cent.)

  9·7

  14·8

  17·4

  19·9

  23·1

  28·7

  31·5

  33·2

  35·2

  36·6

  38·3

  NICS (per cent.)

  7·6

  8·1

  8·3

  6·7

  5·0

  3·4

  2·5

  2·0

  1·4

  1·0

  0·5

  Total (per cent.)

  17·3

  22·9

  25·7

  26·6

  28·1

  32·1

  34·0

  35·2

  36·6

  37·6

  38·8

  Married, both working

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  0·01

  17·23

  34·45

  68·89

  105·61

  186·49

  280·16

  388·73

  609·13

  939·73

  2,041·73

  NICS

  9·39

  15·59

  21·79

  34·18

  46·08

  55·49

  55·49

  55·49

  55·49

  55·49

  55·49

  Total

  9·40

  32·82

  56·24

  103·07

  151·69

  241·98

  335·65

  444·22

  664·62

  995·22

  2,097·22

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income Tax

  0·01

  16·25

  32·50

  64·99

  99·63

  175·93

  264·30

  366·73

  574·65

  886·54

  1,926·16

  NICS

  8·86

  14·71

  20·56

  32·25

  43·47

  52·35

  52·35

  52·35

  52·35

  52·35

  52·35

  Total

  8·87

  30·96

  53·06

  97·24

  143·10

  228·28

  316·65

  419·08

  627·00

  938·89

  1,978·51

  Per cent. of Earnings

  Income Tax (per cent.)

  0·0

  8·3

  12·5

  16·7

  19·2

  22·6

  25·4

  28·2

  31·6

  34·1

  37·1

  NICS (per cent.)

  6·8

  7·5

  7·9

  8·3

  8·4

  6·7

  5·0

  4·0

  2·9

  2·0

  1·0

  Total (per cent.)

  6·8

  15·9

  20·4

  24·9

  27·5

  29·3

  30·5

  32·2

  34·5

  36·1

  38·1

  Married, two children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  -1·1

  16·12

  33·34

  67·78

  112·53

  222·73

  332·93

  443·13

  663·53

  994·13

  2,096·13

  NICS

  10·46

  16·66

  22·86

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  360·6

  140·2

  7470·

  1,021·

  Total

  9·36

  32·78

  56·20

  95·52

  50

  250·47

  87

  91·27

  87

  2,123·87

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income Tax

  -1·04

  15·21

  31·45

  63·94

  106·16

  210·12

  314·08

  418·05

  625·97

  937·86

  1,977·48

  NICS

  9·87

  15·72

  21·57

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  26·17

  Total

  8·83

  30·92

  53·02

  90·11

  132·33

  236·29

  340·25

  444·22

  652·14

  964·03

  2,003·65

  Per cent. of Earnings

  Income tax (per cent.)

  -0·8

  7·8

  12·1

  16·4

  20·4

  26·9

  30·2

  32·2

  34·4

  36·1

  38·0

  NICS (per cent.)

  7·6

  8·1

  8·3

  6·7

  5·0

  3·4

  2·5

  2·0

  1·4

  1·0

  0·5

  Total (per cent.)

  6·8

  15·9

  20·4

  23·1

  25·5

  30·3

  32·7

  34·2

  35·8

  37·1

  38·5

  Income Tax and NICS payments at multiples of Average Earnings, 1988–89

  Multiples of Average Earnings

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Single

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  19·51

  35·53

  51·55

  83·59

  129·33

  231·85

  334·37

  436·89

  641·93

  949·49

  1,974·69

  NICS

  11·53

  17·30

  23·07

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  Total

  31·04

  52·83

  74·62

  111·04

  156·78

  259·3

  361·82

  464·34

  669·38

  976·94

  2,002·14

  Per cent. of Earnings

  Income Tax

  per cent.

  15·2

  18·5

  20·1

  21·7

  25·2

  30·2

  32·6

  34·1

  35·8

  37·0

  38·5

  NICS per cent.

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  7·1

  5·4

  3·6

  2·7

  2·1

  1·5

  1·1

  0·5

  Total per cent.

  24·2

  27·5

  29·1

  28·9

  30·6

  33·7

  35·3

  36·2

  37·3

  38·1

  39·1

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  12·35

  28·37

  44·39

  76·43

  117·87

  220·39

  322·91

  425·43

  630·47

  938·03

  1,963·23

  NICS

  11·53

  17·30

  23·07

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  Total

  23·88

  45·67

  67·46

  103·88

  145·32

  247·84

  350·36

  452·88

  657·92

  96·48

  1,990·68

  Per cent. of Earnings

  Income Tax

  per cent.

  9·6

  14·8

  17·3

  19·9

  23·0

  28·7

  31·5

  33·2

  35·1

  36·6

  38·3

  432 433

  Multiples of Average Earnings

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  NICS per cent.

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  7·1

  5·4

  3·6

  2·7

  2·1

  1·5

  1·1

  0·5

  Total per cent.

  18·6

  23·8

  26·3

  27·0

  28·3

  32·2

  34·2

  35·3

  36·7

  37·7

  38·8

  Married, both working

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  0

  15·84

  31·86

  63·9

  97·83

  173·19

  260·33

  361·18

  566·22

  873·78

  1,898·98

  NICS

  7·95

  15·76

  21·02

  34·60

  45·90

  54·90

  54·90

  54·90

  54·90

  54·90

  54·90

  Total

  7·95

  31·60

  52·88

  98·50

  143·73

  228·09

  315·23

  416·08

  621·12

  928·68

  1,953·88

  Per cent. of Earnings

  Income Tax per cent.

  0·0

  8·2

  12·4

  16·6

  19·1

  22·5

  25·4

  28·2

  31·6

  34·1

  37·0

  NICS per cent.

  6·2

  8·2

  8·2

  9·0

  9·0

  7·1

  5·4

  4·3

  3·1

  2·1

  1·1

  Total per cent.

  6·2

  16·4

  20·6

  25·6

  28·0

  29·7

  30·7

  32·5

  34·6

  36·2

  38·1

  Married, two children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  -2·15

  13·87

  29·89

  61·93

  103·37

  205·89

  308·41

  409·93

  615·97

  923·53

  1,948·73

  NICS

  11·53

  17·3

  23·07

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  Total

  9·38

  31·17

  52·96

  89·38

  130·82

  233·34

  335·86

  437·38

  643·42

  950·98

  1,976·18

  Per cent. of Earnings

  Income Tax per cent.

  -1·7

  7·2

  11·7

  16·1

  20·2

  26·8

  30·1

  32·0

  34·3

  36·0

  38·0

  NICS per cent.

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  7·1

  5·4

  3·6

  2·7

  2·1

  1·5

  1·1

  0·5

  Total per cent.

  7·3

  16·2

  20·7

  23·2

  25·5

  30·3

  32·8

  34·1

  35·9

  37·1

  38·6

  Notes to Tables:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the tax units receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances. Earners, including working wives, are assumed to pay Class 1 NI contributions at the contracted in rate. The figures for NI contributions are financial year averages.

  2. The two earner married couple is assumed to have combined earnings equal to the various multiples of average earnings. In calculating disposable income it is assumed that these earnings are split between husband and wife in the ratio 60:40.

  3. For the married couple with two children, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax.

  4. Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These were £256.30 per week in 1988–89, and estimated to be £275.50 per week in 1989–90 using the Government Actuary Department's assumption of 7½ per cent. growth over 1988–89 as published in the GAD annual report in December 1988.

  5. 1989–90 figures are converted into 1988–89 prices by assuming that the RPI is 6 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than the previous financial year. This is consistent with the forecasts published in the 1989–90 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  EEC (Contributions)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the net contribution to the EEC in 1989.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 31 October 1989]: The Government's latest published estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community budget in 1989 is £1,966 million. A new estimate of the United Kingdom's net payments to European Community institutions for the financial year 1989–90 will be published in the Autumn Statement.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Charities
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sum is currently given per capita in donations to overseas aid charities; and what was the equivalent sum in donations in 1979.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There is no Government record of the public's donations to voluntary agencies for work overseas. However, each major agency publishes an 434
  annual report and accounts. It is clear that voluntary giving for overseas aid agencies has increased substantially since 1979.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what way Her Majesty's Government are helping to reduce the consequences of famine in Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Substantial amounts of food aid are likely to be needed but a fuller picture will emerge when United Nations crop assessment data become available shortly. Meanwhile, I announced in August 5,000 tonnes of wheatflour and I have recently approved a further 5,000 tonnes. We are, of course, working closely with other aid donors on emergency help.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to help alleviate famine in Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As I have said in reply to the question from my hon. Friend, the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), the situation is not yet fully clear, but it is likely that substantial amounts of food aid will be
  435
  needed to prevent the recurrence of famine in northern Ethiopia over the coming year. I announced in August the allocation of 5,000 tonnes of wheatflour to Ethiopia and I have recently approved the allocation of a further 5,000 tonnes. We shall continue to monitor the situation very closely and to liaise with other aid donors.

  South Africa
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what safeguards exist to monitor the allocation of overseas Government funding to organisations in South Africa and to South African organisations not currently located within South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Staff of our Embassy in Pretoria and of the British Council make frequent visits to the organisations to which we provide aid and the projects we help finance. Officials from my Department visit South Africa regularly to oversee our aid programme and to ensure that it is being well spent. We do not finance any South African organisations outside South Africa.

  Namibia
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid he proposes to make available to Namibia on attainment of independence.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in the House on 26 October, we are willing to provide financial assistance to independent Namibia. But it will not be possible to make specific plans until we have had discussions with the elected Government on their own priorities and policies.

  Wildlife Conservation (Africa)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in what ways Britain is helping to conserve wildlife in Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Britain has long been helping African Governments with their wildlife conservation efforts, and we are always ready to consider new requests for help. I have placed a list of recent and continuing activities in the Library of the House.

  Northern Somalia
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of United Kingdom aid to Somalia particularly in terms of alleviating the poverty and suffering of people in northern Somalia; whether his policy has been reviewed in the light of renewed internal conflicts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The security situation in northern Somalia since the beginning of the civil conflict there has prevented an effective relief effort being mounted, although we remain ready to support the operations of the international relief agencies and British voluntary organisations when these become possible. Concern about human rights abuses led us to suspend an offer of new capital aid to Somalia in October last year and following the deterioration of conditions since mid-July, we concluded that it was necessary to reduce our existing technical co-operation programme.

  Brundtland Commission Report
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the Brundtland Commission report on environment and development issues.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government's commitment to sustainable development is set out in the United Kingdom response of July 1988 to the Brundtland report and in a progress report, "Sustaining our Common Future", produced recently by the Department of the Environment. Copies of both documents are in the Library. Among the things they show is how, through the aid programme, we are working to promote sustainable economic and social progress and alleviate poverty in developing countries.

  India
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the United Kingdom is giving to support primary education in India.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A grant of just over £31 million was approved earlier this year for a primary education project in the state of Andhra Pradesh. It provides for the design and construction of some 1,100 teachers centres and 4,000 classrooms mostly in remote rural areas throughout the state. It will also cover the training of teachers and teacher educators, teaching materials and research and evaluation activities designed to measure and improve the effectiveness of training and child-centred learning techniques.

  Overseas Aid Programme
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of world economic conditions, he will review the priorities in the United Kingdom overseas aid programme.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Priorities in the United Kingdom overseas aid programme are kept under constant review, as indicated in the Government's observations on the 1987 FAC report on bilateral aid, Cm. 225.

  Amazonian Rain Forest
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific developments have now resulted from the visit by the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) to the Amazonian rain forest.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In August and September British experts visited Brazil and identified a number of well-defined possibilities for collaborative projects. One of these, a joint five year project by Brazilian scientific institutions and the Institute of Hydrology to improve our knowledge of the critical effect of rainforests on climate, has been worked out in detail and has been put forward to the Brazilian authorities for agreement. If it is acceptable, I hope work will start by January, 1990.

  In addition, Dr. Synnott of the Oxford Forestry Institute will visit Brazil again later this month to try to finalise the details of certain projects in sustainable forestry management and the genetic resources of forests so that work on these can also start early next year.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many former colonies are currently in receipt of overseas aid from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are 59 former British dependent territories currently in receipt of British aid.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of gross domestic product is currently spent on overseas aid.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage proportion of gross domestic product is currently spent on overseas aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  United Kingdom aid as a proportion of gross national product stood at 0·32 per cent. in 1988–14 per cent. up on the figure for 1987.

  Aid (Debt)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what weight he gives to a country's level of indebtedness when making decisions about the level of aid allocated to them.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our criteria for allocating bilateral aid are set out in the Government's observation on the 1987 FAC report on bilateral aid, Cm. 225. Indebtedness by itself is not a reason for providing aid. In the context of support for economic policy reform the level of debt servicing obligations a country has to meet, after any debt rescheduling or relief, is one of the factors taken into account on deciding on the level of bilateral aid provision.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 403, he will estimate when the research would be complete in order to assess the impact of AIDS on developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are supporting research on the demographic and economic impact of AIDS in developing countries. We expect this work to be completed in October 1990.

  Developing Countries
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received a copy of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on strengthening environmental co-operation with developing countries, published in the current year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Yes. A copy has been placed in the Library.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Guildford Four
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the granting of immunity from prosecution to those giving evidence in the judicial inquiry on the convictions of the Guildford Four.
  438
  The Attorney-General
  There is a distinction between a full immunity from prosecution, which might be given to a particular witness, and an assurance to that witness that any evidence he might give would not be used against him in criminal proceedings. I have discussed these matters in general terms with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Civil Legal Aid
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of adults are now estimated to be eligible for civil legal aid; and what was the comparative figure in 1979.

  The Attorney-General
  Eligibility for legal aid is determined by a great number of factors. Among them is the fact that a large proportion of civil legal aid is for matrimonial proceedings where it is not easy to estimate who might be eligible as proceedings only arise where there has been a breakdown of an existing household. Officials have been considering how it might be possible to make more reliable estimates of current eligibility for civil legal aid. Their work is not yet complete.

  Relator Proceedings
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he has received any representations about his criteria for deciding on the granting of relator proceedings; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Representations have been made in the context of recent proceedings brought against Barratt Manchester Ltd. and Bolton metropolitan borough council. The solicitor to the two relators concerned has confirmed that one of them is an undischarged bankrupt. Despite his making the usual inquiries, this was not known to him or the Attorney-General at the time consent was granted. The relator concerned has now withdrawn from the action.

  Judicial Review
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will review the rule that application for judicial review must normally be made within three months from the decision complained of; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have no plans to review the three month period within which applications for leave to apply for judicial review must normally be made. The present rules both encourage promptness and allow exceptions to be made where necessary.

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has had any recent representations from the judiciary on the green papers on the legal profession; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor received a number of representations from the judiciary on the Green Papers on the legal profession during the consultation period, but none since the White Paper was published on 19 July.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General how many justices of the peace are currently in post; how many of these are from ethnic minorities; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The total number of active justices of the peace in England and Wales at 1 January 1989 was 28,211. Records are not kept of the racial origins of magistrates but surveys in 1987 indicated that 528 were members of an ethnic minority.

  Since then an informal count has revealed that the number of appointments of justices from the ethnic minority has exceeded their proportion in the population age groups from which appointments are normally made. Subject to the personal suitability of candidates, it is desirable that each bench should broadly reflect the local community. Where this is not currently the case, advisory committees seek to redress the balance.

  City Fraud
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent meetings he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding serious City fraud; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Matters of serious City fraud are largely the responsibility of the serious fraud office. I have met the director and deputy director of the serious fraud office on a number of occasions in the past month to discuss matters of departmental interest.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Attorney-General what information his Department and the Lord Chancellor's Department have on the length of time taken to respond to letters from hon. Members.

  The Attorney-General
  Between 1 January 1989 and 30 September 1989, 67 per cent. of letters from hon. Members to the Lord Chancellor's Department were answered within 28 days of receipt. Information for earlier periods is not available.

  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 31 October 1989 at col. 133 to his earlier question concerning my own Department.

  Ministers (Prosecution)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if his fiat has been refused in any cases where citizens have attempted to bring a private prosecution against a Government Minister for alleged serious offences; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if his power of consent has been used at any time to refuse the prosecution of Government Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  My consent to the institution of criminal proceedings is required only when the statute creating an offence so stipulates. I have not refused any request from a prosecuting authority or any other source for such consent.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General if the serious fraud squad was able to secure in Egypt the papers it sought in connection with its inquiries into the House of Fraser report; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Egyptian authorities have recently informed the Crown prosecution service that their inquiries are continuing into the matters in respect of which assistance was sought.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General if the serious fraud squad has yet completed its inquiries into the issues raised by the House of Fraser reports; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The inquiries have necessarily been protracted on account of the nature of the matters under investigation and the need for a substantial proportion of the relevant evidence to be gathered from overseas. I am satisfied that these inquiries, with which I personally keep in touch, are being conducted with all proper expedition. I hope that a decision about this case will be taken shortly.

WALES

  Far East (Visit)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his visit to the Far East.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In Korea I had talks with 19 top companies and in Japan with 27. As a result I expect a good number of positive decisions to invest in Wales to be made over the next 12 months.

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the amount of overseas investment in Wales for the period 1979–88.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The available figures show that, between 1979 and 1988 inclusive, 360 individual inward investment projects have been secured in Wales, promising over 43,000 jobs. 1988 was a record year in which Wales secured 22 per cent. of the new jobs associated with inward investment to the United Kingdom. The associated capital investment for that year was over £1 billion.

  Elderly Patients
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to provide the area health authorities with additional resources to enable them to improve hospital facilities for the long stay elderly.

  Mr. Grist
  Funding of long-stay hospital facilities for the elderly is a matter for district health authorities, using their discretionary resources. In 1989–90 total resources available to district health authorities, the bulk of which will be available for their discretionary use, will amount to over £961 million—an increase of £72 million over 1988–89.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that no doctor in Wales will be unable to prescribe for his or her patients the medication or drugs most appropriate to their condition if the Government's plans for the Health Service are implemented in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Government's White Paper proposals relating to general practitioners' prescribing will not in any way prevent people getting the medicines they need. Our policy is to implement these proposals in Wales.

  Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value of grants which Wales has received from the European regional development fund in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  European regional development fund commitments to Wales since 1979 have amounted to £460 million.

  CBI
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of Wales Confederation of British Industry; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I last met members of CBI Wales on 12 June during a seminar to consider information technology and the single European market (1992).

  National Curriculum (Teachers)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that there will be sufficient teachers qualified in all the necessary subjects to teach the national curriculum in its further stages from September 1990.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The requirements of the national curriculum are being taken fully into account in setting the intakes to initial teacher training, in revising the criteria for initial teacher training courses and in planning the LEA in-service training grant scheme and education support grants.

  Puppy Farming
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many planning appeals he has dealt with relating to puppy farming in Wales in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Grist
  None.

  Welsh Language Board
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of the work of the Welsh Language Board.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Language Board has made encouraging progress in its first year of operation. It has issued voluntary guidelines governing the use of Welsh in both the public and private sectors. It has been instrumental in finding practical solutions to problems 442
  encountered by Welsh speakers. I am now discussing with the board next steps in relation to its strategy for the future.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed in the Principality, at the latest available date, by employers who had no place of business in the Principality 10 years earlier.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, on the basis of VAT returns, the stock of businesses in Wales rose by some 11,300 between 1979 and 1988. In addition, the Department's regional data system indicates that manufacturing units employing 10 or more and which have opened since 1979 currently provide 44,500 jobs.

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

  Mr. Peter Walker
  On 14 September 1989 the numbers of unemployment claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 4,893, 14,970 and 90,594 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made. Unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency was 87 per cent, higher when the Government was re-elected in June 1987 than it is today.

  Departmental Anniversary
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to mark the 25th anniversary of the setting up of his Department.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The 25th Anniversary of the establishment of the Welsh Office falls on 1 April 1990. I intend to mark the anniversary in an appropriate manner and will announce my plans in due course.

  National Museum
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to meet the president and director of the National Museum of Wales to discuss the museum's strategy plan and future funding.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend meets the president and director of the National Museum of Wales to discuss matters of mutual interest as occasion demands. Decisions on the need for a meeting to discuss the museum's next strategy plan will be taken when it is received early next year.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the change in the number of people visiting the National museum in Cardiff since the introduction of entrance charges.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the totals of visitors to the National museum of Wales, Cathays Park, since admission charges were introduced and for the previous comparable period.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Recorded visitor numbers were:
  443

  December 1988-September 1989 (inclusive) 62,583

  December 1987-September 1988 (inclusive) 329,949

  The National museum issued a statement on 24 October explaining the reason for these differentials. Comparisons are difficult because in the earlier period both the Chinese Dinosaurs exhibition and the Gerald of Wales exhibition were taking place. Subsequently major building works at the museum have prevented the staging of major exhibitions. During the current financial year the attendance at Cathays park is 3,000 below budget—a shortfall of 8 per cent. Conversely the number of visitors attending the Welsh folk museum is 39,000 above budget—an increase of 20 per cent. The museum believes that these differences were accounted for by the exceptional summer weather and that its experience is in line with other indoor and outdoor attractions in Wales. The museum holds the view that with the reopening of the east wing in March 1990, refurbishment of the major temporary exhibition gallery which is now complete and the sound financial position, the museum could attract major temporary exhibitions which in turn would substantially improve visitor numbers.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for Welsh conservation of the proposed merger of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The proposed new arrangements will mean clearer lines of responsibility and facilitate the development of conservation policies fully sensitive to the needs of Wales.

  Welsh Water
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of Welsh Water plc; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am in regular contact with the chairman and discuss with him a wide range of issues related to the business of Welsh Water.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek to stop Welsh Water from proceeding with a long sewage outfall from Swansea where this conflicts with any European Community directive.

  Mr. Grist
  The design and construction of a long sea outfall at Swansea bay is a matter for Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig. The company will, no doubt, have full regard to all existing statutory requirements in the preparation of its detailed proposals.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the waiting lists and the numbers of patients treated for 1979 and for the latest available corresponding period for(a) in-patients, (b) out-patients and (c) day patients.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows:

  1978–79

  1988–89

  Patient treated:

  In-patient cases

  345,305

  456,378

  New out-patients

  425,927

  524,113

  444

  1978–79

  1988–89

  Day cases

  26,456

  84,758

  31 March 1979

  31 March 1989

  Waiting lists:

  In-patients

  39,527

  41,964

  Out-patients

  57,832

  90,745

  Day cases

  3,397

  6,914

  Fishguard Harbour
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy towards the development of Fishguard harbour, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This is a matter for Sealink, the port's operators.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his latest visit to mid-Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My most recent visit was to Builth Wells on 17 October, when I addressed the 1989 Welsh agricultural outlook conference.

  Egg Industry
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the present state of the egg industry in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The egg laying flock in Wales is relatively small. The market for eggs is very buoyant and prices are stable.

  Heartbeat Wales
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the level and sources of funding of the campaign Heartbeat Wales in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Grist
  Central contributions to Heartbeat Wales, the Welsh heart programme, were identifiable in the programme's first two years of operation, are shown as follows:

  1985·86 £

  1986–87 £

  Health Education Council

  365,000

  350,000

  Welsh Office

  130,000

  215,000

  From 1 April 1987 responsibility for Heartbeat Wales was assumed by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, a Welsh Office-funded special health authority, which receives an unhypothecated allocation for its range of activities and expenditure. Funding for the authority in 1987–88 was £1·218 million; and 1–838 million in 1988–89; the allocation for 1989–90 is £2–057 million. In addition to central contributions, Heartbeat Wales has attracted income from sponsorship and other sources.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information his Department has on the length of time taken to respond to letters from hon. Members.
  445
  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department holds information on the date of letters, the date they are received in the Department and the date a reply issues for all correspondence from hon. Members since 1984. This enables aggregate information to be produced on the length of time taken to respond to Members' letters.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the likely effects on employment in the Welsh coal industry of the privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This will depend on a number of factors which cannot now be predicted. Among them will be the terms eventually agreed between British Coal, National Power and PowerGen on the future of coal supplies and the competitiveness of mines in Wales.

  Channel Tunnel
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the negotiations currently under way between his office and British Rail concerning the nature of the rail links between south Wales and the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Officials took part in British Rail's consultations on the plan of services they are required to present to the Government by the end of this year under S40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. That report is now awaited.

  East Glamorgan General Hospital
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the progress achieved to date in bringing to fruition the planned replacement hospital for the existing East Glamorgan general hospital;

  (2) where the planned replacement hospital for East Glamorgan general hospital will be sited.

  Mr. Grist
  Though a number of planning approval and funding issues remain to be resolved we understand that Mid Glamorgan health authority continues to focus its management effort on securing an area of land at Ynys-y-Plwm for the proposed new district general hospital covering Taff-Ely and Rhondda.

  Sewage Disposal
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, when he next meets the Welsh regional chairman of the National Rivers Authority, he will request him to address as a priority, stopping the Welsh water authority from depositing raw sewage from its treatment plants into the rivers, estuaries and bays of Wales.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  All of Dwr Cymru's sewage treatment plants have consents. It is for the National Rivers Authority to determine what to do if the consents are breached.

  The NRA has already been asked to set in hand an urgent review of the way in which discharge consents are set and the way in which compliance with these consents is assessed.

  Ynysplwm (Investment)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to encourage inward industrial investment located at the Ynysplwm site at Clantrisant, Mid Glamorgan.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am determined to continue to encourage inward investment into Wales and to this end I am actively involved in promoting all areas of the Principality. The Welsh Development Agency is responsible for identifying and promoting individual sites for inward investment and I am advised that it believes that there may be some land available at Ynysplwm which is suitable for one or more such projects.

  Schools (Local Management)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the criteria which will be taken into account in the needs-related component of the formula funding under local management of schools.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Each LEA was required to devise its own formula having regard to local needs and circumstances and after consultation with its schools. The formula must be based on an assessment of school's objective needs and conform to the requirements of the Education Reform Act and the guidance in circular 36/88. The central determinant of a school's needs should be the number of pupils weighted for age differences.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications of local management of schools in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Local management will enable governors and headteachers of all county and voluntary secondary schools, and of larger primary schools, to target funds on their own educational needs and priorities by giving them control over their running costs. It will make schools more responsive to the clients—parents, the local community, and employers—by relating the funding that schools receive mainly to the numbers of pupils. Local management gives the local education authority the lead function in deciding the basis for allocating funds to schools and in supporting them in the efficient and effective provision of education.

  The Department is currently considering the LEAs' schemes for the local management of schools.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the implications of local management of schools on(a) administrative costs at school levels, (b) responsibilities and workloads of head teachers and (c) information technology requirements at school level.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Over time the administrative costs associated with the introduction of local management of schools should be offset by the more effective use of resources. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, has asked the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions to advise on the implications of local management for the workload of headteachers when reporting to him on school teachers' pay and conditions for 1990–91.

  Up to £1 million has been made available to LEAs in Wales in 1989–90 for the introduction of local

  447
  management. Of this £500,000 has been earmarked for the introduction of management information systems into schools.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the Member for Alyn and Deeside of 30 October, when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on staffing requirements under the proposals of the White Paper, "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on Monday 30 October at col.34. The manpower implications of the proposals contained in the White Paper "Working for Patients" are being considered as part of the ongoing manpower planning and management process within the NHS in Wales alongside a number of other initiatives. A number of these initiatives naturally interrelate and to some degree overlap for example, it is likely that the White Paper proposals will require a further strengthening of the personnel, finance and information technology functions within the NHS in Wales, in addition to the work that is already being undertaken in these areas as part of the continuing development of the management of the service.

  Similarly, the proposals contained in a review of the Combined Training Institute at Cardiff and in an option appraisal of nurse education arrangements in Wales as part of the wider task of implementing Project 2000 are being considered alongside the outcome of the manpower resource planning exercise. The proposals contained in the White Paper overlay such initiatives to some extent and will be taken into account in that context. The annual manpower resource planning exercise will enable the NHS in Wales to take stock of the manpower requirements over the next decade.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his plans for a scheme of transitional relief to help community chargepayers in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In July I announced that the average community charge in Wales for 1990–91 would be £175, provided that Welsh local authorities budgeted in line with my plans. This will benefit all Welsh community chargepayers. In addition to this a three-year scheme of community charge transitional relief is to be introduced which will provide further assistance to personal chargepayers in Wales. The cost of the scheme will be £17·5 million in 1990–91.

  I am placing in the Library copies of a paper setting out my proposals, which have been the subject of consultation with the Welsh local authority associations. The scheme gives protection to those facing significant increases over their 1989–90 domestic rates bills. It will provide broadly the same protection as that provided by a district safety net but without the need for contributions from chargepayers.

  The scheme I am announcing today will mean that in 1990–91 personal chargepayers in communities where domestic ratable values are low will face an increase of no more than £25 per year—less than 50p a week—over the average 1989–90 domestic rates bill for each adult in their community area, provided that local authorities spend in
  448
  line with my plans. Residents of many communities and some inner city communities will be protected from large increases as we introduce the new system.

  In bringing forward these proposals, I must emphasise the important responsibility which now falls upon Welsh local authorities in their budget-making for 1990–91. The announcement I have made must not be taken by authorities as a signal to increase spending; rather, I look to Welsh local authorities to ensure, in setting their budgets for 1990–91, that the full benefits of these new arrangements flow through to chargepayers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales at what level he proposes to set the total of revenue support grant, the national non-domestic rate multiplier and the distributable amount of national non-domestic rate for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I announced on 20 July that I proposed to set the total of aggregate external finance (the level of central Government support for local authority revenue spending) at £1,733 million, an increase of 8·6 per cent. over the comparable level for 1989–90. This support comprises three component elements: revenue support grant, the national non-domestic rates distributable amount, and relevant specific grants.

  I now estimate that the amount of business rates to be distributed in 1990–91 (the distributable amount) will be £454 million. This is the amount (adjusted to allow for certain technical factors) which I expect charging authorities to receive in respect of rates paid by private businesses, nationalised industries, and local authorities themselves, together with a contribution in respect of Crown property. This amount includes an element from the business sector which is broadly the same in real terms as the equivalent amount for 1989–90. In arriving at the distributable amount I have estimated that the national non-domestic rating multiplier for 1990–91 will be 38p; but this figure will be provisional until I have final information about the effects of the revaluation and other relevant factors.

  I estimate that relevant specific grants towards local authority revenue expenditure will total £154·2 million. Further details will be available at the time of the Autumn Statement.

  I propose that the total of revenue support grant should be £1,124·8 million. I am today consulting Welsh local authorities and their associations on this amount.

  I will also shortly be notifying the associations of my proposals for the distribution and population reports, together with exemplifications of the likely effect of my proposals on individual authorities. These will be based on provisional population figures from community charge registers. The Welsh local authority associations share the view that it would not be helpful to publish exemplifications at this stage.

HEALTH

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will implement a scheme of compensation over and above the £10 million granted in November 1987, for haemophilia HIV positive people who have contracted the virus from infected imported blood products during National Health Service treatment.
  449
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The £10 million that the Government provided to set up the Macfarlane Trust was an ex-gratia payment and not compensation. I understand that the trust funds are not yet fully committed, but, as we made clear when the £10 million grant was announced. we shall not be closed to any representations about further funding which may be made at a later date.

  Some haemophiliacs who are HIV positive are now pursuing compensation through the courts and I am advised that this matter is now sub judice.

  Wheelchairs (Children)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the demand for, and availability of, electronic and hi-tech wheelchairs for disabled children.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Disablement Services Authority is the special health authority responsible for the provision of artificial limbs and wheelchairs. My hon. Friend should address his question to the DSA.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will create a specific section dealing with the problem of child abuse.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is a policy section specifically concerned with the problem of child abuse within the Department of Health. The section draws on professional advice from within and outside the Department, and, through the interdepartmental group on child abuse, works with other Government Departments to provide a co-ordinated approach to child protection.

  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will initiate a research project to discover how many clinics there are currently which have been set up to help child abusers overcome their problem.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department is aware of a number of clinics and other facilities and projects working with child abusers in a variety of settings. A definitive count of such clinics is not available, since some offer a specialist service while others help child abusers as part of a wider programme.

  Health Authority Boundaries
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations are taking place on health authority boundary changes in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Consultation is taking place on the proposed transfer of north east Westminster from Bloomsbury health authority (North East Thames regional health authority) to Parkside health authority (North West Thames regional health authority). A consultation document has been issued, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  A further consultation exercise will take place later this year on a proposal by North East Thames regional health authority to merge the remaining part of Bloomsbury health authority with Islington health authority (also in North East Thames).

  Erythropoietin
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Minister of State's reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, on 23 October about the prescribing of erythropoietin for patients with kidney failure, if he has now assessed the information received from health authorities about the likely need for the drug and its expenditure implications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have nothing to add to the reply that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) gave to the right hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 23 October at columns 316–17.

  Medical Education and Research
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in view of the proposed Health Service arrangements, if he will establish a mechanism for evaluating the impact of the changes in medical education and research.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As was made clear in the White Paper "Working for Patients", the Government are firmly committed to maintaining the quality of medical education and research and we recognise the complexity and special needs of these areas.

  The steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education, the standing committee on postgraduate medical education, and the Chief Medical Officer's expert advisory group are considering the impact that the proposed changes may have on medical education.

  Beverley Lewis
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement about the Beverley Lewis case;

  (2) whether he has any plans to review the Mental Health Act in the light of the Beverley Lewis case.

  Mr. Freeman
  The death of Beverley Lewis is a very tragic case. We have asked for reports on it from the health and social services authorities concerned. These reports and the inquest findings will be examined very carefully to see what needs to be done to close any gaps in legislation or in guidance to the authorities.

  Mr. Jeremy Harrison (Correspondence)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from Mr. Jeremy Harrison, a chiropodist of 433 Aigburth road. Liverpool 17.

  Mr. Freeman
  I met Mr. Harrison in the presence of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 25 September 1989 to discuss a number of issues concerning the practice of chiropody by state-registered and non-state-registered practitioners. The issues are very complex and I will be giving a considered reply to the questions raised by Mr. Harrison at this meeting as soon as possible.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the anticipated levels of supply of factor VIII from the blood products laboratory, Elstree, over the last 12 months in monthly figures;
  451
  (2) what are the anticipated levels of supply of plasma to the blood products laboratory in Elstree over the next 12 months' in monthly figures:

  (3) what were the quantities of plasma held in stockpile at the blood products laboratory, Elstree, over the last 12 months, in monthly figures;

  (4) what were the quantities of plasma received at the blood products laboratory, Elstree, over the last 12 months, in monthly figures.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Table 1

  Levels of supply of Factor VIII from BPL over the last 12 months und projections for the next 12 months

  millions of international units

  1988

  11989

  November

  6·6

  6·0

  December

  6·2

  6·0

  1989

  1990

  January

  5·6

  6·0

  February

  5·6

  6·0

  March

  5·7

  6·0

  April

  5·4

  7·3

  May

  5·4

  7·3

  June

  5·9

  7·3

  July

  4·6

  7·3

  August

  6·0

  7·3

  September

  5·0

  7·3

  October

  5·4

  7·3

  1 Projections.

  Table 2

  Anticipated levels of plasma supply to BPL over the next 12 months

  Tonnes

  November

  35

  December

  35

  January

  35

  February

  35

  March

  35

  April

  40

  May

  40

  June

  41

  July

  41

  August

  41

  September

  41

  October

  41

  Table 3

  Quantities of plasma held in stockpile at BPL over last 12 months

  Tonnes

  November

  307

  December

  304

  January

  289

  February

  278

  March

  261

  April

  263

  May

  253

  June

  248

  July

  237

  August

  232

  September

  219

  October

  213

  Table 4

  Quantities of plasma received at BPL over the last 12 months

  Tonnes

  November

  33

  December

  28

  January

  33

  452

  Tonnes

  February

  35

  March

  35

  April

  35

  May

  3l

  June

  44

  July

  34

  August

  34

  September

  39

  October

  35

  North West RHA
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account is taken of inflation in the financial allocations to the North West regional health authority in connection with the reimbursement of costs for caring for the former residents of large mental institutions; and what allowance was made to that authority for the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Freeman
  In general, allocations to regional health authorities do not make separate provision for individual clinical services or client groups. It is for authorities to determine how the resources available to them should be spent in line with national policy guidelines and their assessment of local needs and priorities.

  Listeriosis
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give details of any information he has received about outbreaks of listeriosis in Mexico, Canada and California;

  (2) if he will give the numbers of reported cases of listeriosis for each year since 1978;

  (3) when he first became aware of any research programmes into listeriosis carried out in the United States of America, Austria and West Germany;

  (4) when he first received the World Health Organisation report entitled "Foodborne Listeriosis";

  (5) whether he has received advice from bodies representing informed medical opinion as to whether the public should be made aware of the risks of listeriosis.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of reported cases of listeriosis for each year since 1978 is as follows:

  Number

  1978

  187

  1979

  170

  1980

  175

  1981

  186

  1982

  177

  1983

  115

  1984

  115

  1985

  149

  1986

  137

  1987

  259

  1988

  291

  19892

  231

  1 These figures cannot be compared with later figures which reflect a change in reporting systems.

  2 Figures are from January to September only and are provisional.

  Information on listeriosis in California and Canada is available in evidence given to the Social Services Committee in its examination of food poisoning, listeria and listeriosis earlier this year. Of particular interest was

  453
  the following table. Mexican-style soft cheese was

  Examples of outbreaks of food-borne listeriosis

  Numbers of cases (deaths)

  Ref. Place

  Years

  Total

  Maternal/foetal/ neonatal

  Non-pregnant adult and juvenile

  Food implicated

  Serotype

  1. Boston, United States of America

  1979

  20 (5)

  0

  20 (5)

  ? raw vegetables

  4b

  2. Halifax, Canada

  1981

  41 (18)

  34 (16)

  7 (2)

  coleslaw

  4b

  3. Boston, United States of America

  1983

  49 (14)

  7 (2)

  42 (12)

  ? milk

  4b

  4. Los Angeles, United States of America

  1985

  142 (48)

  93 (30)

  49 (18)

  soft cheese

  4b

  5. Vaud, Switzerland

  1983–7

  122 (33)

  61 (nk)

  61 (nk)

  soft cheese

  4b

  nk = Not known.

  1. Ho et al. Arch Intern Med 1986; 146: 520–4.

  2. Schlech et al New Engl J Med 1983; 308: 203–6.

  3. Fleming et al New Engl J Med 1985; 312: 404 –7.

  4. Linnan et al New Engl J Med 1988; 319: 823–8.

  5. Bille & Glauser. Bulletin des Bundesamtes fur Gesundheitswesen 1988; 28: 28·9.

  The report of the WHO informal working group on foodborne listeriosis was published in May 1988.

  The government have been working with all interests, including the medical profession, since the end of 1987 to assess and decide how best to deal with potential hazards from listeria monocytogenes as evidence of cases of listeriosis linked to food emerged in Europe. The Government have kept in close touch with relevant research worldwide.

  Mentally Ill patients
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the experiment in release of long-stay mentally ill patients known as the "Daily Living Programme".

  Mr. Freeman
  The pattern of care and treatment used in the daily living programme has been used very successfully for some years both in parts of the United States of America and in Australia.

  The present research programme is to assess the value of this pattern of care in an urban environment in England. The daily living programme is designed to give people with early and acute mental illness the treatment that they need without unnecessary use of in-patient care. The patients in the daily living programme can be admitted or readmitted to hospital whenever it is considered necessary by their clinical team and preliminary results show that over 80 per cent. of patients in the programme have been admitted to hospital during their time on the programme. Patients in the programme can stay in hospital for as long as is judged necessary. The daily living programme is not concerned with the rehabilitation of long-stay patients. The programme is a research project, which has been partly funded by the Department of Health for three years until September 1990. A full evaluation is due at the end of 1990.

  Health Authorities (Internal Markets)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities that are to be tested in the development of internal markets; what services are to be tested; and when he hopes to report on the results of the scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All health authorities are engaged upon development work to get ready for the first 454
  implicated in the Los Angles (California) outbreak in 1985. The Department has no information on any outbreak of listeriosis in Mexico.

  contracts for health services. Subject to the passage of the necessary legislation these should be operative from April 1991. We are however funding certain authorities whose development work is more advanced. The purpose of this funding is to enable them both to progress faster and to document their experience for the benefit of those authorities who are at a less advanced stage.

  The projects are for:

  (a) the development of contracts for services between three DHAs and hospitals within their own boundaries, hospitals in other districts and with the private sector. The DHAs are Cambridge, Peterborough and Huntingdon. The project will produce regular reports of its work, the next being due in March 1990.

  (b) the development of management contracts between four DHAs and hospitals they directly manage. The DHAs are West Norfolk and Wisbech, West Suffolk, East Suffolk, and Great Yarmouth and Waveney. The project will produce regular reports of its work, the next being due in March 1990.

  (c) The development of service contracts between authorities in respect of flows of patients across district boundaries. The project involves all DHAs within the South Western region. The project will produce regular reports, the next being due early in 1990.

  The Department is in addition funding some other projects concerned with related aspects of the "Working for Patients" proposals.

  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has yet received the option appraisal on the future location of the Mental Health Act Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. We welcome the commission's decision to centralise its administration and, in the light of the information contained in the commission's report of its review, and in the option appraisal, have decided that the office should be located in Nottingham.

  Hyperactivity
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken into allergies leading to hyperactivity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Medical Research Council, which receives a grant-in-aid from this Department, is the main agency through which the Government support medical research. The council is not currently supporting research into

  455
  allergies leading to hyperactivity, though it is supporting other work on hyperactivity. The council is always willing to consider soundly-based proposals for new research programmes in competition with other proposals.

  Cytomegalovirus
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department funds into the foetal disease cytomegalovirus.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from this Department, is the main agency through which the Government support medical research. I understand that the council is supporting the following projects concerning cytomegalovirus:

  Dr. J. D. Gram, Molecular Genetic Laboratory, Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, Porton.

  Project Title:

  Expression of a human cytomegalovirus glycoprotein genes in cultures of eschcrichia coli.

  Dr. G. H. Farrar, Molecular Genetics Laboratory, Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, Porton.

  Project Title:

  Isolation and characterisation of human cytomegalovirus glycoproteins.

  Professor C. A. Mims, Department of Microbiology, United Medical School Guy's and St. Thomas's London.

  Project Title:

  Studies of the interaction of m urine cytomegalovirus with the immune system.

  Dr. P. D. Griffiths, Department of Microbiology, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London.

  Project Title:

  Studies on the protein composition of cytomegalovirus found in the body fluids.

  Professor Catherine Peckham, Department of Paediatric Epidemiology, Institute of Child Health, London.

  Project Title:

  Long-term follow-up of children with congenital cytomegalovirus infection.

  Dr. Minson, Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge.

  Project Title:

  The indentification and characterisation of the glycoproteins in human cytomegalovirus.

  Dr. V. C. Emery, Department of Virology, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London.

  Project Title:

  Quantification of cytomegalovirus in clinical samples. Additionally, research on cytomegalovirus may be being pursued by university departments and medical schools with support from UFC block grants and by health authorities; but information on this is not collected centrally.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mobility Allowance
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total cost to the Exchequer of extending mobility allowance at(a) current levels of payment and (b) proposed updated levels of payment to people aged over 75 years of age.
  456
  Mr. Scott
  Mobility allowance must be claimed before age 66 and in respect of disability arising before age 65. Section 8 of the Social Security Act 1989 has already provided for existing recipients of the allowance who reach age 75 to continue to receive it to age 80. The annual cost of this will rise to £8 million in 1991–92. The cost of complete abolition of all age limits would be nearly £1·5 billion a year at current rates and nearly £1·6 billion at the proposed new rates.

  Unemployed Claimants
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in what circumstances an unemployed person in receipt of income support who has their benefit suspended for two weeks for not actually seeking work will(a) continue to receive uninterrupted income support and eligibility for passported benefits such as housing benefit, less the 40 per cent. deduction to their personal allowance and (b) have to claim individually for a hardship payment; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) under what circumstances an unemployed person in receipt only of unemployment benefit who has that benefit suspended for two weeks for not actively seeking work would (a) automatically be paid income support, less the 40 per cent. personal allowance deduction and (b) have to make a separate hardship claim for income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Normally payment of benefit will be suspended when a question arises about whether an unemployed claimant has been actively seeking employment. However, there can still be entitlement to income support at a reduced rate (and eligibility for passported benefits including housing benefit) if the adjudication officer decides that the claimant (or member of his/her family) would suffer hardship if benefit was not paid.

  The adjudication officer should consider the question of hardship automatically for those already in receipt of income support. Where it is decided that benefit should continue the local office will do its best to ensure payments remain uninterrupted.

  Those in receipt only of unemployment benefit when the actively seeking employment question arises need to make a separate claim before the adjudication officer can consider whether a payment of income support can be made.

  Allowances
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information in his reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) about child and family allowances of 7 June,Official Report, columns 563–66, expressed in April prices to include the years 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is as follows:
  457

  Value of child support1 for each child in standard rate tax-paying families expressed at April 19892 prices (£)

  Children under age 11

  Children aged 11–15

  Children aged 16 and over

  Date3

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  April 1958

  7·60

  10·01

  10·76

  9·46

  11·96

  12·52

  11·40

  13·82

  14·46

  April 1959

  6·96

  9·47

  10·12

  8·63

  11·23

  11·88

  10·39

  12·90

  13·64

  April 1960

  6·91

  9·40

  10·13

  8·57

  11·15

  11·79

  10·32

  12·81

  13·54

  April 1961

  6·73

  9·15

  9·87

  8·34

  10·85

  11·48

  10·05

  12·47

  13·19

  April 1962

  6·37

  8·66

  9·34

  7·89

  10·27

  10·86

  9·51

  11·80

  12·48

  April 1963

  7·15

  9·40

  10·06

  8·65

  11·06

  11·56

  10·23

  12·56

  13·14

  April 1964

  7·01

  9·21

  9·86

  8·48

  10·84

  11·33

  10·03

  12·31

  12·88

  April 1965

  7·03

  9·19

  9·65

  8·57

  10·66

  11·20

  10·12

  12·20

  12·74

  April 1966

  6·78

  8·87

  9·32

  8·28

  10·29

  10·81

  9·77

  11·78

  12·30

  April 1967

  6·59

  8·61

  9·05

  8·03

  9·99

  10·49

  9·48

  11·44

  11·94

  April 1968

  6·31

  7·90

  8·38

  7·69

  9·29

  9·70

  90·8

  10·60

  11·09

  April 1969

  5·98

  7·81

  82·7

  7·29

  9·13

  9·59

  8·60

  10·44

  10·83

  April 1970

  5·66

  7·40

  7·83

  6·90

  8·64

  9·08

  8·15

  9·89

  10·26

  April 1971

  6·59

  8·35

  8·75

  7·61

  9·43

  9·83

  8·69

  10·46

  10·85

  April 1972

  6·20

  7·86

  8·23

  7·16

  8·87

  9·25

  8·18

  9·84

  10·21

  April 1973

  5·63

  7·05

  7·39

  6·66

  8·03

  8·37

  7·49

  8·86

  9·20

  April 1974

  6·46

  7·65

  7·95

  7·44

  8·54

  8·88

  8·24

  9·35

  9·69

  April 1975

  5·66

  7·82

  7·82

  6·46

  8·63

  8·63

  7·16

  9·36

  9·36

  April 1976

  5·93

  7·78

  7·78

  6·61

  8·46

  8·46

  7·23

  9·05

  9·05

  April 1977

  5·70

  6·53

  6·53

  6·28

  7·10

  7·10

  6·78

  7·58

  7·58

  April 1978

  6·79

  6·79

  6·79

  7·32

  7·32

  7·32

  7·76

  7·76

  7·76

  April 1979

  8·42

  8·42

  8·42

  8·42

  8·42

  8·42

  8·42

  8·42

  8·42

  November 1980

  7·81

  7·81

  7·81

  7·81

  7·81

  7·81

  7·81

  7·81

  7·81

  November 1981

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  7·71

  November 1982

  8·09

  8·09

  8·09

  8·09

  8·09

  8·09

  8·09

  8·09

  8·09

  November 1983

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  November 1984

  8·61

  8·61

  8·61

  8·61

  8·61

  8·61

  8·61

  8·61

  8·61

  November 1985

  8·34

  8·34

  8·34

  8·34

  8·34

  8·34

  8·34

  8·34

  8·34

  July 1986

  8·32

  8·32

  8·32

  8·32

  8·32

  8·32

  8·32

  8·32

  8·32

  April 1987

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  April 1988

  7·83

  7·83

  7·83

  7·83

  7·83

  7·83

  7·83

  7·83

  7·83

  April 1989

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  1 The combined value of child tax-allowances after clawback and family allowance/child benefit.

  2 Based on the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices at April 1989.

  3 Child tax allowance ceased after the 1978–79 tax year end and up-rating dates are shown from 1979 onwards.

  4 And subsequent children.

  Child Support
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for Social Security if he will update to April 1990 to the information provided in the reply of 28 November 1988 to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)Official Report,columns 93–96, relating to child support.

  (a)

  (b) MICUB rate

  (c) Dep increase

  (d) Child Benefit/Family allowance

  (e) Total child1 support

  (f) Column (e) as a percentage of column (b)

  (g) Column (e) ex- pressed at April 1989 prices2

  (h) Column (g) as index April 1989=100

  Date

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  5th July 1948

  2·10

  0·375

  0·25

  0·625

  29·8

  9·02

  62·2

  30th August 1951

  2·10

  0·625

  0·25

  0·875

  41·7

  10·74

  74·1

  24th July 1952

  2·70

  0·65

  0·25

  0·90

  33·3

  10·20

  70·3

  19th May 1955

  3·25

  0·75

  0·40

  1·15

  35·4

  12·24

  84·4

  6th February 1958

  4·00

  1·10

  0·40

  1·50

  37·5

  14·17

  97·7

  6th April 1961

  4·625

  1·35

  0·40

  1·75

  37·8

  15·70

  108·3

  7th March 1963

  5·45

  1·60

  0·40

  2·00

  36·7

  16·68

  115·0

  28th January 1965

  6·50

  1·85

  0·40

  2·25

  34·6

  17·77

  122·6

  28th October 1967

  7·30

  2·10

  0·40

  2·50

  34·2

  18·06

  124·6

  llth April 1968

  7·30

  2·05

  0·75

  2·80

  38·4

  19·40

  133·8

  lOth October 1968

  7·30

  1·90

  0·90

  2·80

  38·4

  19·16

  132·1

  6th November 1969

  8·10

  2·20

  0·90

  3·10

  38·3

  20·08

  138·5

  23rd September 1971

  9·70

  2·80

  0·90

  3·70

  3·81

  20·58

  141·9

  5th October 1972

  10·90

  3·30

  0·90

  4·20

  38·5

  21·53

  148·5

  4th October 1973

  11·90

  3·70

  0·90

  4·60

  38·7

  21·46

  148·0

  25th July 1974

  13·90

  4·50

  0·90

  5·40

  38·8

  22·20

  153·1

  7th April 1975

  15·90

  4·70

  1·50

  6·20

  39·0

  21·66

  149·4

  20th November 1975

  18·00

  5·50

  1·50

  7·00

  38·9

  21·89

  151·0

  18th November 1976

  20·90

  6·60

  1·50

  8·10

  38·8

  22·03

  151·9

  4th April 1977

  20·90

  5·60

  2·50

  8·10

  38·8

  20·26

  139·7

  17th November 1977

  23·80

  6·50

  2·50

  9·00

  37·8

  21·66

  149·4

  458
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The figures, updated to April 1989, are set out as follows. The table cannot be updated to April 1990 until the movement in the index of retail prices to that month is known.
  459

  (a)

  (b) M/C UB rate

  (c) Dep increase

  (d) Child Benefit/Family allowance

  (e) Total child1 support

  (f) Column (e) as a percentage ofcolumn (b)

  (g) Column (e) ex- pressed at April 1989 prices2

  (h) Column (g) as index April 1989 = 100

  Date

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  4th April 1978

  23·80

  4·40

  4·60

  9·00

  37·8

  20·85

  143·8

  16th November 1978

  25·50

  3·70

  6·00

  9·70

  38·0

  21·60

  149·0

  2nd April 1979

  25·50

  1·70

  8·00

  9·70

  38·0

  20·42

  140·8

  15th November 1979

  29·95

  3·40

  8·00

  11·40

  38·1

  21·63

  149·2

  24th November 1980

  33·40

  2·50

  9·50

  12·00

  35·9

  19·74

  136·1

  23rd November 1981

  36·40

  1·60

  10·50

  12·10

  33·2

  17·78

  122·6

  25th November 1982

  40·45

  0·60

  11·70

  12·30

  30·4

  17·01

  117·3

  24th November 1983

  43·75

  0·30

  13·00

  13·30

  30·4

  17·54

  121·0

  26th November 1984

  46·00

  —3

  13·70

  13·70

  29·8

  17·22

  118·8

  28th November 1985

  49·25

  —

  14·00

  14·00

  28·4

  16·68

  115·0

  28th July 1986

  49·80

  —

  14·20

  14·20

  28·5

  16·64

  114·8

  6th April 1987

  50·85

  —

  14·50

  14·50

  28·5

  16·28

  112·3

  11th April 1988

  52·95

  —

  14·50

  14·50

  27·4

  15·66

  108·0

  10th April 1989

  56·10

  —

  14·50

  14·50

  25·8

  14·50

  100·0

  1 Does not show the effect of child tax allowance to the standard rate taxpayer. In years prior to April 1979 some recipients of Unemployment Benefit would also have derived advantage from child tax allowance because of their receipt of earnings in the course of the tax year.

  2 Based on the movement in the general Index of Retail Prices between the dates shown and April 1989.

  3 Child dependency addition abolished from 26 November 1984.

  Family Credit
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families were or are(a) entitled to and (b) receiving family credit in 1988 and 1989; and what is his estimate of the number of families who will be entitled to it in 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In 1988 the number of families eligible for family credit was about 500,000 amongst employees: information covering the self-employed is not available. Estimates of the eligible population in 1989 and 1990 cannot be made until information from the family expenditure surveys for those years becomes available.

  During 1988 the average number of families receiving family credit was 277,000, of which 253,000 were employee cases. The latest information for 1989 is for July when the total family credit caseload was over 320,000.

  Correspondence
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the replies given to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham in his letter dated 28 September.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is set out as follows:Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures giving the disposable incomes, after taking into account means-tested benefits of single wage married couples with two children under five years and mortgages of (a) £20,000, (b) £30,000, (c) £40,000 and (d) £50,000 firstly when out of work and receiving Income Support and secondly when in work earning £100, £150, £200, £250 and £300 a week.
  The information requested is set out in the table below:
  460

  Total net income of a married couple with two children (aged 3 and 4) who are purchasing their home in April 1989

  Total net income: unemployed and claiming Income Support

  Capital outstanding on mortgage £

  In receipt of Income Support for less than 16 weeks £

  In receipt of Income Support for over 16 weeks £

  20,000

  115·57

  135·47

  30,000

  125·52

  155·48

  40,000

  138·79

  181·91

  50,000

  152·06

  208·45

  Notes:

  1. Total net income on income support comprises social security benefits plus help with housing costs, plus regular benefits in kind. This includes mortgage interest based on a gross interest rate of 13·8 per cent.

  2. Assumes average local authority rates appropriate to family size.

  Total net income: in work

  Gross earnings

  £ per week

  100

  128·38

  150

  137·07

  200

  167·53

  250

  200·53

  300

  233·53

  Note: Total net income is defined as take-home pay plus social security benefits.

  Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, how many and what percentage of families with children have mortgages distinguishing between working and out of work families and between those who earn: (a) under £150 per week, (b) £150–200, (c) £200–300 and (d) over £300.

  The information requested is set out in the table below:

  Number and percentage of families with children who have mortgages 1986

  Gross weekly earned income

  Working families with mortgages 000's

  Percentage of all such work- ing families

  Weekly morl-gage interest £

  Under£150

  450

  46

  22·90

  £150–£200

  580

  62

  21·70

  £200–300

  1,400

  79

  26·10

  Over £300

  1,420

  88

  40·70

  461

  Gross weekly earned income

  Working families with mortgages 000's

  Percentage of all such working families

  Weekly mortgage interest £

  Total

  3,850

  73

  30·50

  Unemployed families 000 's

  Percentage of all unemployed families

  Weekly mortgage interest £

  Total

  80

  19

  21·30

  Source: 1986 Family Expenditure Survey.

  Notes:

  1. A "working family" is defined as one where at least one of the two parents is in full-time employment or self-employment (working 24 or more hours each week for employees in employment and 30 hours or more for the self-employed). "Unemployed" couples with children are defined by the supplementary benefit status of the head of the family.

  2. For working families, gross weekly earned income excluded income from state benefits.

  Community Charge
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will republish and complete his reply to the question dated 24 July, from the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, showing the effect of the community charge on the numbers of(a) families and (b) persons dependent on means-tested benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The community charge transitional household relief scheme for England announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) on 11 October will have a considerable impact on the numbers of people who will get community charge benefit. Detailed work on these estimates has not yet been completed. I will write to my right hon. Friend after the Government's public expenditure plans for 1990–91 have been made public. In broad terms between a quarter and a third of those liable to pay the full community charge will be entitled to community charge benefit.

  Income Support
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of working families with children and a mortgage, whose net incomes after income tax, national insurance contribution, mortgage and local authority rates were within(a) 80 per cent. and (b) 70–79 per cent. of their income support entitlements.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that in 1989–90 approximately 10,000 working heads of families with children and mortgages had net incomes within 80 per cent. of their potential out-of-work net incomes. A further 20,000 had net incomes between 70 and 79 per cent. of their out-of-work net incomes. (Net in-work income is defined as gross wages less appropriate tax and national insurance deductions and housing costs. Full take-up of in-work benefits is assumed where appropriate.)

  Income Levels
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to reply to the question from the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham dated 24 June, showing the number of working families and out-of-work families with children at specified income levels.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I will reply as soon as possible.

  Civil Service Disposal
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report details of those sections of his Department which have been relocated in the last five years, indicating the sites to which they have been moved; whether consideration is being given to future relocation of London-based sections of his Department to sites outside London; and whether the central borders of Scotland has been identified as a suitable area for any future moves.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Full details of all moves of sections of the Department over the last five years are not available but they include the following where sizeable numbers of staff are involved:

  1985—Legal Aid work transferred to Preston

  1987—Retirement pension work transferred to Newcastle upon Tyne

  1987—Agency benefit work transferred to Newcastle upon Tyne

  1987—Departmental records work transferred to Nelson, Lancashire

  1988—Development work on the computerisation of social security benefits transferred to Lytham St. Annes.

  My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State announced on 16 January 1989 that 1,060 jobs in total would be relocated from London to Glasgow, Wigan and Belfast. This relocation is under way and should be completed during the summer of 1991. The sites for relocation have been chosen in line with the Government policy on relocation announced by my right hon. Friend the former Paymaster General in March 1988 taking into account labour markets, value for money and increases in efficiency.

  Under this policy my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State also announced on 23 June 1988 that he was considering a report on the possibility of moving some of the Department's HQ work away from London. We hope to make an announcement about this shortly.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on how the independent living fund is helping disabled people in Suffolk and Norfolk; how many people are benefiting; in what ways; and how much is being paid to them.

  Mr. Scott
  The independent living fund enables severely disabled people to live independently in the community by providing regular financial help towards the cost of personal care and domestic support. The fund can also make one-off payments for specific items of equipment if this would reduce care costs. To date, the fund has helped more than 2,000 people, with weekly payments ranging from less than £5 to more than £400. I regret that separate information is not available for Suffolk and Norfolk.

  Income Support
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of income support is allocated for poll tax payments in(a) Bristol, (b) south-west region and (c) nationally.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Income support levels were adjusted on a national basis in April this year to include help towards the average contribution to the community charge that recipients would be expected to pay. The amounts included were £1·15 a week for single people aged 18–24, £1·30 a week for single people aged 25 or over and £2·30 a week for couples. These amounts now form part of the overall benefit levels which will he up-rated from April next year.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many pensioner couples have a total income currently of less than £80 a week;

  (2) how many single pensioners have a total income currently of less than £60 a week.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information refers to 1986. At that time, 1989 gross incomes of £60 and £80 would have been the equivalent of £51·35 and £68·47 respectively. In 1986, 25 per cent. of single pensioners had gross incomes below £51·35 and 3 per cent. of pensioner couples had gross incomes below £68·47.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  Severe Hardship
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report the criteria he uses for assessing (a) severe hardship when considering applications for entitlement to benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds and (b) whether individuals in these age groups are genuinely estranged from their parents.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Secretary of State has the power to direct that, where unavoidable severe hardship would result if benefit were to be withheld, a young person will be entitled to income support even though that young person would ordinarily not be so entitled. Such decisions are made by officials authorised to act on his behalf. Each case is considered on its individual merits and in the light of its particular circumstances. There can therefore be no fixed criteria. Examples of factors which may be considered include: the young person's health and vulnerability, including the threat of homelessness; the availability of any income or savings; the prospects of a speedy entry into YTS; the availability of casual work; whether the person has any friends or relatives who can offer him or her accommodation or other assistance; and the financial commitments of the person and the prospect of postponing any payments.

  A young person who is estranged from his or her parents, and who has of necessity to live away from home because of that estrangement, may be entitled to income suport during the child benefit extension period. Decisions in such cases are made by adjudication officers. Guidance to adjudication officers is given by the chief adjudication officer in the adjudication officers guide, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Contracted-out Rebates
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest estimates of the probable rates of contracted-out rebate for each quinquennium from now until the year 2018.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: The Government Actuary estimates that, on the same assumptions as those set out in his report "Review of certain contracting out terms" (Cm. 110), in particular assuming that the weightings by age and sex remain the same, the contracted out contribution reduction in successive five year periods would be as follows:

  Per cent.

  1993–98

  4·8

  1998–2003

  4·3

  2003–08

  3·9

  2008–13

  3·6

  2013–18

  3·5

  2018 onwards

  3·4

  These figures assume that the 0·4 per cent. additional margin which has been included in the rebate of 5·8 per cent for 1988–93 will not be added in later periods. The gradually reducing level of the rebate reflects the declining proportion of those contracted-out who will be accruing guaranteed minimum pensions at an accelerated rate.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  CAP (Fraud)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the extent of fraud in the common agricultural policy and its monetary value.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible to estimate the extent of fraud in the common agricultural policy since, by definition, undetected fraud cannot be measured. In 1988, 482 cases of irregularity (the definition of which goes wider than fraud) were reported by member states with a value of 121 mecu (£82 million). These cases represent about 0.4 per cent. of CAP expenditure in that year.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to seek a further green pound devaluation.

  Mr. Curry
  It is customary to take decisions on the level of green rates at the time of the annual price fixing.

  Conservation
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Ministry gives to farmers about conserving the countryside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service offers advice to farmers on the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. This covers such topics as the retention and maintenance of hedgerows, trees, areas of scrub, ditches and other wildlife habitats as well as, where possible, the creation of new ones.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the use of bovine somatotropin to boost milk production; and if he has any plans to amend the Medicines Act 1968 so as to provide for greater control over the use of such substances.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Scrutiny Committee has recommended that a European Commission proposal to ban the use of BST until the end of 1990 should be debated. and arrangements are in hand. Meanwhile the scientific assessment of BST continues with the assistance of data generated in authorised field trials here and in other countries. The Medicines Act already provides strict safeguard controls by requiring that such substances must be licensed and that they must first be demonstrated to be both safe and effective in use. I have no plans to amend the Act.

  Labelling
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the introduction of nutritional labelling.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are taking an active part in negotiation of the European Commission's nutrition labelling proposals and hope that a common position will be reached soon. The proposals are similar to the Ministry's nutrition labelling guidelines and provide for a voluntary system of nutrition labelling with a mandatory format so that consumers can compare products more easily. Nutrition labelling would be compulsory only when a nutrition claim was made. There is provision for a three-year lead-in period to allow labels to be changed and, given the close resemblance of the guidelines to the Commission proposals, I hope that manufacturers and retailers will be encouraged to provide as much nutrition information as possible within their resources according to the guidelines until Community legislation is in place.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to the debate on nutritional labelling in Standing Committee on 1 November 1989.

  Friends of the Earth
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of Friends of the Earth; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  I met officials of the Friends of the Earth on 31 October. We had a broad-ranging and constructive discussion covering many areas of mutual interest.

  Fish Diseases
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there has been any change in the incidence of diseases in cod and other fish caught in British coastal waters in the past year.

  Mr. Curry
  The evidence is that there has been no change in the incidence of disease in cod or other fish caught in British coastal waters in the past year. Disease is a natural phenomenon in fish as in all animals and can vary seasonally.

  Papain
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will describe the effects of the tenderiser papain on the organs of a living animal.

  Mr. Maclean
  Research carried out by the Ministry has established that the tenderiser has no effect on the living animal. In the event of a delay between treatment and slaughter the enzyme is excreted harmlessly.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what evidence he has on the presence of residues of the tenderiser papain in partly cooked/rare meat;

  (2) what information he has on the presence of residues of the tenderiser papain in butchers' meat.

  Mr. Maclean
  To be effective, papain must be present in the meat during cooking. It is introduced at levels of less than five parts per million. Cooking activates and then destroys the enzyme. It is a natural vegetable protein approved as safe for use in food by the United Kingdom's expert advisory committees.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the purposes for which set-aside land will be employed by British farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the terms of the scheme, participants may use land for permanent or rotational fallow, for woodland, or for a range of non-agricultural uses. The most popular option is permanent fallow, which has attracted about 80 per cent. of uptake.

  Eggs
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many prosecutions have been initiated as a result of the discovery by his Department of free-range eggs which have not been packed in a packing station being sold from shops.;

  (2) how many staff are employed by his Department in ensuring that free-range eggs are not sold in shops unless they have been through a packing station;

  (3) what is the best estimate of the total number of shops in the United Kingdom currently selling free-range eggs which have not been packed in a packing station;

  (4) what was the total cost to public funds of the visit made by Mr. Sweetman, of the regional egg marketing insepectorate, at Leeds, to the Good Life shop, Wooler, on 1 November, in connection with the sale of free-range eggs; and what was the amount of time spent by the officer concerned (a) in travelling for the purpose of the visit and (b) at the premises;

  (5) whether he has any plans to publicise to consumers and to retailers the regulations restricting the sale of free-range eggs from shops which have not been packed in a packing station.

  Mr. Curry
  EC regulations require that all hens' eggs sold by retail (other than eggs sold by the producer directly to the final consumer on the producer's own premises, by door-to-door deliveries or in a local public market) are graded and packed by authorised packing centres. This applies to free range eggs as well as to those produced in other systems.
  467
  Enforcement of the regulations at retail level is a matter for local authorities and not my Department, and I have no estimate of the number of shops which currently breach the regulations. When requested, my egg marketing inspectorate gives assistance to the local authorities but it is not possible to identify what proportion of this assistance is devoted to the enforcement of the rules specific to free range eggs. The visit in question was made during the course of routine visits in Northumberland in the period 1–2 November by the regional egg marketing inspector.

  The present rules concerning the sale of free range eggs came into operation on 16 July 1985 and were publicised (with other changes to the regulations) in a trade press notice of 17 July 1985 (a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House). This was reinforced by a further press notice on 27 August 1987 (a copy of this is also in the Library). My Department has taken pains to explain these rules to all who enquire about them or whose businesses include the marketing of eggs. We shall continue to offer such advice as necessary.

  BSE
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what international co-operation in research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy is currently being undertaken by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: An international collaborative project to determine the transmissibility of bovine spongiform encephalopathy ( BSE) to mink is currently being planned with colleagues in the USA.

  International co-operation in research into BSE has been and will continue to be discussed in various international fora, including the EEC and the Organisation Internationale des Epizooties. In addition, a round table on BSE, attended by US and European delegates, was held in the United States of America in June 1989. From these discussions further collaborative research studies may he instituted.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has commissioned on set-aside in Scotland; and what plans he has to review existing provisions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him today.

  Hill Livestock Scheme
  Mr. David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has made to representations from the Scottish NFU regarding the MacSharry proposals for the HLCA system.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 18 October at col. 129–30.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment Review Interviews
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, when an unemployed claimant is at a review interview and an employment service counsellor expresses doubt about whether they are available for or actively seeking work and completes a UB672, the claimant is entitled to ask for and receive a copy of the UB672; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A copy of the UB672 would not normally be issued to the claimant as the form is an internal document used by the employment service to refer cases of doubt to the independent adjudication authorities.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the enterprise allowance scheme to ensure that adequate security of income is provided for potential entrepreneurs with family responsibilities who are dependent on social security.

  Mr. Eggar
  The enterprise allowance scheme is not a benefit. It is intended to supplement business income during the early months of trading while the business is being established. The allowance is higher than previous benefit for 70 per cent. of entrants. Recipients with family responsibilities may also qualify for in-work benefits such as family credits depending on their circumstances.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will estimate the number of employed and self-employed people in the northern region for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is as follows:

  Employees in Employment and Self Employed for Northern Region

  (June each year)

  (Thousands)

  Employees in Employment

  Self employed

  1983

  1,057

  91

  1984

  1,059

  92

  1985

  1,057

  104

  1986

  1,061

  105

  1987

  1,068

  108

  1988

  1,094

  113

  1989

  1,088

  117

  (Unadjusted for seasonal variations)

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many registered unemployed persons there were in Liverpool on the latest available date; and how many registered job vacancies there were in Liverpool on that date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following information is available from the Library. In September 1989, there were 66,636 unemployed claimants in Liverpool travel-to-work area. In the closest aggregation of jobcentres there were 3,469 unfilled vacancies. Research shows that nationally only about a third of vacancies in the economy are notified to jobcentres.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to provide child care facilities for part-time workers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The Government welcome measures taken by employers to help employees, including part-time employees, combine work and family responsibilities such as the provision of creche facilities, flexible working hours and family leave. However the Government consider that it is for employers and employees to decide which arrangements best suit their individual needs and resources.

  Child Care Provision
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures his Department is taking to encourage workplace creches and other child care provision to enable mothers to return to work; and what representations he has had on this subject.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am continuing to take every opportunity to encourage employers to help employees combine work and family responsibilities.

  The Government welcome measures taken by employers including assistance with child care, flexible working hours, more part-time work and at higher occupational levels, and family leave. However, we believe that it is for employers and employees to decide which arrangements for combining work and family responsibilities best suit their individual needs and resources.

  The Government are also taking steps to encourage the growth of childcare provision to assist working parents through the ministerial group on women's issues of which I am a member. The group recently announced progress on its five point plan designed to pave the way for the provision of child care to suit family needs. Within the last two years I and colleagues in the Employment Department have answered 12 questions in this House on this subject, received 29 letters from hon. Members and 34 from members of the public.

  I have discussed the question of child care with my Advisory Committee on Women's Employment. This committee includes the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), the hon. Member for Barking, (Ms. Richardson), representatives of the CBI, TUC and the Women's National Commission. I have also had discussions with the National Council for One Parent Families, the Working Mothers Association, and Pre-School Playgroups Association, Gingerbread and the National Childminding Association.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report details of those sections of his Department which have been relocated in the last five years, indicating the sites to which they have been moved; whether consideration is being given to future relocation of London-based sections of his Department to sites outside London; and whether the central borders of Scotland has been identified as a suitable area for any future moves.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 2 August 1989, I announced that 1,100 jobs from my Department's headquarters will be moved to 470
  Runcorn and Sheffield over the next two to three years. This represents another major dispersal of head office jobs in the employment department group to the north; and will mean that since 1979 over 5,000 administrative head office jobs have been relocated in the north. Previous major dispersals have been to Runcorn, to Sheffield, where the Manpower Services Commission was based and Bootle where parts of the Health and Safety Executive are now based.

  When considering possible regional locations I looked at a range of factors and sites and concluded that, for operational and logistical reasons, jobs should be moved only to those locations where my Department has existing headquarters establishments.

  When this stage of relocation is complete more that four out of five of my Department's administrative head office jobs will be located outside London. I am persuaded that there is unlikely to be scope for any further relocation.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the additional responsibilities given to the Health and Safety Executive since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 laid upon the Health and Safety Commission and Executive responsibility for virtually all aspects of industrial health and safety, and most aspects of the protection of the public from work activity. Within this overall competence, the Commission or Executive have acquired the following new responsibilities since 1979:

  (i) carriage by road, classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances;

  (ii) notification of new substances before they are placed on the market and of existing substances;

  (iii) action under the European directive on the control of industrial major accident hazards, including new responsibility for protection of the environment from hazardous installations;

  (iv) mains gas safety;

  (v) asbestos licensing;

  (vi) the enforcement of part 3 of the Food and Environment Protection Act and its related Control of Pesticides regulations;

  (vii) responsibility under the Control of Pesticides Regulations for the registration and assessment of non-agricultural pesticides.

  (viii) new and expanded nuclear safety work including preparations for licensing UKAEA sites and responsibilities from April 1990 in connection with nuclear safety research.

  In addition new or substantially expanded work has been acquired in connection with the control of dangerous substances in harbour areas, radiation and noise and the health and safety implications of the development and use of new technology including programmable electronics and biotechnology. There has also been a significant growth of EC activity and directives in areas affecting safety and health, and a significant growth in public and international interest in relevant environmental and major hazards issues.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of Health and Safety Executive staff in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total number of permanent staff employed by the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1975 is as follows:
  471

  Number

  1 August

  1975

  2,937

  1 April

  1976

  3,282·5

  1977

  3,917

  1978

  4,104·5

  1979

  4,170

  1980

  4,110

  1981

  3,884

  1982

  3,712

  1983

  3,593

  1984

  3,563·5

  1985

  3,616

  1986

  3,585

  1987

  3,526

  1988

  3,410

  1989

  3,449

  1 October

  1989

  3,526·5

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of(a) factory inspectors and (b) agricultural inspectors who left the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on the numbers of factory and agricultural inspectors who left HSE since July 1979 is as follows. Information is not available before 1976 and for 1976 to June 1979 could be obtained only at dispropoprtionate cost.

  Factor inspectors

  Agricultural inspectors

  11979–80

  27

  7

  1980–81

  32

  8

  1981–82

  53

  9

  1982–83

  22

  7

  1983–84

  26

  5

  1984–85

  28

  8

  1985–86

  30

  7

  1986–87

  35

  7

  1987–88

  45

  5

  1988–89

  38

  5

  1 Figures cover July 1979 to March 1980 only.

  The figures include inspectors who resigned, transferred to other Civil Service posts or retired.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the level of funding to the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1975, expressed at 1975 price-levels.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The level of gross financial provision to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive for each year since 1975, expressed at the 1974–75 price level, is as follows:

  £ 000s

  1974–75

  13,320

  1975–76

  22,701

  1976–77

  26,802

  1977–78

  28,203

  1978–79

  27,555

  1979–80

  27,796

  1980–81

  31,275

  1981–82

  31,257

  1982–83

  30,224

  1983–84

  31,339

  472

  £ 000s

  1984–85

  30,566

  1985–86

  30,521

  1986–87

  29,831

  1987–88

  30,395

  1988–89

  30,092

  For consistency, the figures have been adjusted to remove funds provided during 1981–82 to 1984–85 for HSE's dispersal to Bootle; and to remove provision in earlier years for the industrial air pollution inspectorate which transferred to the Department of Environment in 1987.

  Agricultural Inspectors
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number and location of agricultural inspectors covering the east of Scotland area in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on agricultural inspectors' location, corresponding to the Scotland east area, is available only from 1 April 1985 and is as follows:

  Number of agricultural inspectors in:

  Edinburgh

  Aberdeen

  Inverness

  Dundee1

  Total

  1 April

  1985

  5

  2

  2

  1

  10

  1986

  6

  3

  2

  1

  12

  1987

  7

  4

  2

  1

  14

  1988

  7

  4

  2

  —

  13

  1989

  7

  4

  2

  —

  13

  1 October

  1989

  6

  4

  2

  —

  12

  1 HSE's Dundee office closed on 31 March 1988

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total numbers of agricultural inspectors in post in each year since 1975 for(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Numbers of agricultural inspectors in Scotland and Great Britain are as follows:

  Agricultural inspectors in:

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  1 March

  19771

  n/a

  191

  1 April

  1977

  17

  187

  1978

  15

  186

  1979

  16

  190

  1980

  18

  187

  1981

  17

  176

  1982

  15

  166

  1983

  17

  159

  1984

  16

  154

  1985

  16

  162

  1986

  18

  163

  1987

  21

  166

  1988

  20

  158

  1989

  19

  165

  1 October

  1989

  18

  167

  1 Agricultural inspectors joined HSE from MAFF from March 1976 with the field force being in place in March 1977.

  473
  Notes:

  1. Figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  2. Totals for Great Britain include inspectors in the inspectorate's and in HSE's headquarters engaged on line management work or contributing to international and national policy or standards work.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number and location of factory inspectors concerning the east of Scotland area in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The earliest date for which figures are available for factory inspectors in HSE's Scotland east area is 1 November 1976. Details of inspectors' location within the area before 1985 are not available. The available information is as follows:

  Number of factory inspectors in:

  Edinburgh

  Aberdeen

  Dundee1

  Total in Scotland East

  1 November

  1976

  —

  —

  —

  26

  1 April

  1977

  —

  —

  —

  29

  1978

  —

  —

  —

  31

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  32

  1980

  —

  —

  —

  33

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  31

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  32

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  27

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  25

  1985

  18

  5

  3

  26

  1986

  16

  4

  3

  23

  1987

  16

  4

  3

  23

  1988

  16·5

  4

  —

  20·5

  1989

  19·5

  4

  —

  23·5

  1 October

  1989

  21·5

  5

  —

  26·5

  1 HSE's Dundee office closed on 31 March 1988.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total number of factory inspectors in post for(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Numbers of factory inspectors in Scotland and Great Britain are listed. HSE does not enforce health and safety legislation in Northern Ireland.

  Factory inspectors in:

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  1 July

  19751

  n/a

  557

  1 January

  1976

  53

  568

  1 April

  1976

  54

  624

  1977

  60

  676·5

  1978

  64

  695·5

  1979

  65

  742

  1980

  67

  759·5

  1981

  64

  735

  1982

  62

  678

  1983

  55

  654·5

  1984

  51

  627

  1985

  53

  652

  1986

  48

  623

  474

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  1987

  45

  621·5

  1988

  46·5

  592·5

  1989

  46

  604

  1 October

  1989

  51

  619

  1 HSE figures for factory inspectors in Great Britain became available from July 1975, and for Scotland from January 1976.

  n/a = not available.

  Totals for Great Britain include inspectors in the inspectorate and in HSE's headquarters engaged on line management work or contributing to international and national policy or technical standards.

  Workplace Accidents
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were(a) the total number of accidents, (b) the total number of fatal accidents, and (c) the total number of major accidents reported at workplaces in (i) Scotland and (ii) the United Kingdom in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information for injuries reported to Her Majesty's factory and agricultural inspectorates and to the local authorities in Scotland and Great Britain as a whole is given in the tables. Figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Figures for the periods 1975–80, 1981–85 and 1986 onwards are not comparable owing to changes in reporting arrangements.

  Year

  Numbers of reported occupational injuries1 to employees in Scotland resulting in

  death2

  major injury3

  absence from work of over 2 days4

  19755

  55

  n/a

  22,833

  19765

  49

  n a

  26,789

  19775

  67

  n/a

  28,213

  19785

  59

  n/a

  25,999

  19795

  72

  n/a

  24,157

  19805

  49

  n/a

  21,732

  1981

  57

  1,233

  39,277

  1982

  57

  1,239

  35,115

  1983

  55

  1,169

  n/a

  1984

  47

  1,162

  n/a

  1985

  37

  1,176

  n/a

  1986–876

  41

  1,878

  13,958

  1987–88

  37

  1,824

  14,827

  Year

  Numbers of reported occupational injuries1 to employees in Great Britain resulting in

  death2

  Major injury3

  absence from work of over 3 days4

  19757

  461

  n/a

  247,909

  19767

  423

  n/a

  246,509

  19777

  390

  n/a

  248,828

  19787

  433

  n/a

  269,123

  19797

  433

  n/a

  250,465

  19807

  411

  n/a

  210,290

  1981

  351

  11,079

  259,252

  1982

  370

  11,084

  327,805

  1983

  370

  11,270

  n/a

  1984

  362

  11,853

  n/a

  1985

  321

  12,112

  n/a

  1986–876

  307

  18,764

  143,152

  1987–88

  308

  18,347

  146,773

  475
  n/a—not available

  1 Injuries notified under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1980 (NADOR) for 1981 to 1985, and the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR) for later years. Data for the years 1975–1980 are based on reports made under various legislation.

  2Includes fatal injuries to members of the public arising from work activity in respect to those fatal injuries reported to local authorities 1981–1985.

  3The category of major injury was first introduced by NADOR. The definition of a major injury was widened by RIDDOR.

  4 For 1975–80 injuries notified directly to HSE under various health and safety at work legislation. For 1981–82, injuries resulting in claims for industrial injury benefit. From 1983–85 figures are not available as industrial injury benefit ceased in 1983. From April 1986 injuries reported by employers under RIDDOR.

  5For Scotland, injuries in 1975–80 are those reported to factory inspectorate only.

  6Year from I April 1986 when RIDDOR came into force.

  7For Great Britain, injuries reported in 1975–80 are those to factory and agricultural inspectorates only.

  Workplace Inspections
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total numbers of workplace inspections conducted by the factory inspectorate in(a) east of Scotland area, (b) Scotland and (c) the United Kingdom in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the form requested for the years 1975 to 1984. The following table shows the number of preventive inspection visits carried out by the factory inspectorate in the east of Scotland area, Scotland and Great Britain since 1 April 1985:

  Date

  East of Scotland

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  (1 April–31 March)

  1985–86

  5,375

  9,209

  90,081

  1986–87

  5,142

  8,778

  94,308

  1987–88

  5,750

  10,409

  100,815

  1988–89

  5,169

  8,935

  101,141

  Figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Adult Earnings
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many adults in full-time employment in the west midlands currently earn less than £120 per week.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is estimated from the new earnings survey that about 13 per cent. of adults in full-time employment in the west midlands, whose earnings were not affected by absence, earned less than £120 in April 1989.

  Staff Shortages
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions have been given to reduce the length of new claims interviews in unemployment benefit offices as a result of staff shortages.

  Mr. Eggar
  An average time of 40 minutes is allowed for each new claim interview. No national guidance has been issued advising that the interview length be shortened.
  476
  During the summer period some offices experienced peaks in the number of claims made and had to resort to a shorter interview followed up at a later date by a second interview.

  Bridging Allowance
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds in (i) Scotland and (ii) the United Kingdom are in receipt of a bridging allowance; and what proportion of those who had exhausted their entitlement to a bridging allowance still had not secured a training place under the youth training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On the 12 October, the latest date for which figures are available, 1,385 young people were in receipt of YTS bridging allowance in Scotland and 8,096 in Great Britain. Separate arrangements apply in Northern Ireland.

  The guarantee to young people under 18 who are not in full time employment or education of a suitable YTS place continues to be met nationwide. At the end of September 110,821 YTS places were unfilled out of the 500,000 YTS places in contract.

  Disabled People (Quotas)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms in(a) manufacturing industry, (b) the service sector and (c) the construction industry are adhering to the quota system in the employment of disabled people; and what percentage of the firms in each of these groups they represent.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to make changes in the quota system as it affects the employment of disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  The quota scheme is amongst the matters being considered in the internal review of services to people with disabilities which my Department has been undertaking, the results of which will be made known as soon as possible.

  Training
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment ( 1) what information he has on the level of employer investment in training employees, net of salaries;

  (2) what information he has on the level of employer spending on training of employees, net of salaries, in each of the European member states.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: It is estimated that employers in Great Britain spent £2·8 billion on non-labour costs on training in 1986–87. This figure is based on a survey of employers' training activities carried out in 1987. The survey included agricultural firms with less than 10 employees and the armed services. The estimated expenditure for all employers, including staff costs, was £18 billion. Figures are not available on this basis for other member states.

  The EC labour costs survey shows expenditure on training by employers in the production and construction

  477
  idustries in member states as a percentage of labour costs. The figures are shown in the table and exclude salaries except for apprentice wages.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Ireland

  1·3

  1·4

  0·4

  0·3

  Luxembourg

  0·5

  0·7

  0·4

  0·1

  Belgium

  0·4

  0·4

  1·0

  1·0

  Netherlands

  0·4

  0·1

  0·6

  0·4

  Italy

  0·3

  0·4

  0·2

  0·2

  Training Schemes (Safety)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to ensure that all people on training schemes are(a) covered by health and safety legislation relevant to their industry, (b) fully insured and (c) provided with safety clothing and footwear.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 17 October 1989 at columns 57–58.

DEFENCE

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are taken by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force to detect and intercept vessels carrying intended immigrants from Vietnam to Hong Kong.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Responsibility for the detection and interception of Vietnamese boat people attempting to enter Hong Kong rests with the Royal Hong Kong marine police. Royal Navy patrol craft occasionally assist in the detection task as part of their general patrol duties in Kong Kong waters. Vietnamese boat people vessels detected by the Royal Navy are immediately notified to the Hong Kong civil authorities for them to take further action.

  Service Women (Job Opportunities)
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the steps being taken to increase job opportunities for women in the Army, Navy and the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Army plans to increase job opportunities for women in line with the recommendations of the report on the study into the long term role and employment of women in the Army, which identified 6,000 additional posts in the Regular Army and 4,000 posts in the Territorial Army that could be opened to women. The RAF is increasing the number of women in ground trades from 5,000 to 7,000, some 10 per cent. of the total ground trades trained strength, over the next five years and has begun recruiting women as pilots and navigators for non-combat roles. The Royal Navy is currently reviewing the possible future employment of the Women's Royal Naval Service and we expect to make an announcement around the end of the year.

  AWACS Verification
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the policy and development implications of the renewed open skies verification regime for the sale and use of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation airborne warning and control system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A great deal of work remains to be done on the open skies initiative and it is too early to draw any conclusions on how it might be put into effect.

  Ethnic Recruitment
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he received the report on the study into ethnic minority recruitment in the armed services and on what date he will make a statement about it.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The report on the study into ethnic minority recruitment to the armed services was received on 11 July 1989. The report is under consideration within the Ministry of Defence and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has of racial discrimination in the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no evidence to substantiate claims of racial discrimination in the armed forces. The armed forces are subject to the Race Relations Act 1976 and no form of racial discrimination is tolerated. Complaints of racial discrimination brought by members of the armed forces are fully investigated under the redress of grievance procedures of the service disciplinary Acts.

  UDR Offences
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details for each of the years from 1980 to 30 September 1989 of(a) full-time members and (b) part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment serving in Northern Ireland who have (i) voluntarily resigned having been involved in an offence, (ii) been discharged having been convicted of an offence and (iii) had their engagements terminated following the commission of an offence, but before trial; and what was the nature of the offence in each case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am afraid that information dealing with the period prior to 1985 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The following information covers both the permanent cadre and the part-time element of the UDR:

  (i) voluntary resignations having been involved in an offence 16

  (ii) discharges having been convicted and awarded custodial sentences, including suspended sentences 54

  (iii) it is not our policy to terminate an individual's engagement before he has been tried and convicted of an offence, although there were three cases where the individuals did not apply to re-engage when their current engagements terminated while they were under investigation or on remand.

  Information on the nature of each offence is not readily available.

  Regular Army Offences
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details for each of the years from 1980 to 30 September 1989 of members of the Regular Army serving in Northern Ireland, who have(a) voluntarily resigned having been involved in an offence (b) been discharged having been convicted of an offence and (c) had their engagements terminated following the commission of an offence, but before trial; and what was the nature of the offence in each case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Members of the Regular Army serving in Northern Ireland apart from the UDR are not allowed to resign voluntarily after having been involved in an offence. On the second part of the hon. Member's question, separate records are not kept for discharges of soldiers convicted of offences committed in Northern Ireland. It is not our policy to discharge soldiers who are accused of committing offences before they have been tried and convicted.

  UDR Re-vetting
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the circumstances in which current and future members of the Ulster Defence Regiment will be re-vetted in light of paragraph 5 of the joint statement issued following the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on 18 October.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is a range of circumstances in which it would be appropriate to carry out screening reviews. However, it would not be appropriate to give details and I therefore have nothing to add to my answer of 19 October to the hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) at column 256.

  Lance Missile
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) by how much the operational life of the Lance missile could be extended by a programme of refurbishment;

  (2) when the Lance missile will come to the end of its effective operational life.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is general practice to keep the performance of all weapon systems under review. On current estimates it is believed that the Lance missile will be unsustainable beyond the mid 1990s.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by how much the recent refurbishment of the rocket motors to the Lance missile has extended its effective operational life.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The recent refurbishment was designed to maintain operational effectiveness throughout the missile's planned operational life; it was not intended to extend the operational life.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989", vol. 1, p. 51, fig. 12, how many Lance missiles are deployed to accompany the 88 Lance launchers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of Lance missiles deployed in Europe is classified information.

  Tornado Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Tornado GRIs and (b) Tornado F3s are currently deployed in frontline service; how many are in reserve; and how many are in storage.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Nine squadrons of Tornado GR1 and four squadrons of Tornado F3 are currently in operational front line service. The precise numbers of the operational aircraft and reserves are classified. Eight early production Tornado F3s are in storage at RAF St. Athan awaiting modifications. No Tornado GF1s are in storage.

  Royal Navy Ships
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy destroyers and frigates are currently permanently available to fulfil NATO roles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All Royal Navy destroyers and frigates are declared to NATO, although at varying levels of readiness and availability. Precise details are classified.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many, and what type of, Royal Navy ships are regularly committed to patrolling the Gulf and Indian ocean area.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 18 July 1989 at column 79. We have no commitment to patrolling in the Indian ocean.

  Combat Aircraft
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989", volume 1, p. 47, how many of the combat aircraft on each side are(a) air defence fighters, (b) reconnaissance aircraft and (c) electronic warfare aircraft;

  (2) pursuant to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989", volume 1, p. 46, how many of the combat aircraft on each side are (a) air defence fighters, (b) reconnaissance aircraft and (c) electronic warfare aircraft.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Many modern combat aircraft are designed to be capable of performing several different roles. For this reason, it would be misleading to break down the figures as requested.

  BAOR
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made as to the likely effects on the British Army of the Rhine of the use of nuclear artillery shells by United Kingdom forces against WTO forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to comment on operational matters of this kind.

  Merchant Ships
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made as to the minimum number and capacity of the United Kingdom's merchant ships needed to meet the wartime requirements of the United Kingdom's armed forces.
  481
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The defence requirement for merchant shipping in crisis and war is very carefully assessed and regularly reviewed. The details of this particular requirement are classified.

  Conventional Forces
  M. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what figures his Department has provided to the conventional forces in Europe negotiations regarding the numbers and types of the United Kingdom's armed forces; and whether he will make these available to Parliament.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The most recent figures for United Kingdom equipment holdings are contained in the NATO publication "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts", dated November 1988, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. NATO has proposed a formal exchange of data as part of a CFE treaty, but no such exchange has yet taken place.

  SS21
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment as to the accuracy, circular error probability, of the Soviet SS21.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to give this type of information, although the SS21 is considerably more accurate than the FROG missile which it is replacing.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest assessment of the number of Soviet SS21 launchers deployed in Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 1981, well over 200 Soviet SS21 launchers have been deployed in Europe west of the Urals.

  Trident
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment as to the financial savings that would accrue from a cancellation of the fourth Trident submarine in 1991.

  Mr. Neubert
  The position remains as set out by MOD officials in evidence to the Select Committee on Defence in response to a question raised by the Clerk to the Committee on 11 May 1989, and published in its report, "The Progress of the Trident Programme" (Defence Committee Fifth Report HC 374, 21 June 1989).

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment as to the yearly running costs of maintaining(a) a three-boat Trident force and (b) a four-boat Trident force.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is too early to state with any precision the likely running costs of the Trident force, other than to say they are not anticipated to be significantly different from those for Polaris.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of warheads that each Trident D5 missile is assumed to carry according to the counting rules adopted in the START negotiations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In their joint summit statement of December 1987, the United States and Soviet 482
  Governments confirmed their assumption that the Trident II missile would be deployed with eight warheads. The United Kingdom Government, which is not, of course, a party to the START negotiations, has already stated that the United Kingdom deploys a maximum of 128 warheads per submarine.

  Soviet Short-Range Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment as to the number of Soviet short-range nuclear missiles that accompany the 1,450 short-range nuclear launchers deployed by the Warsaw pact in Europe, west of the Urals.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to give this type of information.

  START Negotiations
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment as to the percentage reduction in the total number of strategic nuclear weapons that would occur as a result of the successful outcome of the current START negotiations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not possible to forecast the precise percentage reductions in the number of United States and Soviet strategic offensive weapons systems which may result from a START agreement.

  Population Decline
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the impact upon the armed forces of the decline in the number of 16 to 19-year-old males in the United Kingdom between 1989 and 1993; and how great his Department assesses that decline to be.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The greatest impact of the decline in the number of 16 to 19-year-old males will be in the recruiting field. The services expect a drop of 10·8 per cent. in the number of potential male other rank recruits and a drop of 5·7 per cent. in the number of potential male officer recruits between 1989 and 1993. Consequently, competition for suitably qualified young men will increase. The services will continue to make every effort to recruit the numbers they require.

  Trained Service Personnel
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest assessment of the short-fall in the number of trained service personnel in each of the armed services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Shortfalls in service manpower are measured by comparing adult trained strengths against trained manpower requirements. As at 30 June 1989, shortfalls were:

  Royal Navy 786, Royal Marines 10, Army 4,113, Royal Air Force 3,566.

  In order to encourage greater efficiency in the use of manpower, policy decisions have been taken to aim manpower plans at levels a little below the full requirement. Not all of these shortfalls are, therefore, unplanned.

  Free-fall Bombs
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a programme of refurbishment would enable the United Kingdom's WE177 free-fall bombs to be kept in serviceable operation beyond the 1990's.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The existing United Kingdom free-fall nuclear bomb is subject to regular inspection, maintenance and refurbishment, and will remain in service only if it continues to meet the requirements for safety and serviceability.

  British Registered Cars
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions there are in British registered cars entering the sovereign base area from(a) north Cyprus, and (b) from the south; what are the reasons for the differences in such restrictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As long as British-registered vehicles are legally imported to the island of Cyprus, and properly insured in accordance with local legislation, they may freely enter the sovereign base areas.

  Loan Service Personnel
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what definition his Department uses of the term loan service personnel;

  (2) whether military personnel are seconded to assist in the training of foreign armies or armed units other than as loan service personnel;

  (3) whether special forces may be used as loan service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Service personnel may be loaned from the United Kingdom Armed Forces for service with a Commonwealth or foreign country on either loan service or secondment terms. The principal difference is that loan service personnel are administered and paid by the United Kingdom authorities in the normal way while seconded personnel are wholly administered and receive their pay and allowances directly from the host nation. Individuals selected for loan service or secondment may be drawn from all parts of the Armed Forces.

  Boscombe Down
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about corrosive liquid alleged to have fallen from aircraft at the aircraft and armament experimental establishment at Boscombe down; and if he will compensate those whose property has been damaged.

  Mr. Neubert
  We have received a few reports of car paintwork damaged by droplets of a fluid which may have been discharged from an aircraft operating from the aircraft and armaments experimental establishment at Boscombe down on the afternoon of 25 October. The MOD accepts that it is probable that this damage was caused by the discharge of the fluid, which was a variant of antifreeze. MOD will consider claims for compensation from those whose property has been damaged.

SCOTLAND

  Woodlands
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region those Forestry Commission woodlands disposed of during each of the last three years, stating for each disposal the hectarage involved.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 February 1989 at column 415 to a question from him on the same subject. A list of sales of Forestry Commission woodlands between 22 October 1984 and 21 December 1988 was placed in the Library of the House at that time. A re-ordering of that list into separate years could only be carried out at disproportionate cost.

  The woodlands sold by the commission between 22 December 1988 and 31 March 1989 are as follows:

  Name of property

  County/region

  Area (hectares)

  England

  Bushes Wood

  Buckinghamshire

  5·0

  Kings Wood Pentewan

  Cornwall

  60·0

  Pendarves Wood

  Cornwall

  17·0

  Crag Wood Ulpha

  Cumbria

  3·5

  Farleigh Wallop Lot 7

  Hampshire

  11·0

  Scales Park & East Wood

  Hertfordshire

  90·0

  Hampstead Est. Cpts. 41 & 42

  Isle of Wight

  23·0

  Broadmeadows

  Lancashire

  26·2

  Pt. Little Wood

  Norfolk

  1·1

  Oxborough Woods

  Norfolk

  36·5

  Oxborough Woods

  Norfolk

  16·5

  Oxborough Woods

  Norfolk

  9·5

  Featherstone Castle Est.

  Northumberland

  24·0

  Titlington

  Northumberland

  56·1

  Plumpton Wood

  North Yorkshire

  7·7

  Hand Leasow Wood

  Shropshire

  48·0

  Stiperstones

  Shropshire

  1·0

  Lordshill

  Shropshire

  3·0

  Whettleton & Rottingwood

  Shropshire

  37·5

  Rough Hill

  Warwickshire

  9·0

  Higher House and Land

  West Yorkshire

  6·2

  Wales

  Coednant Barcutan

  Clwyd

  4·7

  Pwll Glas

  Clwyd

  5·3

  Pen-yr-Heol Ddu

  Dyfed

  10·2

  Allt Ty Cam

  Dyfed

  4·4

  Coed Glan Leri

  Dyfed

  7·2

  Talog Package

  Dyfed

  14·0

  Talog Package

  Dyfed

  11·0

  Talog Package

  Dyfed

  9·0

  Talog Package

  Dyfed

  5·0

  Wern Halog Woods

  Dyfed

  16·3

  Trevella Woods

  Gwent

  25·7

  Poolhead Wood

  Gwent

  5·0

  Coed-y-Trauch, Coed Llyneu

  Gwent

  21·1

  Lower Machen

  Gwent

  7·5

  Madryn Castle Woodlands

  Gwynedd

  82·1

  Llwynbedw Isaf

  Gwynedd

  5·3

  Access to Waterloo Wood

  Gwynedd

  1·0

  Dinas Mawddwy Lot 2

  Gwynedd

  58·2

  Mynogau Cpts. 1–3, 6, 8, & 12

  Gwynedd

  318·8

  Pentre Tips

  Mid Glamorgan

  27·8

  Moelgilau

  Mid Glamorgan

  36·0

  Scotland

  Thicket and Broomy Braes

  Borders

  31·8

  Tir Arthur

  Central

  74·0

  Dullarg Wood

  Dumfries and Galloway

  24·0

  Lochfergus

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13·0

  485

  Name of property

  County/region

  Area (hectares)

  Dumfries and

  Barraer Additional

  Galloway

  6·6

  High Valleyfield

  Fife

  28·0

  Auchinroath

  Grampian

  27·8

  Loch Insh Plantation

  Highland

  19·5

  Borthwick

  Lothian

  29·8

  Big Wood Pencaitland

  Lothian

  32·4

  Blackbyres Plantation

  Strathclyde

  5·0

  Morenish

  Tayside

  20·0

  Firbush Plantations

  Tayside

  113·0

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will allow fibre-producing or other animals to be added to existing set-aside scheme provision in Scotland.

  Member State

  Number of applications (1988–89)

  Area to be set aside (hectares)

  Proportion of set-aside area as percentage of

  Average set-aside per applicant (hectares)

  Arable land

  Area in cereals

  Belgium

  32

  329

  1—

  1—

  10·2

  France

  1,002

  15,707

  1—

  0·1

  15·6

  Greece

  n/a

  Ireland

  77

  1,310

  0·1

  0·3

  17·0

  Italy

  29,301

  2155,606

  1·8

  3·1

  16·7

  Netherlands

  195

  2,621

  0·3

  1·3

  13·4

  Spain

  518

  34,229

  0·3

  0·4

  66·1

  West Germany

  25,289

  169,729

  2·4

  3·6

  6·7

  United Kingdom

  1,750

  54,779

  0·9

  1·3

  31·3

  Totals

  38,164

  434,310

  0·9

  1·3

  11·3

  1 Lower than 0·1 per cent.

  2 Provisional figures.

  The scheme was not applied in Denmark or Luxembourg in the 1988–89 agricultural season; and Portugal is exempt.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies he has commissioned on set-aside and what plans he has to review existing provisions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The North of Scotland College of Agriculture has been commissioned to carry out a study to evaluate the uptake and economic impact of the set-aside scheme, as part of a United Kingdom-wide study. This will involve on-farm interviews of a sample of participating farmers. Consideration is currently being given to the need for any further research into the agronomic and environmental impact of the scheme, over and above projects already being undertaken by the Scottish agricultural college.

  The provisions of the scheme are already under close review, in the light of experience gained during the first year of its operation. My right hon. and learned Friend will in due course consider, with the other agriculture Ministers, whether any changes in the scheme rules are warranted.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action his Department is taking to promote research projects on organic farming, and what funding has been allocated to these projects.
  486
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. While Community rules allow member states to permit land fallowed under the set-aside scheme to be used for extensive grazing of agricultural animals, the Government have decided not to take up this option. In arriving at this decision we recognised that the grazing of set-aside land could create unfair competition for existing livestock producers, and particularly for those hill and upland farmers who have few, if any, alternatives to livestock rearing. Community rules do not allow member states to restrict the grazing option to certain types of animals—whether used for fibre, milk or meat—even in cases where these would pose fewer competition problems.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give figures showing the set-aside take-up in each EEC country.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest comparative information available to us is set out in the table as follows:

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My Department is currently funding a number of research and development projects by the Scottish agricultural colleges which are both directly and indirectly relevant to organic farming. The cost of this work in 1989–90 is about £200,000. The Edinburgh university centre for human ecology and the Edinburgh school of agriculture are undertaking a joint pilot project over two years to demonstrate the viability of organic farming. The Scottish Development Agency is contributing £175,000 to this project which is also supported by the European Community and Safeway plc.

  Farmers (Surpluses)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to make assistance available to help farmers in Scotland convert from surplus to non-surplus crops and livestock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Council regulation (EEC) No. 1094/88 requires all member states to introduce aid schemes to encourage the conversion of production towards non-surplus products. A proposal by the EC Commission for a Council regulation listing eligible products and setting out the main conditions for payment of aid is currently before the Agriculture Council. Once a Council regulation is adopted, and the necessary detailed implementing regulation has been made by the EC Commission, the agriculture departments will consider the content of a conversion scheme for the United Kingdom.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state what measures he intends to take to protect poll tax payers from increases of more than £3 per week, over previous domestic rates payments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has announced that a scheme of transitional relief will operate in Scotland. Details of the scheme are at present the subject of discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The scheme will be targeted at households comprising former ratepayers, pensioners and the disabled.

  Provision of special needs housing at 31 March 19891

  Local authority

  New town

  SSHA

  Housing association

  Total

  Sheltered housing2

  Dwellings

  14,705

  434

  1,841

  9,650

  26,630

  Bedspaces

  27,519

  774

  3,220

  15,239

  46,752

  Amenity housing dwellings

  9,185

  1,581

  292

  1,256

  12,314

  1 Where district information is outstanding for 1989, details for earlier year have been included.

  2 Includes sheltered wheelchair.

  Public Sector Landlords
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide information showing the total number of applications made to him by public sector landlords under section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and previously under section 3 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 and section 1 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1980; if he will give his information for each of the years to date since 1980; and if he will further give the total number of cases where he has authorised a landlord to serve a notice of refusal for each of the years to date since 1980.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  Year

  1Number

  2Number

  1980

  3

  —

  1981

  8

  1

  1982

  —

  —

  1983

  4

  2

  1984

  4

  2

  1985

  12

  7

  1986

  5

  3

  1987

  15

  7

  1988

  36

  22

  31989

  18

  10

  1Applications.

  2Authorisations to serve notices of refusal.

  3To 30 September 1989.

  Laboratory and Radiodiagnostic Services
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department has had with the Scottish Council of the British Medical Association about the proposed competitive tendering for laboratory and radiodiagnostic services within Greater Glasgow health board, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Officials of the Scottish Home and Health Department met representatives of the

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a table showing the total provision of sheltered housing by dwellings and by bedspaces, and of amenity housing by dwelling by public agencies on 31 March or the latest available date; and if he will provide a breakdown of that provision by local authority, Scottish Homes, new towns and housing associations.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested, at 31 March 1989, is set out in the following table. Scottish Homes did not begin operation until 1 April 1989 so the figures given relate to the Scottish Special Housing Association.

  Scottish Council of the British Medical Association and of the Scottish Joint Consultants Committee on Friday 6 October to discuss a number of matters of mutual concern including competitive tendering in clinically related services.

  Lithotriptor Centres
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he expects the pilot scheme of new invoicing between the Scottish lithotriptor and customer boards to end.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The pilot scheme was introduced for the financial year 1989–90. No decision has yet been made about arrangements for the next financial year.

  Substandard Housing
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of houses that are(a) below the tolerable standard, (b) require comprehensive modernisation, (c) require major repairs and (d) are affected by dampness, in the public and private sectors, respectively, in each district and islands area; and if he will estimate the cost of carrying out the necessary repairs and improvements.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Returns from local authorities show that the number of houses in Scotland which are below the tolerable standard as at 31 March 1988, in the public and private sectors, is as set out in table 1. Details of local authority stock with dampness and condensation dampness as at 31 March 1988 are set out in Table 2. Comparable information on dampness for other than local authority houses is not held centrally.

  The Government have neither information on the number of houses requiring comprehensive modernisation or major repairs, nor information which would allow an estimate to be made of the cost of any necessary works.
  489

  Table 1

  Dwellings below the tolerable standard by tenure Scotland, as at 31 March 1988

  Public sector1

  Housing association

  Private sector

  Tenure not known

  SCOTLAND

  906

  285

  35,368

  22,318

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  0

  0

  826

  0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  4

  0

  541

  0

  Roxburgh

  0

  0

  255

  0

  Tweeddale

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  425

  Central

  Clackmannan

  0

  0

  474

  0

  Falkirk

  43

  0

  435

  0

  Stirling

  6

  1

  566

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  0

  0

  189

  0

  Nithsdale

  0

  0

  801

  0

  Stewartry

  0

  0

  159

  0

  Wigtown

  0

  0

  78

  0

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  10

  0

  406

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  733

  0

  North East Fife

  37

  0

  1,361

  0

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  314

  30

  1,120

  0

  Banff and Buchan

  1

  0

  1,543

  0

  Gordon

  0

  0

  408

  0

  Kincardine and Deeside

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  375

  Moray

  46

  0

  1,170

  0

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0

  0

  253

  0

  Caithness

  0

  0

  285

  0

  Inverness

  10

  0

  584

  0

  Lochaber

  0

  0

  131

  0

  Nairn

  0

  0

  39

  0

  Ross and Cromarty

  0

  0

  2,500

  0

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0

  0

  650

  0

  Sutherland

  0

  0

  519

  0

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  12

  0

  773

  0

  Edinburgh

  0

  0

  4,732

  0

  Midlothian

  6

  82

  464

  0

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  510

  0

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4,000

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  3

  0

  26

  0

  Clydebank

  0

  0

  12

  0

  Clydesdale

  2

  0

  360

  0

  Cumbernauld & Kilsyth

  0

  8

  57

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  19

  10

  172

  0

  Cunninghame

  0

  0

  2,118

  0

  Dumbarton

  9

  0

  100

  0

  East Kilbride

  0

  0

  103

  0

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  12

  0

  Glasgow

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  16,010

  Hamilton

  0

  0

  820

  0

  Inverclyde

  0

  103

  1,009

  0

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  12

  0

  230

  0

  Kyle and Carrick

  0

  0

  339

  0

  Monklands

  0

  0

  222

  0

  Motherwell

  99

  0

  677

  0

  Renfrew

  263

  0

  844

  0

  Strathkelvin

  0

  0

  33

  0

  Tayside

  Angus

  4

  1

  887

  0

  Dundee

  0

  50

  2,200

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  0

  668

  0

  Orkney Islands

  6

  0

  1,134

  0

  490 491

  Public sector1

  Housing association

  Private sector

  Tenure not known

  Shetland Islands

  0

  0

  928

  0

  Western Isles

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,508

  1 Local authority, new towns, SSHA and Government Departments.

  n/a = Not available.

  Table 2

  Local authority dwellings with dampness Scotland as al 31 March 1986

  Rising and penetrating damp only

  Condensation and damp

  SCOTLAND

  40,476

  77,819

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  0

  0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0

  300

  Roxburgh1

  —

  —

  Tweeddale

  0

  0

  Central

  Clackmannan

  425

  0

  Falkirk

  510

  5,560

  Stirling

  110

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  0

  0

  Nithsdale

  450

  783

  Stewartry

  0

  0

  Wigtown

  20

  5

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  18

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  North East Fife

  260

  186

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  Not known

  Not known

  Banff and Buchan

  0

  0

  Gordon

  0

  238

  Kincardine and Deeside

  0

  259

  Moray

  67

  0

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0

  0

  Caithness

  1

  0

  Inverness

  0

  242

  Lochaber

  390

  150

  Nairn

  0

  0

  Ross and Cromarty1

  0

  95

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0

  0

  Sutherland

  0

  0

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  30

  1,418

  Edinburgh1

  620

  1,178

  Midlothian

  0

  0

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  Not known

  2,669

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0

  0

  Clydebank

  0

  750

  Clydescale

  35

  786

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  n/a

  n/a

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0

  2,963

  Cuninghame

  124

  0

  Dumbarton1

  715

  2,490

  East Kilbride

  0

  0

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  Glasgow1

  16,485

  15,093

  Hamilton

  7,721

  7,501

  Inverclyde

  0

  9,121

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun1

  280

  4,499

  492

  Rising and penetrating damp only

  Condensation and damp

  Kyle and Carrick

  0

  41

  Monklands1

  0

  175

  Motherwell

  8,564

  6,561

  Renfrew

  0

  10,300

  Strathkelvin

  0

  0

  Tayside

  Angus

  0

  0

  Dundee1

  2,300

  2,331

  Perth and Kinross

  500

  1,000

  Orkney Islands

  0

  0

  Shetland Islands

  761

  572

  Western Isles

  90

  561

  1 Returns with outstanding queries

  n/a Not available.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will show the number of(a) pensioners, (b) families with children and (c) other households living in housing which is below the tolerable standard.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation (Costs)
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the most recent statistics for people in bed and breakfast accommodation in Scotland, paid for out of public funds.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no overall figures for the number of persons in bed and breakfast accommodation paid for out of public funds. It is estimated that the number of households placed in such accommodation by local authorities under the provisions of the homeless persons legislation in Scotland at 30 June 1989 was 270.

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions he has now reached on Comunn Na Gaidhlig's proposal for a Gaelic broadcasting council.

  Mr. Lang
  No decision has yet been taken on proposals for the establishment of a Gaelic broadcasting council. The Government are currently giving very careful consideration to the future of Gaelic broadcasting and an announcement of their conclusion will be made shortly.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Comunn Na Gaidhlig to discuss Gaelic television.
  493
  Mr. Lang
  The Secretary of State met representatives of Comunn Na Gaidhlig on 17 April 1989 to hear their views on the future of Gaelic broadcasting.

  Nuclear Waste (Dounreay)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the geological investigations at Dounreay for a deep repository for low and intermediate level radioactive wastes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Investigations have not yet commenced. An application by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on behalf of Nirex for planning permission to conduct test boring was refused by the planning authority, Highland regional council, on 12 July. An appeal was lodged by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on 24 August and is at present under consideration by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Whitson-Fairhurst Houses
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number and location of Whitson-Fairhurst houses in Scotland; and what funds his Department has allocated to alleviate the problems inherent in this type of construction.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on Whitson-Fairhurst houses built for the private sector in Scotland is not held centrally. The number and location of such dwellings originally built for the public sector, including houses subsequently sold under right to buy, are shown in the following table.

  Aggregate capital allocations are made to local authorities to enable broad programmes of work to proceed; funds are not allocated specifically for work on any one type of house. It is for individual local authorities to determine their own policies and priorities for investment in their own housing stock and for assistance to the private sector; and to programme capital expenditure accordingly within the resources made available. If councils identify a particular need for resources to cope with the inherent structural problems found in Whitson-Fairhurst houses then they should in the first instance include proposals for alleviating these problems in their housing capital programmes.

  Whitson-Fairhurst houses in Scotland originally built for the public sector

  District

  Number of houses

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  50

  Roxburgh

  50

  Falkirk

  100

  Nithsdale

  46

  Wigtown

  50

  Dunfermline

  154

  Aberdeen

  204

  Inverness

  100

  Edinburgh

  101

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  56

  Clydebank

  692

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  84

  Dumbarton

  385

  Hamilton

  140

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  100

  Monklands

  200

  Motherwell

  179

  Renfrew

  80

  Strathkelvin

  66

  494

  District

  Number of houses

  Dundee

  128

  Perth and Kinross

  150

  SCOTLAND TOTAL

  3,115

  Note: These figures are estimates based on returns by local authorities as at February 1985.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has undertaken into methods of repairing or reinstating Whitson-Fairhurst houses; and what advice his Department gives to local authorities regarding approved methods of dealing with this type of house.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department has no programme of research into methods of reinstating Whitson-Fairhurst houses. The work which must be done to rectify the inherent defect in such houses is well known. The Scottish Development Department does not directly advise local authorities of approved methods of repairing such houses: authorities are aware that such advice is available from PRC Homes Ltd.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations has he received with regard to railway links in Scotland and those between Scotland and the Channel tunnel.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has received a number of representations from individuals, Members of Parliament and organisations on rail links within Scotland and between Scotland and the Channel tunnel. The provision of such links is however a matter for British Rail and the terms of the representations have been made known to BR through contact at either ministerial or official level.

  Lowland Airports Policy
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has received from businesses in Scotland concerning Scottish lowland airports policy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is presently receiving, from businesses in Scotland, copies of their responses to the Secretary of State for Transport's consultative document on Scottish lowland airports policy. The consultation exercise ends on 29 November and any submissions received will be taken fully into account in the review now in progress.

  YTS
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds there are in Scotland; and how many in each of those age groups have secured a training placement under the youth training scheme.

  Mr. Lang
  The projected Scottish populations of 16 and 17-year-olds in 1989 are:
  495

  Numbers

  (a) 16-year-olds

  71,378

  (b) 17-year-olds

  76,716

  Total

  148,094

  At September 1989 there were 50,708 YTS trainees in Scotland. This figure is made up primarily of 16 and 17-year-olds but will include some 18-year-olds. The training agency no longer collects data on numbers of YTS trainees by age.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many YTS places have been contracted with managing agents in Scotland; and if he will list them by regional council area.

  Mr. Lang
  The numbers of YTS places contracted with managing agents in Scotland in total and by regional council area are set out in the table:

  Regional Council area

  Number of YTS places contracted

  Strathclyde

  29,101

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,705

  Grampian

  4,757

  Tayside

  4,280

  Lothian

  6,719

  Borders

  864

  Central

  4,164

  Fife

  5,133

  Orkney

  244

  Shetland

  204

  Western Isles

  290

  Highland

  2,565

  Total

  60,026

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is considering realising the assets of the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Lang
  At the request of my right hon. and learned Friend the agency has submitted proposals for the disposal of parts of its property and investment portfolios. Discussions on these proposals are progressing satisfactorily with the aim of ensuring that any disposals are carried out in an effective manner consistent with Government policy. The agency has disposed of properties and investments on an individual basis for a number of years.

  Schools (Spending)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the capital spend on(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools within the local authority education system in Scotland in each year since 1978 to 1989 up to and including 1988–89; and give these figures both at outturn prices and expressed at 1988–89 prices.

  Mr. Lang
  The information available is given in the following table, which has been compiled from local authority financial returns. Expenditure on primary and secondary schools is not separately identified in these returns. The reduction in expenditure in real terms during the period reflects a substantial and progressive decline in pupil numbers.
  496

  Capital expenditure by local authorities on primary and secondary schools

  Year

  At outturn prices

  £ million At 1988–89 prices

  1978–79

  49·503

  108·608

  1979–80

  44·958

  84·563

  1980–81

  49·637

  78·752

  1981–82

  55·165

  79·749

  1982–83

  49·728

  67·135

  1983–84

  43·359

  55·945

  1984–85

  43·431

  53·399

  1985–86

  48·368

  56·371

  1986–87

  43·011

  48·570

  1987–88

  44·340

  47·576

  11988–89

  57·157

  57·157

  1 provisional

  Note: The outturn figures have been converted to 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the policy considerations on which he based his recent decisions to amend provisions relating to the poll tax; and what consideration he gave to alternative amendments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Experience of the operation of the community charge in Scotland has enabled us to identify improvements which will result in chargepayers being treated more equitably. We are therefore making a number of changes to the legislation. These include changes to the standard community charge arrangements, widening of the exemption for people who are severely mentally impaired and the introduction of a transitional relief scheme to assist people who have faced a significant increase in expenditure as a result of replacing domestic rates with the community charge.

  Pentland Firth (Crossing)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Orkney Islands council regarding the construction of infrastructure for the proposed short sea crossing of the Pentland firth between Burwick and Gills bay.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Orkney Islands council has applied to the Secretary of State for a harbour empowerment order to operate as a harbour authority at Gills bay. They already hold such powers at Burwick. The council has also inquired about the availability of ERDF funds for the terminals and has been told that no such funds are available.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department has received any request for support for the proposed short sea crossing of the Pentland firth between Burwick and Gills hay, and the associated infrastructure developments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No request has been received for central Government grant towards the Burwick and Gills bay terminals. In January 1989 Orkney Ferries plc requested to be considered for a tariff subsidy similar to that paid to P & O Ferries by my Department. I said at that time that I would want to see the ferry service in operation before considering such a request.

  Prisons
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give(a) the optimum operational capacity of each prison in Scotland and (b) the actual numbers of prisoners currently housed in each prison in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  Design capacity

  Prisoners1

  HMP Aberdeen

  139

  132

  HMP Barlinnie

  979

  812

  HMYOI Castle Huntly

  144

  110

  HMI Cornton Vale

  225

  125

  HMYOI Dumfries

  144

  137

  HMP Dungavel

  147

  118

  HMP Edinburgh

  547

  514

  HMP Friarton

  82

  48

  HMP & Detention Centre Glenochil

  678

  415

  HMP Greenock

  176

  161

  HMP Inverness

  84

  94

  HM Remand Institution Longriggend

  176

  228

  HMP Low Moss

  400

  307

  HMP Noranside

  119

  111

  HMP Penninghame

  73

  71

  HMP Perth

  510

  426

  HMP Peterhead

  183

  122

  HMYOI Polmont

  408

  390

  HMP Shotts

  528

  459

  1 Housed as at 27 October 1989.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total prison population in Scotland, in each of the years since 1980.
  498
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average daily prison population in 1988 is provisionally estimated as 5,229. For earlier years, corresponding figures are given in appendix 2 of the annual report "Prisons in Scotland Report for 1987" (Cm 551) copies of which are available in the Library.

  Schoolchildren (Clothes)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a list of expenditure by local education authorities in Scotland on clothes for schoolchildren.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: The latest available figures from local authorities are in respect of financial year 1987–88 and are as follows:

  Education Authority

  Expenditure (£'000)

  Borders

  53

  Central

  367

  Dumfies and Galloway

  2

  Fife

  390

  Grampian

  78

  Highland

  133

  Lothian

  847

  Strathclyde

  3,321

  Tayside

  260

  Orkney

  6

  Shetland

  —

  Western Isles

  7

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

Missing Persons Register: Proposal
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set up one central register for all missing young people throughout the country.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we are considering the establishment of a register for missing persons. We are discussing the financial implications with the Metropolitan Police and with the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Will he be answering the report of the Association of Chief Police Officers shortly? Can he tell the House when he is likely to reach a decision on whether or not to set up a central register? Finally, is he aware of the tremendous distress which is caused—largely because there is no central register—to the parents of some 98,000 young people who go missing every year?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we recognise the shortcomings of the present system and the advantages of a national bureau. We are discussing with the Metropolitan Police the resource implications of establishing a national missing persons bureau as a matter of priority. My right honourable friend will make a decision as soon as possible after those discussions have been concluded.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is it not true that the Salvation Army has a register of missing persons in this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may be true, but I do not know whether it is.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, if one is a parent whose child is missing and wants to try to find the child, is there anywhere one can apply now, before the Minister's right honourable friend makes up his mind?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords, if those unfortunate circumstances were to arise the parents could go to the police station and report the loss of the child. It is an operational matter for individual chief police officers to decide how to set about the inquiry. The facts may be circulated to other police forces or to the missing persons bureau at New Scotland Yard, as chief police officers consider necessary.
My noble friend asked whether there is a means of co-ordinating the efforts of the various chief officers.
428
Perhaps I may add that the most accurate figures that we have show that in 1987 110,000 vulnerable people—old, young or mentally ill—were reported as missing.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while I regret my inability to ask a very intelligent supplementary question on this first Question, which was not asked, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether consideration has been given to the definition of "young people" in such a national register. Does the Minister not agree that, whereas it is very necessary and helpful to have a national register for children, to have a register for missing young people, for example, over the age of 17 who have left home deliberately and who do not wish to be traced by their parents, might be very harmful and could embroil the police in difficulties of which they would like to be free?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have never before registered the inability of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to ask an intelligent question. If there is any lack of intelligence it is in the way in which the question is answered. At present any person under the age of 18 is described as a young person. It is important that if young people are missing, they should be traced wherever possible. Of course that will involve some difficult and delicate situations, but I believe that that fact ought to be faced.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, to my knowledge, the Salvation Army—which he dismissed rather lightly—does hold records of missing persons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that in no way did I dismiss the Salvation Army. What I dismissed was the fact that I did not know that a record was kept by the Salvation Army. I am sure that the fact that it is kept is of great reassurance to the House. That does not preclude the desirability of the police also holding an up-to-date record.

Housing Investment
2.41 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What sums have been allowed under the global housing investment programme in each year since 1979.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for local authority housing investment in their respective countries. In England the total amounts allocated under local authorities' housing investment programmes since 1979 were: 1979–80, £2·5 billion; 1980–81, £2·2 billion; 1981–82, £1·8 billion; 1982–83, £2·2 billion; 1983–84, £2·2 billion; 1984–85, £1·9 billion; 1985–86, £1·6 billion; 1986–87, £1·5 billion; 1987–88, £1·4 billion; 1988–89, £1·3 billion; and 1989–90, £1·1 billion.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed Answer. However, is the Minister not aware that following the substantial cuts which have been made responsible people in the housing field are saying that had the level of spending on housing investment programmes been maintained in real terms at the 1979 level there would have been approximately 500,000 additional houses in the public sector to let to low wage earners? Does that not convey clearly that responsibility for the increasing incidence of homelessness lies at the door of the Government?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if one looks at HIP figures to the exclusion of all other figures they do not look very encouraging. However, if one looks at the important figures, which are the real figures, and combines investment by the Housing Corporation and local authorities' expenditure the figure for 1979–80 is £5·9 billion and for 1989–90 some £4·6 billion.
I should also remind your Lordships that provision for support to housing associations through the Housing Corporation is planned to increase by more than 60 per cent. from £815 million this year, to £1·3 billion in 1991–92.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether this Question should not more properly have been one for Written Answer. How can we take in the rapier thrusts of statistics which were exchanged across the Table at such rapid speed?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, as the noble Earl asked me that question, I think I should say that the Government are in the position of having responsibility to answer to the best of their ability Questions put down by noble Lords, wherever they are in the House. We cavil at it a little if our Answers have to be too long, but those are about the only grounds of which I can think. Perhaps I may consider the matter and either have a word with the noble Earl or write to him. If I write to him, I shall of course put my letter in the Library.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend take note of what happens in another place where, if the Answer involves a table of figures, that table is published in Hansard?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government certainly take account of that practice, and so do I. Perhaps I may also consider that proposal in conjunction with my noble friends.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, in spite of the statistics and whatever they may show, is my noble friend aware that there is widespread concern at the lack of availability of low-cost housing for rent both in urban and rural areas and the consequent increase in homelessness? Will he give the House some assurance that the Government are tackling the problem of homelessness, which is worsening every month?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware that in the last seven days further encouraging developments have taken place in rural housing, possibly to some extent due to the decisions of your Lordships' House. It will be of some interest to this House to note that the total number of housing starts in 1979 was some 190,000 while in 1988 it was some 213,000. As an overall figure that is quite encouraging.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will confirm that he was merely asked to read out 10 figures, which is surely not too taxing for the intelligence of this House. Turning to the substance of the answers, I note that he did not deny what my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick said; namely, that we have lost half a million public sector houses as a result of the cuts. Will he confirm that the figure of half a million houses which have been lost is as great as the number in the entire Housing Corporation housing association sector in total?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if one accepts the noble Lord's argument —namely, that nothing will ever change —there may be some interest in it. It would have been more encouraging if he had listened to the last figure that I gave, which showed that the total number of starts for housing in all sectors in 1988 had increased substantially over the figure for 1979. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that this country has only 8 per cent. of people living in private rented accommodation compared with 40 per cent. in West Germany and 30 per cent. in Socialist France.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord's answer does not particularly help the situation. If we are talking about the finance that should be made available to local authorities, I should point out that I was not including the substantial amounts of local authorities' own capital receipts which were originally promised to them but which have been withheld. When Ministers in both Houses and departmental spokesmen repeat, as they did at the weekend, that the Government's housing policy is a success, I should ask whether they intend the number of homeless people to be increased. That is the end product of what is happening. I am simply asking the Minister whether, in considering the housing investment programme for this year, he will deal with homelessness as a matter of urgency and allow authorities to spend substantial sums —increasing sums —of their own money to deal with the situation.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Government's review of homelessness is now reaching completion. However, perhaps I may remind him of the Government's position: we see the local authorities as enablers and we have made a massive commitment to increase housing association expenditure.

The Underground: Escalator Failures
2.48 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many escalators on the London Underground have been out of service during the most recent period for which a figure is available and what was the average length of time spent out of service.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand that in the week ending 14th October 24 escalator failures were recorded. The average time out of service for each failure was two and a half hours. In addition, 11 escalators were in the process of being replaced and routine maintenance was carried out on a further 31 during the period. London Underground does not record the average length of time out of service for those categories.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that slightly confusing Answer.
Baroness Phillips: It was not confusing enough.
Lord Tordoff: The noble Viscount will be aware of an Answer given by his noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in July, which is now nearly four months ago, when he was good enough to let us know that there was a 70 per cent. availability of escalators. Will he calculate what the current availability is? If we accept the figures that he gave us, of 11 which were totally replaced and 24 out of action for two and a half hours, I should point out that it is the other 31 which, as the noble Viscount will agree, give cause for concern because a number of them have been out of action for a very long time.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord to say that my noble friend stated in July that availability then was 70 per cent. I can tell him that in the past four weeks, between 17th September and 14th October, escalators were available on average for 73 per cent. of the time. So there has been an improvement. I believe I said last week that it was better to have an improvement than to go the other way.
As my noble friend also said on 17th July, LUL has committed itself to improve the availability of escalators to 85 per cent. by the end of next year. We should therefore see a gradual improvement.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend in fact regard it as an improvement when he has to say that 27 per cent. of the escalators on the London Underground are out of service? Is he aware of the hardship that that causes, particularly to the disabled, the elderly and people with luggage? In the circumstances does he agree that it is a pity that his noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara rejected the suggestion made earlier in this House that someone should be appointed to London Underground who understands how these things work?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there are a considerable number of engineers working for London Underground who understand how these things work and are putting them right. The LUL is responsible for the efficient functioning of the system. It appreciates that the present situation is unsatisfactory and aims to improve both lift and escalator availability as soon as possible. However, inevitably it will take several months.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the Minister encouraged to learn that the Piccadilly and Northern Line Users' Committee by its research work confirmed the figure of 70 per cent.? If one looks at the figures from the other direction, 30 per cent. of escalators are out of operation. That represents 90 escalators since the total number is 275. Is that due to lack of proper planning, no finance or shortage of skilled engineers? If it is the last mentioned factor, what is to be done about it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not much want to argue about 3 per cent. The figure at the moment is 73 per cent. and it is getting better. Investment in the Underground, supported by substantial government grant, is already at record levels, approaching £300 million for 1989–90. Of that sum about £10 million is for the replacement and modernisation of escalators. In addition, LUL has continuing routine repair and maintenance programmes.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, may I inform the noble Viscount that I came through King's Cross Underground Station half an hour ago? The down escalator has been out of order for weeks. Is he aware that this month British Rail is encouraging older people to travel on cheap fares from the North? If he goes to King's Cross at any time during November he will see hundreds of elderly people with heavy cases struggling down 60 or 70 concrete steps. Do the Government recognise that they have some responsibility in this matter? I have complained for weeks in this House about the escalator at Pimlico Station. It was not out of order for two and a half weeks; it was out of order for months on end.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will use his influence and write to the chairman of LRT.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as a regular user of the Underground and a former frequent critic of the escalators, my impression is that there has been a slight improvement in recent months? As I always count the steps when I have to climb up without using the escalators, I believe that my impression is probably reliable.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that not only the escalators are out of order in the London Underground but the lifts as well; and not only the lifts are out of order but the signal

433
equipment as well; and not only the signals, the lifts and the escalators are out of order but the trains as well? Is he aware that this morning when I arrived at Holland Park tube station both the lifts, which were installed two years ago, were out of order? Is he further aware that when I got out at Notting Hill Gate two of the escalators were not working? Moreover does he know that the route between the Central and District Lines was also out of order? Is he further aware that last Monday the District and Circle Lines were out of order for the bulk of the day? When I got in at Waterloo to go to Oxford Circus I found that the train stopped at Oxford Circus because the doors did not open. When I got out at Regent's Park in order to get back to Oxford Circus, the train went straight through the station. Does the noble Viscount wish me to continue?
When I got out at wherever it was and sought to go to Green Park, there had been a fire at Green Park so I could not get out and had to walk to Bond Street. Does the noble Viscount agree that these things cause increasing frustration and anger on the part of those who use London transport and unlike Ministers are dependent on it? Does he not further agree that this situation is due to under-investment over the past 10 years, itself due to the present Government's belief that profit is more important than public service?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I wonder how it is that we ever see the noble Lord here.
Lord Morris: My Lords, can my noble friend explain how with the considerable number of LUL engineers to which he referred in his previous Answer they are never seen repairing the escalators?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I doubt whether my noble friend travels on the Underground between 12 o'clock at night and five o'clock in the morning.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I came from Euston Station this morning two out of four lifts were out of order? One escalator which was out of order was a very long one indeed. On it there was marooned halfway down a young lady who was having extreme difficulty in carrying a heavy case and trying to negotiate the steps. Does the Minister agree that the situation is potentially a recipe for disaster and that something ought to be done to eliminate it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord offered to carry the lady's case.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it took longer to put a new escalator into Holland Park Station than it did to build the whole of the Central Line with picks and shovels before the First World War? Could he not call in the Army? I can assure him that the engineers in the Army would get these things done in one-tenth of the time that London Transport takes to do it.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, certainly I shall mention the noble Lord's remarks to my right honourable friend.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, further to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, does the Minister believe that it would be a good idea if he consulted London Transport and indeed, so far as he could, insisted that all its members travel to work by Underground?
Viscount Davidson: Certainly, my Lords.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that the House will appreciate the humour of the noble Viscount's recent replies. However, does he agree that there is greater usage of London's Underground than ever before and therefore for something in the order of 90 escalators to be out of action at any one time is a very serious inconvenience to travellers? That is our concern. If that is a consequence of an inadequate period of working time, would it be possible to add to the number of skilled engineers? If there are not sufficient skilled engineers about, I should like to know why.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the remarks that have been made to the attention of LRT's chairman. I quite agree that the problem of overcrowding and congestion is one caused by success and that it leads to worse problems on the Underground. LUL is carrying out an investigation into congestion and has plans to spend many millions over the next three years to relieve station congestion and improve train service capacity and performance.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the House allow me to add to the pool of human knowledge by asking the noble Viscount whether he is aware that the escalator at Paddington is out of order today? So there are three main London stations which do not have escalators working today when, as the noble Lord said earlier, there are cheap fares being offered to senior citizens on British Rail. Will the noble Viscount please take on board the feeling of the House, which is looking at this matter seriously? Will he try to obtain a rather better improvement than 3 per cent. when we come round to this Question in three months' time?
Viscount Davidson: Yes of course I shall, my Lords.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
3 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of 2nd November. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time.
Clause 13 [Initiation of procedure for acquisition of self-governing status]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 18, leave out ("simple").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I also speak to Amendment No. 6. At Report stage I accepted an amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Perth, deleting the word "simple" in Clause 16. These amendments are consequential and deal with other references in the Bill to the term "simple majority". I thank the noble Earl for guiding us to consider two consequential changes. As he said, a majority is a majority is a majority. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for acceding to the request of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and also the arguments from this side of the House. In a strange way, I believe that the removal of "simple" makes it more flexible for the Secretary of State to make his ultimate decision. In fact a simple majority would have been more specific than merely "a majority". I am grateful to him for his co-operation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Proposals for acquisition of self-governing status]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 22, at beginning insert ("Where the result of a ballot held in accordance with section 14 of this Act shows a two-thirds majority of votes cast in the ballot in favour of seeking self-governing status,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss Amendment No. 3 at the same time. The purpose of the amendments is to require that a school board has a duty to prepare proposals for the acquisition of self-governing status only if there is a two-thirds majority of parents in favour. If the majority of parents voting is less than two-thirds, the board should have the opportunity to consider whether there is enough parental support to proceed.
The general argument for these amendments is this. As the Bill is currently drafted, the school board must proceed with the preparation of proposals if a simple majority of votes cast in the ballot is in favour of seeking self-governing status. If the Minister is disposed to accept the amendment, I am sure he will realise that there is a consequential amendment required from him that "simple" be removed from the amendment. We did not anticipate that deletion when we put down this amendment. However, it will be self-evident.
Once a school board decides to have a ballot, the process of acquisition is irreversible so far as concerns the board. The Secretary of State may take account of the size of the majority —that is why I believe that the omission of "simple" may be an advantage —in making a decision on whether or not
436
a school should be allowed to change its status. Experience in England and Wales, however, shows that the Secretary of State has given approval for schools to opt out where less than 50 per cent. of the eligible persons have voted in favour. In one school —Beechen Cliff School, Avon —I understand that approval was given when only 37 per cent. of eligible parents were in favour. In such circumstances it is right for a school board to have the opportunity to reconsider its position.
The Minister will be aware of the Education Alert survey on the views of nominated school board candidates throughout Scotland on key aspects of self-governing schools. I understand that the survey has been sent to the department last month. I also understand that about 1,900 prospective school board members responded to the survey. The results are quite clear. On support for a larger ballot majority —for instance, a two-thirds majority —about 90 per cent. of parents who had agreed to have their names go forward for election at school boards were in favour. On support for a requirement for board members to gain experience for a minimum period before being able to announce an opting out ballot, the vote was as high as 95 per cent. of parents in favour.
We have a certain faith that the Secretary of State will not be silly about this. He is not a silly man. He would not force issues through unnecessarily. In fact he is reported to have said that the department wants to work "with the grain of Scottish opinion". That is the attitude that we hope to have from the Secretary of State. However, it would be a considerable help if the amendments were accepted. They would be an additional guidance to the Secretary of State, in particular the amendments to Clause 16.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to support these two amendments. We have consistently supported the idea of there being more support and a bigger majority required for schools to change their status. If there is a 50 per cent. vote with a 51 per cent. majority of those voting in favour, only just over a quarter of the parents involved would be supporting this rather great radical change to the nature of the school. Surely some guidelines and safeguards are required on this issue so that there is not this danger of a minority making such a big decision.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is quite right that this Bill varies in many respects from the English legislation. Parliament is attempting to make it, so far as possible, tailor-made for Scotland. However, the issue on the way that parents vote, on whether the process for applying self-governing status should begin, is a new right for parents. I feel very strongly that this right, which exists in England, should exist in Scotland. The notion that there should be two bites at the cherry seems unfortunate. There would be some turmoil in the period between the two votes if the amendment were accepted. There would be a vote and, if the second stage was then invoked, there would be a pause when everyone was in doubt. The process should be completely simple.

437
There should be a straightforward vote as there is in England. Then all the other considerations should be taken into account. A later amendment in the name of the Minister seems to help very much in that direction. I hope that the Minister will stick to his guns.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, if we thought that the Bill was tailor-made for the education system of Scotland, we would not be opposing the Bill on all fronts as we have done. Whether the suit will fit Scotland only time will tell. I hope that the Government will understand that the amendment now before your Lordships' House for the third time has the positive merit of giving a specific guide to the Secretary of State when he is considering the matters referred to in Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, to which the Minister will be speaking in due course. We shall discuss them when we come to them. However, the word "simple" has now been omitted from the Bill, for reasons that are not quite clear to me because I do not see much difference between a simple majority and a majority. If the Government are deleting the word "simple" preceding "majority" it could mean that where a school has only a simple majority it will not achieve self-governing status. It is one way in which the removal of the word "simple" complicates the issue even more.
I am sure that the Government will consider seriously—as the Minister has done on all the amendments—taking the amendment on board as a positive attempt to give not only guidance to the Secretary of State but information to parents of children at the various schools. In that way they will know on what numerical basis a major decision has been taken with regard to the schooling of their children.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I have not yet spoken on this matter. The more I listen to what is said the more in favour I become of such an amendment. We are not certain about how the Bill will operate in Scotland. I do not believe that the English experience is necessarily valid although the Welsh experience may be. However, there is a great variety of education in Scotland.
I fear that decisions may be taken and voting carried out before people have considered the effect on a particular school. Therefore, anything which gives a further opportunity for the consideration of a proposal to move to self-governing status is well worth examining. It will be helpful to the Secretary of State because he is left with a wide discretion when deciding whether to confirm the status.
The Government will be well advised to write into the Bill this or a similar amendment. We wish to draft a statute which will work. My fear is that as drafted the Bill will create great difficulties. It will leave the Secretary of State in a difficult position, one in which he should not be placed. The statute should make clear his responsibilities. We cannot leave him with a discretion so wide that he is virtually given the authority of making up the law.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to my comments at the time of accepting the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Perth. His noble friend Lord Macaulay is right in saying that "majority" is the important word in this legislation. However, the removal of that word does not change the position as regards this Bill.
These amendments were not moved during Report after I accepted an amendment from my noble friend Lord Perth which had been grouped with them. These amendments do offer a new approach to the use of the two-thirds majority test. Where a two-thirds majority of parents voting in the ballot say "yes" the procedure of publishing proposals is to run forward as intended. However, where between a half and two-thirds of parents are in favour the decision on whether to move forward is remitted back to the school board. That is as I understand the meaning of the amendment.
I suggest that in fairness these amendments should go further. Their logic is that unless there is an overwhelming view among parents in the ballot, the decision on what happens next is left to the school board. Surely the members of the school board should have a similar discretion in the case of a marginal "no" result in the ballot; indeed, with anything short of a two-thirds majority against the change.
Put that way, I suggest that the real purpose of the ballot of parents is made clear. It offers parents an indisputable right of veto on any move to self-governing status by the school—I repeat, "an indisputable right of veto". If a majority of parents is against self-governing status that is an end of the matter. The members of the school board cannot overturn that decision; neither should they be able to do so when the majority in the ballot is in favour of a change.
I must repeat once more that a positive ballot result is not a guarantee that the school will become self-governing. It does allow matters to move forward to the next stage. The school board, whatever its collective view on the principle of self-government, is required to produce formal proposals. These proposals are exposed to detailed scrutiny and comment from all with an interest. The Secretary of State then has the final decision. At that stage the views of parents recorded in the ballot are one factor that he will take into account, but only one factor. We shall be coming on to further amendments dealing with this.
The final decision rests with the Secretary of State partly because he is best placed to weigh up the range of representations from the school, from the neighbourhood affected and from the education authority. But he also has the final say because it is the Secretary of State who will have the obligation to fund each school accepted for self-governing status. Consequently he must give close attention to the likely continued viability of the school and its prospects for long-term success. No Secretary of State will wish to accept a school which is clearly unattractive to parents generally.

439
Should a self-governing school ever begin to fail at some future date, perhaps because large numbers of parents choose to send their children elsewhere, the duty is on the Secretary of State to ensure that remedial action is taken by the school. Procedures are set out in Clause 33 of the Bill, in particular at subsection (3). At the end of the day the Secretary of State would have to move to withdraw grant and close down a self-governing school which continued to operate in a wholly inefficient way. It follows that the Secretary of State will pay close attention to the degree of parental support in all cases. There will be schools rejected by him despite an overwhelming vote by parents in favour of self-governing status. I drew attention to English examples during our debate in Committee and repeated the details in my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, mentioned the details of the Beechen Cliff School. The result of the ballot was declared on 13th March; the pupil roll was 1,007; the turnout was 69 per cent.; the "yes" vote was 55 per cent.; the "yes" percentage of all eligible votes was 37 per cent. That school received approval.
To sum up, we should leave this ballot with its twin roles offering a parental veto on change and providing a measure of the degree of support where a majority of parents support the principle of self-governing for the school. For these purposes a simple majority is the correct test.
I have to say again that this House has already considered very thoroughly indeed the whole issue of requiring more than a simple majority of those voting when we discussed last year the Education Reform Act for England and Wales. An amendment by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London was passed requiring a majority of those eligible to vote. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. Baker, who was then the Minister in charge of that Bill, undertook discussions with some of the Peers concerned in the hope of finding an acceptable compromise. When Lords' amendments were considered in the other place he brought forward proposals for the second ballot machinery already in this Bill. The Opposition in another place rejected the change and there was a Division. However, when the issue was then brought back to your Lordships' House on 25th July 1988, the compromise was accepted without demur.
We have covered the ground most thoroughly. I understand the views of noble Lords opposite. However, I cannot change my mind. I therefore ask the House to reject the amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we have had a long and detailed argument about the question of majority. There is nothing wrong in that because it is a big decision for Scottish education. We believe that in certain areas the opting out of only a small number of schools could have a serious effect on the rest of the schools in the neighbourhood.
We have made our case as well as we can. The Minister has given his replies which are the best that
440
the can give. He has done so with great charm and logic. He will not be surprised to learn that he has not convinced most noble Lords on this side of the House. However, in view of the fact that it is unlikely that we shall get any further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Rejection or approval of proposals]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 11, line 34, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 8. These amendments deal with the final decision by the Secretary of State on proposals for a school becoming self-governing or for an established school altering any of its characteristics. They place on the Secretary of State an explicit requirement to have regard to the turnout in the ballot of parents which preceded the publication of proposals. The amendments make it clear that this will be one among a series of factors to be weighed up by the Secretary of State in reaching his decision.
These aspects of the amendments discharge the undertaking I gave at Report to my noble friend Lord Perth.
Since turnout is picked on as being one facet of the ballot result deserving attention by the Secretary of State, I believe it is appropriate that the amendments also mention the percentage of voters who favoured the change as equally deserving consideration by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I recognise what the Minister says in relation to these amendments. I also recognise that he is attempting to adopt an equitable approach to the consideration of these very important issues in the educational system of Scotland.
Unfortunately, looking at the amendments as they stand, they have a beginning and a middle but no end. Amendment No. 5 says that the Secretary of State,
"after taking into account such other matters as he considers appropriate including … the percentage that the total votes cast in the ballot which occasioned publication of the proposals … and the percentage that the votes so cast which were in favour of seeking self-governing status for the school constituted of those total votes".
However, the amendment does not say what the Secretary of State is supposed to do in given circumstances. That takes us back to what I referred to earlier. Would it not be sensible once more —and I make no apology for coming back to this matter —to give the Secretary of State a guideline such as was suggested in the two-thirds majority approach? To use a shipping analogy, I wonder whether the educational ship has a Plimsoll line above which the Secretary of State cannot go or above which he has to remain in order to make an equitable decision. With respect to the Minister —and I know that he is doing his best to

441
accommodate everyone involved in this difficult exercise—I do not believe that this amendment adds much to the consultation process or to the process of making a decision on the acceptance or rejection of the proposals.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not think so, and I am sorry that the noble Earl is not here with his views on the government amendment brought forward as a result of his amendment. However, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is entitled to his view.
I made it perfectly clear on Report that the Secretary of State must take into account very many factors before he gives approval or otherwise for self-governing status to be granted to a school. However, I understood the feeling in the House to be that this particular matter of the ballot and the percentage voting and so on should have pride of place and should be on the face of the Bill: hence the amendments before your Lordships today. Under those circumstances, while I fully accept that the noble Lord is entitled to his view, perhaps the noble Earl may be more pleased then he is.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 11, line 35, at end insert ("and after taking into account such other matters as he considers appropriate including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the percentage that the total votes cast in the ballot which occasioned publication of the proposals constituted of the total number of persons eligible to vote in the ballot and the percentage that the votes so cast which were in favour of seeking self-governing status for the school constituted of those total votes.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Change in characteristics of self-governing school]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 21, line 13, leave out ("simple").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
Page 21, line 32, leave out ("and")
Page 21, line 36, at end insert ("and after taking into account such other matters as he considers appropriate including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the percentage that the total votes cast in the ballot which occasioned publication of the proposals constituted of the total number of persons eligible to vote in the ballot and the percentage that the votes so cast which were in favour of the change sought constituted of those total votes").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 81 [Commencement]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 55, line 44, leave out first ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 10. On Report paragraph 10 was added to Schedule 10 to the Bill to provide in school boards legislation for continuing payment of allowances to members of appointments committees in individual schools when new arrangements for allowances are introduced in local government. The new provisions contained in the Local Government and Housing Bill affecting the payment of allowances to committee members do not come into force until next year. There is no need for paragraph 10 of Schedule 10 to come into force immediately and these amendments provide for it to be brought into effect by commencement order in due course. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. This is an important piece of legislation as is recognised by all noble Lords who have taken part in our discussions on it. Although it deals with a number of areas including further education, testing in primary schools and the machinery for recruitment and dismissal of teaching staff, attention has rightly focused throughout on the creation of the new right for parents to seek self-governing status for their school. Where parents wish to exercise the option and where the Secretary of State agrees to detailed proposals a wholly new form of school will be created in Scotland.
Self-governing schools will be subject to much of the general legislation dealing with education authority schools. Certain fundamental characteristics of the school will not change as the school moves out of local authority control. Within this broad statutory framework a self-governing school will enjoy a very real degree of independence. By their very nature self-governing schools will be dependent on the continuing support of parents choosing them for their children.
I have heard that no one desires such a change. That is the view of some people in Scotland and perhaps it is one held by some Members of your Lordships' House. I have heard it said that everyone is happy and that in regard to the structure of the Scottish education system, everything in the Scots educational garden, so to speak, is all right. I believe that such arguments are weak. I repeat that no school is being compelled to opt out and if there is no desire so to do, none will. We should be suspicious of those, like shopkeepers, who tell us that there is no demand for something. Perhaps even those Scots hostile to England would not deny their fellow Scot s a right and a freedom because it is enjoyed by some Sassenachs.
Again, as regards those who would seek to have schools devolved to be run by themselves and other like-minded parents, it surely is offensive to suggest that what works in the independent sector cannot possibly work in the maintained sector.
I think I can fairly say that this Bill has received close scrutiny during its passage through this House. I believe we have made 96 amendments to the Bill since it reached us from the other place in June. Inevitably, perhaps the great majority of these are technical and drafting changes, but of course they represent real improvements to the legislation for all that.

443
I am glad to be able to tell the House that, at least on this piece of legislation, the Government have resisted the temptation to bring forward substantive new material for the Bill during its time here. I have however accepted that a number of changes of substance should be made in response to points raised by noble Lords in our debates.
There are probably nine or ten examples in all. Among the more significant improvements made in this way have been provision for a school board to pass two separate resolutions before holding a ballot of parents on self-governing status and writing it into the Bill that in normal circumstances there should be two years between successive ballots at a school. A ballot on self-governing status is a serious matter for parents at any school. Neither school boards nor individual parents will wish to embark lightly on the route provided by this new legislation. The minimum period of one month between successive resolutions by the school board is a valuable opportunity for the education authorities and others to put across their views before the board commits itself to a ballot.
In a number of areas amendments have improved the Bill by clarifying what has been the Government's policy intention all along. Most important have been the adjustments to the Clause 30 procedure for handling any suggested future changes in the characteristics of a self-governing school. We do not expect self-governing schools to rush to change their character, as we made clear in the draft circular. It is altogether more likely that parents at a self-governing school will be anxious to preserve and safeguard its existing general character while seeking the benefits of greater independence through local management. In any event the Bill now makes it clear that at least five years should normally pass before a self-governing school moves to seek any change in character. When the Secretary of State comes to take his decision on a change, the Bill is now explicit that he will take into account both the details of the ballot result and representations from the education authority about any impact on its wider duty to provide for all children in the area.
In addition to the amendments made during the passage of the Bill we have had useful and constructive exchanges on a range of important items. We have been able from the Government Front Bench to make clear, for example, the point of making general regulations which will extend to self-governing schools provisions which already bind education authorities in managing their schools.
I believe that the Bill leaves this House improved and we have carried out our duty as a revising Chamber. I consider that a number of your Lordships have contributed greatly to our various debates. One or two from south of the Border, like the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, have been helpful. They have pointed out important differences which characterise education in England compared with Scotland. The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Macaulay of Bragar, have carried the major burden of providing constructive opposition and probing comment on the Bill. I thank
444
them most warmly, as indeed I do the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Addington.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, as a supporter of the general principles of the legislation, has been anxious at every stage to put forward, and often to secure, useful improvements to the Bill. From the Cross-Benches the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has contributed his usual well-aimed barbs and carefully considered comments.
I must thank all those outside this House who have been active in producing what I would consider to be constructive criticism.
To conclude, this is now a better Bill. Its main aim remains that of offering a new right to parents in Scotland. Where schools and education authorities are sensitive and responsive to the wishes of parents it may be that few will choose to exercise their new rights. No school is being compelled to change its management. That choice is for parents.
This Government believe in trusting parents to act in the best interests of the schools attended by their children. Time alone will tell how far parents will wish to go in making use of the new opportunities conferred on them by the Bill. The most important point is establishing a right so to do, which is something that should not be denied to parents, least of all in Scotland, where we believe very firmly in freedom of opportunity. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I again thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he has dealt with all our amendments. I associate myself and this side of the House with what he said about the number of people who have taken part in the debates on the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Macaulay, who has borne a great deal of the weight of this Bill. I take this opportunity of thanking him for that.
I should state that we on this side of the House are certainly not opposed to experimentation in education, although we believe that this is not the basic purpose of this Bill. The Bill is ideologically oriented and without that aspect it may have been a much better Bill.
In some respects the Secretary of State has been left with so much discretion that the Bill could turn out to be an illusion for certain parents who think that they should be able to opt out. Perhaps that is as it should be, as we have been dealing with the fickleness of one group of parents, who may be the people who are entitled to vote at a particular time; they may be involved in the school for a matter of only two or three years, and the school will go on for many decades after that. I emphasise again that the Minister has been very helpful within his powers. His summing up of the Bill has been most helpful for those who wish to study it. It is much easier for him, he will admit, with the help that he has, to make this summary than it is for some of us to go through the Bill painstakingly to try to find the import of the 96 amendments which the Minister says we have passed.

445
I do not doubt that the Bill is better than it was when it arrived here. We should be grateful to the Minister and to all others who have taken part in showing the Minister occasionally that the House was fairly firm on certain points and that his best line was to take the proposal away, argue the case and bring it back. For the success that he had in these arguments with his colleagues, with the Secretary of State and with his staff in explaining the feeling of the House on a few occasions at least we should be grateful.
As usual, dealing with the Minister within the parameters of a Bill is always a pleasure. I thank him for his great courtesy during the passage of the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, from these Benches I add our thanks for the courtesy and consideration which have been shown by the noble Lord in the handling of this Bill. The Bill deals with a concept which on these Benches we find hard to stomach; that is, the fact that the local authorities of Scotland will lose part of their educational structure for the assistance of pupils. They can potentially lose part of the schools' provision which now provides options for parents and for the authority. However, if it is to be that this Bill has to pass, I can only hope that we are wrong and that the Government have the answers in a form that will help. I do not think they have, but I hope I am wrong.
As regards the structure of the Bill, I am grateful for the way that the changes have been made. People have added to the debate and the Bill is now more responsive to what is needed. Certain safeguards and checks have been introduced even at this late stage, which will improve the Bill. Having said that, I resume my seat in the hope that the Bill is a success.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, we do not know how many schools will avail themselves of the right to apply to be self-governing. I said at Second Reading that to begin with it would probably be very few, but time will tell. What is important is that this new right exists. It is good for schools, for parents and for staff to know that they have the possibility of applying for self-government. It is very good indeed for the local authority to know that if it is incompetent or unsympathetic in relation to a particular school that right exists.
As ever with legislation involving an increase in the rights of ordinary people, there has been considerable discussion of the Bill in Scotland. Views have been expressed, as my noble friend said, by groups representing parents, teachers, local authorities and others outside this House, There has been much practical advice given by those most closely involved. That discussion was in my view well reflected in the discussion in this House.
My noble friend the Minister paid close attention to suggestions for enabling the Bill to work better. He stood firm on the principle but has persuaded his colleagues to make a large number of changes to enable the Bill to work better. I am most grateful to him for responding to the amendments I moved so positively. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord
446
Carmichael, who was good enough to move some of my amendments at Committee stage when I was not able to be here.
This is an important Bill for Scotland and I hope that it will very soon pass into law.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his courtesy and for the amount of work which he has put into this Bill. Unfortunately I could not be present at the Second Reading because I was taking part in an educational occasion; that is, the conferring of degrees. I confess that I am wholeheartedly in favour of involving parents to a greater extent in education but I am less enthusiastic about introducing new divisions into Scottish education.
One of the advantages is that in Scotland there is a more unified system of education than in England and on the whole that is a good thing. I also believe that the Bill could be much better drafted. It is a Bill that is meant to be read by ordinary parents on the very important matter as to whether or not they wish their school to be self-governing. Parents will get the Bill and find that it applies to certain public schools. They will wonder whether or not it applies to the public school for their children, but they will not get much enlightenment.
They will then expect to read what a self-governing school is and what kind of schools can be made self-governing. They will look to see what the method of self-government is to be. Clause 1 deals exclusively with the duty on the Secretary of State to maintain self-governing schools. The parents will then turn to Clause 19 and then go to Clause 16 and so forth. In future Bills I beg the Government to try to draft legislation which ordinary people can understand. It is important to explain to them the main effects of the Bill and how it affects them. I do not believe that this Bill does so.
I come to a particular matter that I raised on Report. I am most grateful to the Minister for having written to me again on the subject of further education in Orkney. I fully agree with him that Orcadian people are sensible people and no doubt they will make this legislation work. However, we are passing legislation that is meant to set out clearly what it is that Parliament intends to happen. The Bill should not depend solely on the discretion of a sensible Secretary of State or on the good sense of the people involved.
The letter that I received from the Minister says that he entirely agrees that the integration of ordinary and further education is very necessary in Orkney. He continues:
"This can be achieved under the legislation by arrangements for the board of management of the self-governing schools to act as agents".
That is no doubt very sensible, but I am not quite clear what it means. Is there to be an agency agreement between the board of management and the local authority? Who is to have the deciding word on the matter? I hope that the agency will be given some firm basis if it is necessary, because it is very important that further education in Orkney should continue. The letter then states:

447
"The board would receive recurrent grant from the Secretary of State … and the education authority would finance them to provide an appropriate level of further education".
I am not quite clear that it would have to finance the schools. It seems to me that the whole matter is left to the good sense of the education authority and the board. If they fell out there is no statutory obligation on them to finance further education. However, the letter goes on to say
"Such arrangements need not be left wholly to the discretion of the board of management".
One notes there the words "need not". The letter continues:
"They could be set out in the original proposals".
The Bill does not state that they must be set out. Surely that is what Bills are for; namely, to state what must be done and not what might be done. We must rely on the Secretary of State to insist that, if any such proposals for self-government emanate from Orkney, an acceptable arrangement is reached.
My real point is a general one. I do not believe that this Bill is a satisfactory way of devising legislation. The real safeguard for the whole matter is that the people of Orkney and Shetland are far too sensible to follow this Bill. I do not believe that we shall be faced with a self-governing board in Orkney. When I stood for Parliament I was occasionally confronted by infuriated Tory hecklers who had obtained some obscure resolution from a Liberal council or committee. They would read it out and say, "Is that what is going to happen?" Thereupon I would say, "If you vote for me, you can be quite certain that there will not be a Liberal government after this election. Therefore you can ignore with impunity nearly all the things that the Liberal Party has said in its councils". That is a very telling argument but it is not one that should come from the mouths of Government. They must pass Bills that can be put into force. As regards this Bill, I very much doubt whether they have achieved that situation.
I wish the Bill well if its real purpose is to involve parents more deeply in education. Its main purpose is admirable. I doubt whether one need go so far as to alter the whole system of Scottish education and make the schools self-governing. I am also somewhat doubtful about the side effects of the Bill and whether, as drafted, it will be intelligible to many of the people who have to decide whether or not to follow it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have said nice things about the passage of this Bill and those who have taken part in it. It would be churlish of me not to offer again very many thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, who brought forward many of the amendments that we have debated.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, will be conferring degrees for many years to come and that some of the pupils from both self-governing and non-self-governing schools will be capped by him. I believe it is very unlikely that parents—who might
448
include people like myself—will read the Bill. I hope that we shall be able to do as we have done before and what my noble friend Lord Selkirk has been asking us to do for many years: namely, to produce in layman's language intelligible draft circulars describing the various measures passed in order to put into practice what the Government intend.
However, Bills are difficult to follow even for those of us who have to study them from a standing start. Therefore I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond says about the Bill. However, I believe that we have done a great deal to make interpretation easier for those who have to interpret it later. Unfortunately, the noble Lord was not present at the Second Reading, but I did say then that this Bill was permissive legislation. As I have certain responsibilities for the Highlands and Islands I am very well aware that the Orcadians will do what they want. I shall watch the situation to see whether or not they wish to go down this road.
However, that is not the point. The point is that this Bill gives parents the chance to decide what they want for their children, and that must be good. I now invite the House to pass the self-governing schools Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Murder and Life Imprisonment
3.47 p.m.
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment (HL Paper 78).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In July 1988 the committee whose report is being debated today was established to consider three separate but related matters: the scope and definition of the crime of murder in England, Wales and Scotland; the question whether life imprisonment should remain mandatory rather than a maximum penalty for murder; and the arrangements for reaching decisions on release of those serving life sentences for murder.
We appointed as our specialist advisers Professor J. C. Smith, QC, and Professor A. K. Bottomley. I take this opportunity to express our gratitude to them for the great assistance they gave us. Tom Mohan was Clerk to the Committee, and I and all members of the committee are most grateful for his help throughout our study. The committee included some lawyers with experience of the criminal law and some with little or no such experience. Other Members had experience of the penal system and the system of parole. Others had wide experience of public life.
The members brought to bear their varied knowledge and experience. We held 32 meetings and a total of 81 witnesses submitted evidence to us which was exceptionally varied and well-informed. We made six visits, including three days spent in Scotland. We visited four prisons in England and several of us visited panels of the Parole Board

449
of England and Wales which were considering life sentence cases. We had the benefit of studying earlier reports by experts. We owe a particular debt of gratitude to the 14th report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee which dealt comprehensively with the first and second items of our terms of reference.
Since the publication of that report new matters have arisen for consideration. We widened the range of inquiries previously undertaken and touched on matters that we regarded as important, some of which have scarcely been considered hitherto. We sought evidence from organisations representing the families of victims of murder. We considered the law of murder and sentencing policy for murder in other countries. I take this opportunity of thanking the secretariat of the Council of Europe for co-ordinating replies from member states to a questionnaire we prepared. We obtained evidence on the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights, by which the United Kingdom is bound, on present and future law and practice.
Our terms of reference required us to study the law and its application. But such a study cannot be carried out in isolation from the human and social context to which they relate. The evidence we received from those representing the families of victims of murder drew attention to their concern over how the law is administered. We believe that their situation should be taken into account. The criminal justice system should not neglect the human tragedy which lies behind each case of murder.
I now turn to the scope and definition of the crime of murder in England and Wales and in Scotland. Murder in England and Wales and in Scotland has always been a common law crime, and there have always been differences in the definition in Scotland on the one hand, and in England and Wales on the other. The evidence we received relating to Scotland was overwhelmingly that the common law definition was found to be satisfactory, and strong views were expressed that it should remain unchanged. Accordingly, we recommend that no change should be made.
Evidence as to the position in England and Wales, however, revealed that for some years there has been an element of uncertainty. Our overriding concern has been to establish a clear and readily comprehensible definition of murder. We have concluded that the time has come when the crime of murder in England and Wales should be defined, as a great many crimes already are, by statute, and that that definition should take the following form. A person is guilty of murder if he causes the death of another intending to cause death or intending to cause serious bodily harm and being aware that he may cause death.
The words,
"and being aware that he may cause death",
represent a change in the law and reflect our view that a person should be liable to conviction for murder only if the possibility of death was foreseen. This definition is on the lines proposed by the Law Commission in its recently published draft criminal
450
code. We have noted that a person is not generally liable to conviction of a serious crime where the prohibited result was not only not intended but also unforeseen. We believe that this is a good rule of moral responsibility which should certainly apply to the most serious form of homicide, murder. If our recommendations are accepted there will continue to be a difference between the definition of murder in Scotland and in England and Wales. This has not hitherto created a difficulty and we do not consider that it will in the future. By contrast, we consider that the same provisions should apply in both jurisdictions to the penalty and its administration.
The common law definitions of murder in Scotland and in England and Wales are both broad definitions encompassing a wide range of homicides. The statutory definition for England and Wales which we propose is likewise broad. Murders falling within those definitions differ so greatly from each other that it is wrong that they should attract the same punishment. The gravity of a murder depends on so many circumstances that any attempt to select one or two of them to put the murder into a special category leads to unacceptable anomalies. The right way to deal with the problem is not to divide murder into degrees but to give the judge a discretion to impose an appropriate sentence taking all relevant factors into account. We recommend the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder in England and Wales and in Scotland. This recommendation was supported by a great majority of our witnesses in England and Wales, including the Lord Chief Justice, who will, I understand, participate later in this debate, and 12 senior judges. It was also supported by representatives of murder victims, who believe that the existence of the mandatory sentence has led to inappropriate verdicts of manslaughter.
In the past some have been concerned that, in the absence of the mandatory life sentence, too lenient sentences will be imposed and that there may be inequality in sentencing for similar crimes. The recent enactment of provision for the prosecution to appeal against too lenient sentences provides a safeguard and is likely also to lead to the establishment, in cases of murder as for other crimes, of a measure of uniformity in sentencing. If such provisions for appeal were made applicable to Scotland where they do not presently apply, that might overcome the reluctance of some there to see the mandatory life sentence go. Evidence we received was unanimous that the same penalties must apply either side of the Border.
We expect that abolition of the mandatory life sentence would result in a substantial increase in the average length of time actually served in prison under a life sentence and would thus restore the life sentence as the most severe sentence which may be awarded. We propose that a life sentence should be awarded either because of the heinousness of the offence or because of risk to the public on release at the end of a fixed term. We recommend that in awarding a life sentence the judge should specify for which of these two reasons he is awarding the life sentence.
Life imprisonment does not normally mean imprisonment for the remainder of the prisoner's life. We were gravely concerned that the present system for administering a life sentence gives Ministers inappropriate powers to determine the length of time actually to be served in prison by lifers. It is unnecessarily secretive and has grown up piecemeal over many years. It represents a confusion between the proper functions of Ministers and the judiciary and has led to devaluation of the life sentence. Effectively, the Executive —the Minister —has the power to decide the term of detention in life imprisonment cases, with consequent risks of political influences in sentencing. Sentencing in all other aspects of criminal law is a judicial function. Our recommendations are designed to bring the administration of a life sentence for murder into an entirely judicial context.
We recommend that in every case the judge should specify in open court the period he considers appropriate to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence, which we call the penal sanction. The penal sanction should be subject to appeal by either side. It should not be subject to revision by Ministers. The penal sanction should attract remission and parole eligibility in the same way as a determined sentence —a sentence for a fixed term of years. Its duration will thus be, and seen to be, comparable with a determinate sentence. The judge will apply similar criteria in determining the penal sanction and the term of a determinate sentence, in respect of which he is not permitted to have regard to remission or parole, and will assist in management within prisons.
The decision at the end of the penal sanction as to release or continued detention of lifers should be made by a judicial tribunal composed of a High Court judge, a consultation psychiatrist and a chief probation officer and should be entirely independent of the Executive. The present system of release on licence for life should continue as should the Home Secretary's power to order recall of a licensee, although such recall would be reviewed by the tribunal.
In making these proposals we have borne in mind the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the valuable evidence we received from Professor Trechsel, second vice-president of the Commission.
We were charged with the duty to consider and report on three matters: as to the definition of murder; as to the mandatory life sentence; and as to the arrangements for release —each of which could have been the subject of a separate report. Indeed, we address each of those issues separately, yet they are closely linked. Therefore, I hope that our report will be considered as a whole. I also hope that our conclusions and recommendations will commend themselves to your Lordships. It has been a privilege to have been chairman of this committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment (H.L. Paper 78). —(Lord Nathan.)
4.2 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for having introduced the debate and given your Lordships the opportunity to discuss the recommendations of the committee which sat under his distinguished chairmanship. It produced a report which contained thoughts and proposals which will have far-reaching significance. It is only right that your Lordships should have the opportunity to discuss it.
I thought that it might be helpful if I were to speak early in the debate to offer some general observations on behalf of the Government on the Select Committee's report. I do not propose, as your Lordships would expect, to offer any conclusions. It is only a few weeks since the committee reported and it would be an impertinence towards it if the Government had already made up their mind as to what action they would take.
The recommendations for change are pretty substantial and are not uncontroversial. As far as the Government are concerned, the whole object of today's debate—indeed, the whole advantage of it —is to listen and to hear what your Lordships have to say. This will help to guide us in deciding on the actions which should be taken and which should be proposed to Parliament.
If I speak by leave of the House again at the end of the debate, it will be not so much, as it were, to answer the debate but more to clear up any points of concern or to answer any specific questions which your Lordships may raise. Therefore, I shall listen with interest to what your Lordships have to say.
I should at the outset like to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his colleagues on the committee for all the work which they did on a highly technical and very sensitive subject. Their report is clear and comprehensive. No one can accuse it of being stuffy. Behind every recommendation there is careful consideration of what are very difficult and delicate issues.
It is worth while recalling why the committee was set up. Two years ago your Lordships debated the Bill which was to become the Criminal Justice Act 1988. During the debate several noble Lords expressed concern about the effect of the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder and my noble friend Lord Windlesham suggested that a Select Committee should be set up in order to review the definition of murder, the mandatory life sentence and the arrangements for the release of life sentence prisoners.
The committee's remit extended to the law and practice both in England and Wales and in Scotland. The committee benefited, as your Lordships would expect, from the advice of noble Lords of Scottish extraction.
The committee's recommendations are different for the two jurisdictions, as we might expect, reflecting the weight of evidence that those who live under and practise the law in Scotland seem to consider that they are by and large happier with its results than are their counterparts in England and Wales. I think that on this occasion it is more than

453
just a normal manifestation of territorial contentment.
I should like to say something about each of the three parts of the committee's terms of reference. First, there is a question of how the offence of murder itself is to be defined. In most cases murder is murder. One person kills another one, and intended to do so. It is a heinous offence showing total disregard for the sanctity of human life.
However, some murderers may be less to blame for this terrible deed than are others. The law recognises a defence of provocation where the killer is so provoked by his victim that he loses self-control. Nor will a man be convicted of murder if because of abnormality of mind his responsibility is diminished. The important practical consequence of this is that for manslaughter the judge has the option of giving a determinate sentence instead of the sentence of life imprisonment which for murder he is obliged to give.
The committee showed in the report that in England and Wales, following a series of judgments in your Lordships' House, the law is reasonably clear. This, I note with deference, is the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice of England. He said that the law is now clear and right and that it should not be changed. It is murder to kill by an act which is intended to kill or to cause serious bodily harm. A result is intended when it is the defendant's purpose. But the noble and learned Lord said that if the defendant foresaw that it was virtually certain that death would be caused by his act, although his foresight cannot amount to an intention to kill, it is evidence from which an intention to kill may be inferred.
The matter is different in Scotland. There the common law provides that it is murder to kill whether it is with intention or with "wicked recklessness". Wicked recklessness brings within murder cases which many of us would count as murder. The committee of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, observed that the Scots are happy with their legal definition of murder and concluded, wisely enough, that it would be better left alone.
While leaving the common law in Scotland untouched, the committee would therefore in England and Wales wish to see murder defined in statute following the recommendations of the Law Commission. The effect —indeed, the intended effect, if I may put it like that —would be that, where death resulted from a criminal act which was intended to cause serious personal harm and where the defendant was aware that death might result, he would be guilty of murder. But the defendant would not be guilty of murder if he had not foreseen that death would occur, even if perhaps he should have done. Instead he would be convicted of manslaughter. So says the committee.
Nor would it be murder, the committee suggests, if his intention was, for instance, just to cause the fear of death or the fear of injury, as a terrorist might claim in his defence, unless the prosecution could show that he actually intended serious personal harm and that he knew that death might result. A terrorist, for example, who planted a bomb, might say that he
454
had confidently expected the area to be cleared before it went off. The committee would have such a terrorist convicted only of manslaughter, where he would still be liable to imprisonment for life. The committee argues that it is stretching the meaning of murder too far to make it cover those kinds of cases.
For my part I am not sure. Nor am I sure that a statutory definition of murder would do the trick and could stand the test of time. I shall be interested to hear what your Lordships have to say.
Perhaps I can come to the second part of the committee's report, which considers the penalty for murder. At present a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory for anyone who is convicted of murder. The committee's report explains how that position was arrived at during the debates on the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill in 1965.
The Act followed the uncomfortable position which obtained during what one might call the reign of the Homicide Act 1957 where, as I had occasion to remind your Lordships the other day, the late Lord Conesford highlighted the inconsistency and unacceptability of the situation by saying:
"If you wished to dispose of your wife and not suffer the penalty of death you must not shoot her or drown her, but you could stab her, strangle her, poison her or set her on fire and you would get away with it".
That position of law was considered so indefensible that eight years later Parliament replaced the Homicide Act 1957 with the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act of 1965.
A number of possibilities were proposed to the Select Committee by witnesses. They included abolishing the sentence of life imprisonment. The committee considered all those possibilities but concluded that the life sentence for murder should become discretionary rather than mandatory. It should, in the committee's view, be the responsibility of the trial judge to decide the most suitable sentence when someone is convicted of murder. The committee indicated that that recommendation was supported by a considerable body of judicial opinion, including the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice.
Sentencing criminals, particularly for grave crimes, is an awesome responsibility, and we shall need to consider carefully the views of those in the courts who carry that responsibility.
If that recommendation were to be accepted, life imprisonment would become not the only but just the maximum penalty for murder, as it is for other very serious crimes, including manslaughter and rape. The main argument for having life imprisonment as the maximum, rather than the only, penalty for murder is that the offence of murder varies considerably in its nature and in the culpability of the offender. The sentence, goes the argument, should reflect those differences, as it does for other offences. The courts would be able to make a hospital order after a murder conviction, when that is appropriate, which they cannot do now.
The report sets out a number of arguments which have a bearing on that problem. They include retribution, deterrence, the protection of the public,

455
the difficulty of arriving at a suitable length of sentence in a determinate sentence and public confidence as a whole in the criminal justice system. There is no need for me to repeat them and we shall all want to consider them very carefully.
The discussion of whether the sentence of life imprisonment should be mandatory or not is sometimes carried on as if the only form of retribution is the number of years which a murderer spends in custody; but if people who are sentenced to life imprisonment are eventually released they are released on licence. They are liable to be recalled at any time. That liability remains until the end of their life.
That is a very different outcome when compared with those who receive long but nevertheless determinate sentences of imprisonment. They may not be granted parole but eventually they are released and they are at full liberty. The sentence of life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a lifelong surrender of full liberty. Many people would regard that as a proper retribution for culpably taking the life of another person and also quite a constriction of liberty.
Of course one of the aims of sentencing is often said to be the formal expression of public abhorrence of a crime. Some people may recognise that the circumstances of murders will vary considerably. They may accept that the punishment of the offender should differ according to the circumstances. Nevertheless they feel that murder is a uniquely heinous crime and that a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is a proper and justifiable expression of public repugnance towards anyone who has intentionally taken the life of another.
The committee recommends that when a life sentence is given the judge should specify the period of years which he considers necessary for retribution and deterrence. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, reminded us that it calls that the "penal sanction".
The committee has recommended that during the period of penal sanction all life sentence prisoners should be eligible and should be considered for parole as though they were serving determinate sentences of that period and thereafter they should be considered for release solely on the basis of risk. Your Lordships will know that the Government have been considering the report on the parole system from the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. You will appreciate that the action which is taken on his report will in part influence our response to this recommendation.
I do not think that we can pretend, or that we can ask the courts to pretend, that a life sentence is similar to a very long fixed sentence. It is not. At the end of a fixed sentence a man is totally free. At the end of a life sentence he is always on licence.
Some may take the view —I know that some of your Lordships do —that all sentences should be fixed sentences and that the life sentence should be abolished; but we should be in no doubt that that would be a major step indeed. It is not one which would be likely to endear itself to the public, which is increasingly apprehensive about the continuing
456
rise in crimes of violence. I fancy that there would be many eyebrows which would move smartly in an upward direction if it were realised that the act of murder may attract neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment but merely a pre-determined number of years in prison.
The committee's proposal to replace a mandatory life sentence for murder with a discretionary one would have far-reaching implications for the review and the release of life sentence prisoners. The arrangements for that in Scotland differ from those in England and Wales. Your Lordships will understand if I base my detailed comments on the arrangements south of the Border.
The committee has drawn attention to the two principal facets which govern operation of the system: the period for punishment and deterrence, which has come to be known as the tariff, and the evaluation of risk. The Government have always made it clear that the tariff is merely a means to an end. It is a mechanism for fixing the first review date.
The committee has recommended that the previous informal role of the tariff, which it calls the "penal sanction", should be formalised. When a judge passes a life sentence the committee says that he should specify his reasons and should state in open court the period for which the criminal should be detained in order to satisfy retribution and deterrence —whether we call that the penal sanction or the tariff. It says that that would provide an opportunity for pleas in mitigation and ultimately for appeal by either the prosecution or the defence.
The committee's proposal would have the advantage that the life sentence prisoner could hear all the arguments and could know why the review date has been fixed for a particular time; but there are also disadvantages. For example, at present no prisoner goes beyond 17 years before his first review, even though that may well be many years before the judge believes that the period for retribution and deterrence would have expired. From then there are regular reviews until release is authorised, if it is. That gives the life sentence prisoner something to work towards.
The Select Committee has drawn attention to the fact that the timing of the first local review committee in a murder case is decided by Ministers rather than by the judiciary. Although at present the judiciary advises on that decision, it is for the Minister actually to make it. The committee proposes that the penal sanction should be announced by the judge in court and that it should be binding on Ministers. We cannot though consider that recommendation separately from other recommendations. Next year the European Court of Human Rights will consider how far discretionary life sentence prisoners may be entitled to have their cases reviewed, not solely by the Parole Board and Ministers but openly by an independent body with powers to order their release.
In considering the Select Committee's recommendations we will have to take account of how the European Court interprets our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

457
Any Home Secretary considers with awe his fearful responsibility for authorising the release back into society of one who has been imprisoned for having committed murder. That is a huge responsibility, with the necessity to weigh humanitarian conditions against the need to protect the public, for these men and women, and sadly sometimes even children, have committed the most terrible offences of taking life or they have shown that by their actions they may be a continuing risk to society. Inevitably, and with hindsight, some of those decisions have not always proved to have been right.
The Select Committee has recommended that the Home Secretary should no longer have this responsibility. Instead these decisions, which must command the highest public confidence, it says, should be taken by a three-man tribunal comprising a High Court judge, a consultant psychiatrist and a chief probation officer. Those who advocate a change of this nature will have to weigh up the advantage of sharing the awesome and singular responsibility of decision-making with the disadvantage of corporate and diffuse responsibility. There is a flavour here of the safety in numbers argument.
At present the Home Secretary benefits from the advice of the Parole Board on every life sentence case. Parole Board panels considering these cases will always include a member of the judiciary, a consultant psychiatrist and a chief probation officer. So today the Home Secretary has the benefit of expert advice of the sort which is proposed by the Select Committee.
The Government will listen with interest to the views of your Lordships and others on the proposal that the Home Secretary should no longer take personal responsibility for releasing those who have committed murder but that he should instead delegate it absolutely to three independent members of a tribunal. That would be a break with tradition and practice which have been in existence and which have served the country well for very many years.
Part of this recommendation for a tribunal deals with important aspects such as the disclosure of the reports which are written on life sentence prisoners and the giving of reasons for refusing to release them. At present neither the Home Secretary nor the Parole Board gives reasons for their decisions either in parole cases or in considering life sentence prisoners.
The committee of my noble friend Lord Carlisle has recommended that for parole the Parole Board should give its reasons when it refuses to grant parole and that the prisoner should be able to see the reports on which his parole decision is based. Clearly once again the recommendations of the Select Committee will have to be considered in the light of our response to the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Carlisle. Again the Government will listen with interest to what your Lordships have to say on this but you will recognise that the requirement to disclose reports can create problems in the preparation of the reports, possibly leading to a modification of what the writer might really wish to say.
458
These reports lie of course at the root of the judgment of risk which is involved when the release of a prisoner is being considered. These are important judgments because they affect public safety. We must be sure that any advance down the road of openness will not at the same time inadvertently undermine the integrity of the reporting process and could not jeopardise the ability to evaluate the risk properly.
Perhaps I could turn to a recommendation from the committee which I personally regard as very important: that there should be a formal mechanism for informing the families of the victims of the release arrangements. I am glad that the Select Committee made this recommendation. In a society where regrettably violent crime has become too frequent, we all too often concentrate on the fate of those who are found guilty, without sufficient attention being paid to the needs of those who have suffered grievously from their actions. No one can bring back a loved one. No one can repair the damage or mental trauma of rape or violent assault. We must try to ensure that the victims are not forgotten.
I have tried to give your Lordships what are no more than a few observations on some of the problems which the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has unearthed. In an empirical way we all think that we know what murder is and we all think that we know what to do with murderers. But when we come to investigate the detail we find that we are pulling apart an intricate web of practice, law, judgment, responsibilities, humanity and sentiment. The conclusions are not easy.
I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for having immersed himself and his committee in the web and for having pulled apart some of the strands. It gives us all the opportunity to think, and to think afresh, and that is no bad thing. The House will be grateful to the noble Lord not only for having chaired this committee but for having introduced the debate this afternoon and given your Lordships the opportunity of discussing its recommendations. I can only repeat that the Government look forward with interest to hearing what your Lordships have to say.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may at once join with the Minister in expressing appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the members of his committee for the wisdom that they have shown, for the thoroughness that they have exhibited, and for the speed with which they finished their report. They were given their terms of reference and were appointed in July last year. They succeeded in presenting their report, which is now being debated by your Lordships, in 12 months. That is a meritorious accomplishment which may well be copied by future Select Committees of your Lordships' House.
Having said that, I wish at once to enbark on what, as your Lordships will appreciate, is a purely personal appraisal of the report, in the hope that my humble views, expressed from this Dispatch Box, may be of some interest in the debate in which so

459
many learned judges are participating, with a great deal more wisdom than ever I shall possess.
I start with a word of regret that at the outset of the report the committee had to say that its terms of reference did not allow it to consider whether or not, in the definition and scope of murder, there should be one offence of culpable homicide. It is a matter of deep regret that in a thorough investigation of the subject this important matter could not be considered. I take a degree of personal blame which I ask your Lordships to share in that when we were told the terms of reference some submission was not made that there should also be consideration by the committee of the important topic of whether one crime of culpable homicide should exist. There are points for and points against, but it is an omission which I personally regret.
I turn to a consideration of the committee's findings on the scope of murder and the definition of murder that ought to obtain in England and Wales and in Scotland. I emphasise the latter in order to make clear certain points. It has been said —and the weighty voice of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice is behind the observation —that our law is now clear on the subject of murder. I wish that our history in regard to precedents, by way of definition of the law of murder, were clearer and more meritorious than it is, so that one could conclude that the end of the road in definition had been reached in accordance with our precedents. It is not a very good history.
For example, on the subject of guilty intent —known by the learned lawyers as mens rea—your Lordships' House decided in 1960 in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Smith that it was not a subjective test which had to be administered but the objective test of the reasonable man. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 endeavoured by statutory means to say that that was not right.
However, in 1987 the Privy Council in Frankland v. Moore said that DPP v. Smith had been wrongly decided, and that the objective test laid down was not, and never had been, the law of England and Wales. That was a somewhat unkind commentary upon your Lordships' wisdom and decisions in 1960.
With regard to another aspect of mens rea in 1975 your Lordships' House in DPP v. Hyam said that a jury had rightly been directed that Mrs. Hyam was guilty of murder if she knew that it was highly probable that her act would cause serious bodily harm. Ten years later your Lordhips' House decided in Maloney that the direction of the House of Lords was wrong, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, for whom we all have such a great admiration and respect, laid down some guidelines.
In Regina v. Hancock and Shankland in 1986 your Lordships' House upheld the decision of Maloney in 1985 but said that the guidelines that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, had laid down were wrong.
We end up in 1986 with the case of Nedrick. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was thinking of this case when he said that the law was now clear. The Privy Council held,
460
in a case where the judge had given a direction in accordance with Hyam in 1975, that the jury should have been told that it was a virtual certain consequence that death or serious bodily harm would have resulted. Therefore we have proceeded by something of a zig-zag course in defining murder and deciding what, according to English law, murder had to contain by way of its constituent parts. That may lead your Lordships to the decision that there should be, once and for all, a statutory definition of murder. As your Lordships have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the report recommends at page 25:
"A person is guilty of murder if he causes the death of another —(a) intending to cause death; or (b) intending to cause serious personal harm and being aware that he may cause death".
I do not intend to refer to the definition of intention which is to be contained in the suggested statute.
As the Minister rightly said, the definition does not coincide with the definition of murder in Scotland. We must consider the law in England and Wales and in Scotland. The Scottish definition says,
"Murder is constituted by any wilful act causing the destruction of life whether intended to kill or displaying such wicked recklessness as to imply a disposition depraved enough to be regardless of the consequences".
It has been pointed out that the question of depraved recklessness, if I may use that shorthand, covers the average case of terrorist attack by bomb where the terrorist tries to put forward the excuse that he gave a two-minute warning beforehand and, therefore, if he gave that warning, he could not have intended to take life.
I do not think that the public will stand for that situation. The public regards that as murder. Throughout this report the committee is saying that one must either avoid or uphold the stigma of murder because murder has a stigma attached to it and one must be careful before one administers it or takes it away. At this moment in our history, and possibly the history of the world, terrorism is the biggest plague that we have to deal with in regard to the safety of innocent children and women. The suggested definition would not cover that situation; but the Scottish definition does.
The first question one has to ask is this: is it a good idea that Scotland keeps to its law of precedents? We have a statutory definition. The committee comes to the conclusion, because of the very straightforward evidence that came before it, that Scotland need not have a statute. That obviously leaves the question of whether it is desirable that there should be one law in Scotland and a different law in England and Wales. The committee comes to the conclusion that it does not very much matter although a uniform law would have been highly desirable. I have not followed the logic of this: in another part of the report, with the defiance of the Scottish evidence before it —and some of us know what admirable strengths the Scots have in defending their traditions —the committee decides that Scotland should be allowed to keep mandatory life imprisonment.
It cannot be sensible to have a different law in regard to punishment and sentence; namely,

461
mandatory life imprisonment, in Scotland, and to say that it does not matter at all if there is a different definition of murder—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene. That is not the recommendation of the Select Committee. The Select Committee, with the support of members who have knowledge of Scotland, recommended that in England and in Scotland there should be a discretionary sentence with the option to impose a life sentence wherever appropriate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. That does not make any difference to my argument, if I may say so with respect. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, of all people infers that it makes a difference, I should like to quote what is said in the report. I regard it as very important.
"The Committee note that several witnesses from Scotland, including the Lord Justice General and the Scottish Law Commission, were in favour of maintaining the mandatory life sentence. However, the Committee consider that it would not be tolerable for different sentencing regimes to apply in Scotland and England and in Wales. This view was shared by all the witnesses who commented on this point. Accordingly, the Committee recommend that the sentence for murder should be discretionary in Scotland as well as in England and Wales".
If I did not make my point clear before, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and to your Lordships. The committee made it perfectly clear that it wanted to make the mandatory life sentence applicable to England, Wales and Scotland, in spite of Scottish opinion to the contrary. It wished to do that because otherwise it would be inconsistent. I apologise if I did not make my point clear. My point is that it is absurd to try to impose on Scotland the need for exactly the same system of mandatory life sentences while presumably it does not matter if there is a different definition of murder and the Scottish definition covers something which the English definition does not.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has now said. If he looks at Hansard tomorrow he will forgive me if I say to him that quite inadvertently he gave the impression of saying that the committee came to different conclusions in the matter of sentencing and not the identical conclusion, which is the case.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, that is why I apologised. It must have been that I did not make my position clear. Perhaps I may repeat it, because it is so important. On one issue the committee forced uniformity, against Scottish evidence. On the other issue which is so important —namely, the definition of murder —it said that it does not matter if the definitions are different. That was the point that I tried to make and I am sorry if I did not make it sufficiently lucidly.
Having said that, I ask our Lordships to take the view that that is a very serious discrepancy and contradiction. I shall leave the point there because I have an idea that the noble and learned Lord, Lord
462
Goff, who is to take part in the debate hereafter, will be able to deal with the matter much more effectively than I. It was his opinion that came before the commmittee in regard to the definition. I shall say only that I heartily agree with him if he says the same today, as I believe he may; namely, that it is not difficult for a jury which has to decide according to the law of England and Wales whether or not something is dishonest and it will not be very difficult for it to decide whether or not something is wicked.
I shall move on speedily. However, I know that your Lordships will remember that there have been some perfectly proper interruptions in what I had to say. Nevertheless, I do not intend to Lake long.
Perhaps I may say at once that a situation was disclosed in the report which may have been a surprise to many Members of your Lordships' House. I refer to paragraphs 151 to 154. I believe that we would all agree with the noble and learned Lord the Chief justice that,
"It is unsatisfactory, to say the least, that the length of a prisoner's stay in prison should be determined or partially determined behind the scenes by someone who has not heard any representations by or on behalf of the prisoner on grounds which the prisoner does not know".
Noble Lords will remember the criticism —which was referred to by the noble Earl —voiced in this House when the Criminal Justice Bill was dealt with of the procedure of the judge communicating privately with the Home Secretary through the Lord Chief Justice as to his view on what ought to be the minimum sentence served on a mandatory life sentence. We would not have known that, as is stated in paragraph 154:
"The Home Office gave evidence to the Committee that during the six months from 1st April to 30th September 1988 in 63 of the 106 mandatory life sentence cases the Home Secretary set a higher tariff than that privately indicated to him by the trial judge".
It should cause us a feeling of conscience that that position should have been allowed to exist without our knowing it until the statistics were brought so emphatically before us by the committee's report. The figures quoted for subsequent years show a substantial number of cases in which a junior Minister overruled the recommendation of the judge by increasing the sentence that the trial judge said ought to be served.
Similarly, your Lordships will recollect the criticisms that were voiced in this House —I believe on all sides of the House, and certainly from these Benches —when we learnt of the Home Secretary's decision in November 1983 to introduce, without parliamentary approval, 20-year minimum sentences for those convicted of certain categories of murder. The committee has put on record in paragraph 156 of its report the dismay that was caused in all directions as a result of that instruction by the Home Secretary.
We should all approve of the fact that there is now a procedure under which it is recommended that everything should be open. The judge will give his decision in regard to the sentence which will take account of various matters to which the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, referred and there

463
is the possibility of an appeal. There will be complete openness, and matters will be dealt with not ministerially but judicially. I believe that the House will also welcome the recommendation that release will also not be a decision by a junior Home Office Minister, or a senior Home Office Minister, but by the tribunal which is suggested in the report.
There is much more that one would want to say on such an important report with such far-reaching characteristics. However, there is a limit to your Lordships' patience, and I shall limit myself to the observations that I have seen fit to make to your Lordships and which I hope will not be found to have been too unhelpful.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord on the report. It is an excellent report, easy to read, mostly simple to follow and attractively pragmatic in its recommendations. Two thick volumes of evidence reveal the scope of the committee's research and the extent of its labours.
I can support wholeheartedly the first 11 recommendations in paragraphs 191 to 201, above all the abolition of the mandatory life sentence, and the definition of murder at paragraph 71. It is on the sentencing and release procedure at paragraphs 202 and 203 that I find the recommendations unclear and unsatisfactory. It is therefore on Part 8 that I should like to concentrate what I have to say. Part 8 starts at paragraph 123.
The report rightly begins with an outline of present procedure. As your Lordships have heard, it discloses a most scandalous situation regarding what was going on. That has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I shall return to the point later.
Perhaps I may turn for a moment to paragraphs 176 and 177. These make it clear, as we have heard from the noble Lord, that a life sentence should be available in two sets of circumstances: first, for particularly outrageous murders and, secondly, where there is uncertainty about risk. Where there is risk, the judgment specifies in open court the period necessary for punishment —the penal sanction. At the expiry of that period the prisoner appears before a judicial tribunal which satisfies the terms of Article 5 of the European Convention, a concept which I certainly strongly support. That seems to me to be a clear and open process. However, I am not quite clear whether the tribunal is to sit in public, whether the decision is to be a majority one and whether the laymen sitting on the tribunal are only assessors. I am asked by my noble friend Lord Hunt, who cannot be here today, to say that he would like to see a member of the Parole Board on the tribunal. I agree with him.
What about the second limb —the particularly outrageous murder? At paragraph 177 the report states:
"Where he [the judge] imposes a life sentence because of the heinousness of the offence, the penal sanction will be the period of years he would have imposed if the life sentence were not available".
464
When the judge imposes a life sentence on the ground of risk, the penal sanction will be the period of years equivalent. So there is contradistinction between risk and heinousness.
How then does the sentence for heinousness differ from a determinate sentence? Does it mean that a life sentence for heinousness is therefore to be a sentence for life? Otherwise —I may have missed the point —I do not understand the difference between that and an ordinary determinate sentence. If the sentence is to be one of life, I do not see how it can, as proposed in paragraph 179, attract remission and parole eligibility, unless I have overlooked a provision for consultation with the Almighty. I for one could never contemplate a power given to a judge to imprison anyone without hope for the rest of his natural life. All sentences must surely be reviewable.
That takes me to a further matter of concern at paragraph 178.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. I should like to be corrected if I am wrong. I thought that the report had stated that the difference between the life and the long determinate sentence was not quite as he stated but that the life sentence was subject to the existing rules as to recall. That is the essential difference on the point that he raised.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I hear the comments of the noble and learned Lord, but in the proposals the determinate sentence is for the normal murder and the life sentence for risk in a murder and for a murder which has no particular risk. If that is so, I do not see the difference between the two sentences. That point will no doubt become clear in the debate.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I am sorry to delay the noble Lord but is not the point this? In the case of a life sentence as proposed by the Committee, the convicted person will suffer a conditional loss of liberty during his natural life because he will be liable to recall, whereas in the other case he will not. He will be subject to the ordinary parole and termination of his sentence, as happens in other cases now.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may be perfectly right and we shall no doubt hear from noble Lords who served on the committee.
I was about to turn to the further matter of paragraph 178, where the committee states:
"After the introduction of a discretionary sentence for murder, the Committee anticipate that the average length of time served under a life sentence would be considerably longer than it is now. The Committee expect that their proposals will lead to very lengthy penal sanctions being set in the most grave cases. In some cases, this may result in imprisonment for the rest of the prisoner's life".
I must say that I am surprised that all members of the committee have gone along with that paragraph. It is indeed a remarkable fact that the

465
two most recent reports on penal affairs, the reports of the Carlisle and Nathan Committees, should carry health warnings that their recommendations may have adverse effects on the prison population.
Both NACRO, for which I had the honour to give evidence to the committee, and the all-party Penal Affairs Group foresaw that abolition of mandatory sentences might lead to the imposition of American-type 50, 60 or 70-year sentences which would surely be unacceptable in this country. Both recommended a ceiling on the length of a determinate sentence and the use of a life sentence only for cases so heinous that they deserved longer than the ceiling, say, 25 years. Both also recommended the introduction of a new and separate kind of sentence as proposed by the Butler Committee; namely a reviewable sentence which would be appropriate for dangerousness due to mental instability.
Sadly those proposals are not discussed in the report itself but I suggest that they are in fact preferable to the committee's proposals. The court would then have a determinate sentence for the normal case up to 25 years, a life sentence for cases of extreme gravity, with reference to the judicial tribunal after the period appropriate to 25 years had elapsed, and, thirdly, the reviewable sentence for dangerousness due to mental instability. That would leave dangerousness which may arise from the prisoner's own abnormal proclivities. That is of course always present in a whole band of other crimes besides murder and can normally only be catered for in the determinate sentence itself or at parole review. In sentencing, the trial judge may always express his view on potential risk and on any other relevant circumstance. Such views will carry weight at the parole stage and during sentence. I see no reason why, if murder cases should be distinguished, provision could not be made for a power in the court to recommend or order some form of extended supervision on release.
Under the system that I propose, the recommending power under the Murder Act 1965 would go altogether. It is a power clearly not loved by the majority of the judiciary, as evidenced by its rare and haphazard use over the last 24 years. My noble friend Lord Hunt has asked me to say that he also agrees with the proposals.
Returning to current procedures, the disclosures made in the report would be enough in themselves to justify the committee's labours. Sir Leon Brittan's unilateral abolition of the admirable joint committee of members of the Parole Board and Home Office officials, his assumption of personal responsibility for the timing of a first reference to the local review committee and his naming, without parliamentary consultation, five categories of offence for which no prisoner can serve fewer than 20 years are all set out faithfully in the report.
The discovery that junior Ministers were taking upon themselves the power to increase tariffs proposed by the trial judges and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is set out too. That they had done so in no less than 40 per cent.
466
of cases, no such decision being reported either to the prisoner or to the judiciary, all appears in the report. The report records:
"The surprise and shock expressed by witnesses at what was going on".
It also records "the widespread condemnation" by witnesses of the inherent secrecy of the procedures and of the Leon Brittan ukase. It refers to the "usurpation of the prerogative of the judiciary", to the procedures which "offend the basic tenets of natural justice" and finally to the harmful effects on morale in the prisons.
A few moments ago the noble Earl said that the system has proved to have served the nation well. I was sorry not to have heard from him some apology and explanation of how these procedures had been allowed to continue for so long and when they were stopped. I am bound to say that on the face of it this looks like yet another example of the secretive, arrogant and insensitive political approach so often exhibited by the present Administration.
For the rest I welcome the recommendation that henceforth murder should be defined by statute. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seems to prefer the Scottish common law definition but I find a concept of "wicked recklessness' hardly a precise one for an English statute. So I welcome the recommendation that the definition of murder should be defined by statute.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice prefers the common law definition. With much trepidation and the greatest of respect I am bound to ask: where has the common law taken us? It has worn a well trodden path in trips to the Appellate Committee of this House. A mountain of authority has been built up and a veritable library of academic studies, not the shortest of which is the 17 pages of the report contributed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff.
In one case one of the noble and learned Lords described homicide as now being:
"an obscure and highly technical branch of the law".
Some of the best legal brains have become entangled in legal and often semantic discussion of what "intention to cause serious bodily harm" means or the mental element in murder. What if one is reckless or oblivious of the result? What if one is grossly negligent? Suppose an act is one which any reasonble man believes will lead inevitably to death but one does not see it that way. What about motivation? What about desire? All that discussion is in a vain search for simple and straightforward words that a jury can comprehend.
In my view the report finds such words in paragraph 71 where it adopts the Law Commission, proposed definition. It is clear and comprehensible. I strongly agree with the committee when it says that the principle should not be distorted to deal with the reckless terrorist. No jury would find any great difficulty with the "reckless terrorist" under this definition; that one should intend to cause serious harm being aware at the time that one might cause death. I should have thought that that would embrace almost every kind of reckless terrorist of whom one could think.

467
This long, tortuous pursuit of the common law illustrates graphically the difficulty which the most brilliant minds experience in understanding the fundamental principles of the criminal law which must be clear and comprehensible to jurymen and magistrates. It is a difficulty which as we have seen recently seems to extend to the requirements for criminal advocacy as well.
I am glad that the report recommends the retention of the special defence of provocation and diminished responsibility and proposes the addition of a new defence of using excessive force in self-defence, which is already in operation in Scotland. I am glad too that no attempt was made to try to categorise the offence of murder. I should have liked the Government to have given a fair wind to the central recommendations of this outstanding report and I was rather sad to observe the somewhat squally forecast from the noble Earl in his words to the House. I hope that the Government will allow further time for discussion of the recommendations on sentencing and release.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Goff of Chieveley: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the report of the Select Committee and expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his colleagues for all the hard work which they must have put into it. I found the report and the volumes of evidence very interesting reading, from which I am sure I shall derive much profit.
I have little doubt that the sections of the report that are likely to attract most attention are those concerned with the mandatory life sentence and with the arrangements for reaching decisions on release. Even so, in the time available to me I shall concentrate on another matter on which, with all respect, I find myself unable to agree with the committee's proposal. I refer to the proposed definition of murder for England and Wales set out in paragraph 195 on page 50 of the report in the committee's summary of its conclusions and recommendations.
I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I remind the House of the proposal, although the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred to part of it. It is taken from the Law Commission's draft criminal code and reads:
"A person is guilty of murder if he causes the death of another—

(a) intending to cause death; or

(b) intending to cause serious personal harm and being aware that he may cause death".

In addition there is the following:
"A person acts 'intentionally' with respect to … a result when he acts either in order to bring it about or being aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events".
I believe that it is of great importance that the crime of murder so far as possible should reflect the understanding by ordinary people of homicide, which is so heinous that the killer should not merely be guilty of manslaughter but should be branded as a murderer. The definition should be so drawn that all those killers who should be branded as murderers are caught by it and those who should not be branded as murderers should fall outside it.
468
I also believe that it is most important that the definition of the crime of murder should be expressed in ordinary language and that the words in the definition should be used in their ordinary meaning. Only in that way can we be sure that the definition of the crime of murder reflects the ordinary understanding of what is murder. Only in that way can juries, whose task it is to decide whether our fellow citizens are guilty or innocent of that most serious of crimes, be sensibly directed by judges and clearly understand the task that they have to perform.
The proposed definition fails on both counts. First, it excludes some whom the public will rightly think should be guilty of murder and includes some who obviously should not be guilty of murder. Secondly, by imposing an artificial meaning on the word "intentionally" it does not give an ordinary English word its ordinary meaning and so is likely to confuse juries who consist of ordinary men and women, and also confuse ordinary men and women who read about murder trials in the newspapers.
Let us take those who are wrongly excluded by the defnition. To some extent I am here reflecting what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has already said. I suggest that it is of profound importance that our law of murder should be so drawn as to accommodate the terrorist. Sadly, this has never been more necessary that it is today. If the offence is too narrowly drawn either juries will be driven to cheat in order to convict terrorists whom they regard as being guilty of murder; or the public will be justifiably outraged if terrorists whom they regard as murderers are acquitted of murder.
The point is this. Not all terrorists intend to kill, that is to say, mean to kill or even mean to cause serious bodily harm. Of course many do mean to kill and in their case there is no difficulty over the defnition of murder. But there are terrorists—for example, those who let off bombs in public places or destroy monuments—who do not mean to kill or even to cause bodily harm. Their state of mind is quite simply that they do not care whether or not they kill.
Perhaps I may take one or two simple examples. Let us take first the terrorist who places a bomb in a shopping precinct, timed to go off at midnight. A courting couple embracing in the darkness of a shop doorway is blown to bits. At the trial the terrorist's state of mind becomes clear. He did not mean to kill anybody. He did not mean to hurt anybody. He did not think that anyone was likely to be there at midnight. His real purpose was to cause terror; but, if somebody was there, he simply did not care whether or not that person was killed.
Let us then take the case of a terrorist who blows up a public monument at night. The night watchman is killed, or falling masonry kills a stray passer-by. The terrorist's state of mind was exactly the same. He did not think that anybody was likely to be there; but if somebody was there and got killed, he just could not care less.
On the Select Committee's proposed definition, neither of them would be guilty of murder. They do not mean to kill; they did not mean to cause serious

469
bodily harm; and they were not aware that death would result in the ordinary course of events, and so they will not be taken to have intended to cause death. I do not think that that is right. I take the view that a terrorist who kills, and whose state of mind is that he does not care whether or not he kills, should be branded as a murderer. I observe in parenthesis that my opinion is in accordance with Scots law. Under Scots law, the terrorist in both my examples would be guilty of murder.
The Select Committee's definition finds its origin in the 14th Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. My noble and learned friend Lord Edmund-Davies was chairman of that Select Committee. It was fully aware of the problem about terrorism and indeed added another specific provision to the proposed definition of murder to deal with it. I do not think in fact that it was a very good way of dealing with the problem. That is no doubt why it has been dropped by the Law Commission in its draft criminal code now adopted by the Select Committee. However, merely abandoning an unsatisfactory solution to a problem does not make the problem go away. It is still there and it exposes a serious deficiency in the definition now proposed.
The examples that I have given about terrorism show that the proposed definition is too narrowly drawn. But in another respect it is too widely drawn. This brings me back to the meaning that is given to the word "intentionally" in the proposed definition —or rather two meanings, because it is given both its natural meaning and an artificial meaning. It is provided that a person acts intentionally with regard to the result, first, when he acts in order to bring that result about—that is to say, when he means that result to happen, which is the ordinary meaning of the word; and, secondly, when he acts being aware that the result will occur "in the ordinary course of events". That is an artificial meaning of the word. For example, a man may act with the evident purpose of striving to prevent the result which in the ordinary course of events he knows will occur. Why, I ask, should that man in those circumstances be taken to have intended the result?
We are concerned here with people who could be wrongly convicted of murder on the proposed definition. Let us take this example. A house is on fire. A father is trapped in the attic floor with his two little girls. He comes to the conclusion that unless they jump they will all be burned alive. But he also realises that if they jump they are all likely to suffer serious personal harm. The children are too frightened to jump and so in an attempt to save their lives he throws one out of the window to the crowd waiting below and jumps with the other one in his arms. All are seriously injured, and the little girl he threw out of the window dies of her injuries. On the Select Committee's proposal that unfortunate man would be a murderer. That is because he was aware that "in the ordinary course of events" the little girl would suffer serious injury and therefore by the proposed definition he is taken to have intended to cause serious personal harm to her. He was also of
470
course aware that his act might cause her death. He is therefore guilty of the murder of his own little girl when he was actually trying to save her life.
On the other hand, he will not be guilty of the crime of causing grievous bodily harm to the other little girl because on the Select Committee's proposal the proposed artificial meaning of intention would be limited to murder. My Lords, just imagine trying to explain that to a jury!
It is easy to multiply examples of this kind. Let us suppose that a surgeon has a patient who is extremely ill and in great pain. There is an operation that he can perform which, if successful, will relieve the pain and effect a cure, but which if unsuccessful may well result in the patient's death. The patient is too ill to be asked for his consent to the operation. The surgeon therefore, acting in the best interests of the patient, forms a reasonable clinical judgment and operates. The patient dies. On the Select Committee's definition the surgeon, though trying to save his patient's life, would be guilty of murdering him.
It may be said that there is surely some defence of necessity that can be invoked in circumstances such as these. But there is the gravest difficulty about that. Let us take the related defence of duress by threats or force. Recently your Lordships' House decided that, although duress by threats or force is generally a defence to a criminal charge, it is not a defence to a charge of murder. That is a conclusion with which the Select Committee has expressed agreement. In these circumstances there must be very serious doubt whether necessity—or "duress of circumstances" as it is sometimes called—although a defence to other criminal charges, can be a defence to a charge of murder. But, in any event, the true answer to the problem raised by my examples is quite simply that murder should be so defined as not to give rise to such extraordinary results as these. In other words, we should not impose any artificial meaning on the words "intention" or "intentionally" in this context.
Lord Reid, one of the most distinguished Lords of Appeal this century, hit the nail on the head years ago when he said:
"In fact people often intend something quite different from what they know to be the natural and probable result of what they are doing. To take a trivial example, if I say I intend to reach the green, people will believe me although we all know that the odds are ten to one against my succeeding; and no one but a lawyer would say that I must be presumed to have intended to put by ball in the bunker because that was the natural and probable result of my shot".
Exactly the same can be said of this proposed definition of murder under which people are to be taken to intend the result which they are aware will occur in the ordinary course of events. That is a phrase which, I may add, is highly ambiguous in any event, but I do not have the time to consider that matter now.
The Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House has recently decided that the word "intention" must be given its ordinary meaning and not an artificial meaning. The Select Committee want to turn back the clock. With all respect, it is wrong. I believe that ordinary words must be given

471
their ordinary meaning so that they can be understood by ordinary people.
What has gone wrong with the proposed definition is that it starts with the proposition based upon true intention: meaning to kill and meaning to cause serious bodily harm. When it is found that that does not work satisfactorily the word "intention" is artificially expanded in an attempt to cope with the problem. Then, not surprisingly, the attempt is found to be unsuccessful.
But that is not the right way in which to set about defining the mental element in the crime of murder. You must not start with a preconception of what is murder and then, finding that it does not work, artificially expand it to accommodate some cases which will not fit. That is a recipe for disaster. The right way is to identify what we think of as murder—to identify the very idea or concept of murder—and then to clothe that idea with words using them in their ordinary meaning.
I believe that there is a simple answer to all these problems founded upon an adaptation of Scottish law under which a man who kills is guilty of murder either if he intends to kill or if he could not care less whether or not he kills. But at the moment both the academic and judicial establishments in England are resisting that simple answer, though for different reasons. The academic establishment does so because it is wedded to the mistaken idea of an artificially expanded concept of intention. The judicial establishment does so because it is so frightened of the name which the Scots give to the second head of their definition of murder—"wicked recklessness"—that it will not contemplate the substance of that principle. In other words, they do not like the colour of the icing and so they refuse to taste the cake.
Perhaps it is no wonder that in these circumstances the Select Committee was led astray on this point. But that is not the subject of the debate tonight. Tonight your Lordships are concerned with the proposals of the Select Committee. I must say, with the greatest respect, that I cannot recommend to your Lordships that the definition now proposed by the Select Committee should be adopted by Parliament. I believe that to do so would be a profound mistake. I respectfully agree with the evidence given to the Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Lane, the Lord Chief Justice, only to this extent; that rather than enact this proposed definition it would be better to leave the present law as it is.
5.25 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, will not take it amiss if I do not follow him into the question of the correct definition of murder. I doubt whether I can assist your Lordships at all on the subject. Equally, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for having missed his speech. I can give only this explanation. I was at a large mental hospital in East Anglia discussing with the staff the prospects of some of their patients and trying to understand how they assess the risks of their re-offending. That is a topic
472
which is not wholly irrelevant to our debate. However, I am most sorry that I missed the noble Lord's speech.
One point made by the noble Lord and his colleagues in the report is certainly music to my ears. Paragraphs 86 to 89 deal favourably with the point about self-defence when excessive force is used. That point was brought to my attention during the course of my duties in Northern Ireland. The situation does not happen often but a good deal of dispute has arisen particularly in Australia. The Select Committee has given its opinion upon the matter. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will have a moment to look at the brief evidence that I gave to the Select Committee and that he may also be convinced that the matter should now be dealt with legislatively because plainly it is beyond the bounds of the judiciary to take it any further.
My main reason for rising this evening is that at present I am the Chairman of the Parole Board for England and Wales. If that is an interest I am glad to declare it. It is a position which at the moment is not entirely uneventful in view of the number of recommendations which appear to be coming forth about the way in which my colleagues and myself may do our jobs in the future. I am extremely glad that on the Select Committee were my two predecessors, both of whom are to address the House this evening. They are my noble friend Lord Windlesham and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
There are many comments I should like to make arising from the report but I wish to concentrate on only two. The first is the question of the structure that we are to have in the future about what the Select Committee has called "release decisions". Your Lordships will recall—and it has been said tonight already—that this is the third of three reports to have been produced over the past six months. The first was that of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and his committee. His terms of reference allowed him to deal only with determinate sentences. His committee recommended that the Parole Board for England and Wales—and it alone—should take the decision about the release of such prisoners. In other words, the current role of the Home Secretary and his advisers would go.
In Scotland soon afterwards was produced the report of the committee chaired by Lord Kincraig. It dealt not only with determinate sentences but also with life sentences. Its conclusion was that the Secretary of State for Scotland should maintain the position that he currently holds in relation to both types of prisoner. In other words he would be advised by the Parole Board for Scotland in both types of case—although its procedures are slightly different from ours—but, nevertheless, the final decision would be his. There would therefore be a diametrically different system north and south of the Border if those two recommendations were both adopted. I suggest to your Lordships that that is not likely to be a very satisfactory situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his colleagues on this Select Committee, if I read them aright, have said that they do not wish to interfere with what the

473
committee of my noble friend Lord Carlisle said in relation to determinate sentences. Of course, the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, proposes that some kind of murders should lead to a determinate sentence. Therefore, I believe it must follow that they would be content to see the system proposed by my noble friend Lord Carlisle also used for those sort of murderers; that is, the decision on release would be taken by the Parole Board alone, at least in England and Wales, without the intervening presence of the Home Secretary and his officials.
However—and my noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to this—they then face what will happen when the court at Strasbourg interprets Article 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the discretionary power of the Home Secretary to release what is at the moment the only sort of convicted murderer; that is, somebody enduring a life sentence.
Let us suppose that the Commission should say, as it rather tends to in similar circumstances, that that executive decision does not comply with the article in the convention and that there should instead be a self-contained judicial authority which will take those decisions and, incidentally, the decision on recall for a life prisoner who is out on licence. If it comes to the conclusion that that must be done by a judicial body and not by the Executive, then the Select Committee will have forestalled that because it makes the recommendation in paragraph 184 about the independent judicial committee which has been discussed by some of your Lordships this evening. That may very well be something into which we shall be forced by our adherence to the European Convention.
However, where I find the system and some other recommendations suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, to be rather obscure is at paragraph 180. As I understand it, he is saying that even in the case of a true life sentence, there would be a portion of it which would be called the tariff portion and which would be the equivalent of a determinate sentence for that particular offence. For that portion, there would be eligibility for parole and for release on remission. However, if for some reason the time passes by and the tariff is completed, thereafter the decision would pass to the independent judicial body.
My colleagues on the Parole Board and I find it difficult to understand how that would work. It would appear that after what is the relevant period—and it may be a third or a half of the sentence—we would be allowed to take account of the possibility that that person should be released on parole. As I understand it, even if we were not to take that view, he would be entitled to release on remission after whatever is the necessary next portion of his sentence. How then would the matter ever get in front of the judicial tribunal because he would automatically have been released already? Therefore, I find that that element, along with what has been recommended by my noble friend Lord Carlisle and by Lord Kincraig, adds a complexity to the situation which is not likely to produce a clear structure for release decisions which I know the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his colleagues would
474
wish to achieve, as I am sure would all Members of this House.
It is rumoured that Her Majesty's Government are preparing a White Paper on some or all of this. If that is so, I hope that they will think through the reports of these three distinguished committees in relation to the way in which and the people by whom release decisions are to be taken, for unless there is clarity in that, the rest of the structure—the giving of reasons, open reporting and so on—will come to nothing because we shall not have a coherent system which is running the whole thing in the first place. I beg my noble friend to take this very seriously, to read these reports together and to make sure that there is consistency at the end of it.
There is one other matter which I should like to raise this evening. Both the report of Lord Kincraig and that of my noble friend Lord Carlisle say in terms that the reason, which should be given, for refusing release of a prisoner should relate only to the risk of that person reoffending. I believe that the Select Committee of your Lordships' House is in agreement with that. I have looked at paragraph 165 and that is the way in which I read it.
Before any decision is reached—and I would also advocate that my noble friend and his colleagues in the Home Office look at this matter—your Lordships might like to look at pages 3 and 4 of the Parole Board's last annual report when we considered this matter. I can tell your Lordships that what I have said so far is my own opinion. That part of my speech which relates to the annual report is the opinion of all my colleagues. We are not at all sure that the risk of that prisoner reoffending is the only criterion upon which release on licence should be refused.
I give the very obvious example, out of a number quoted in that report, of the drug courier, of whom there are really quite a lot in our prisons at present. On the whole, they are people who, when caught and imprisoned, behave impeccably. It matters not from which country they come because they all follow very much the same pattern. It is also unlikely to a degree that they will again be entrusted with running a consignment of drugs into the United Kingdom because they have been caught, they are known, they have a record and it would be idiotic to entrust them with another run.
However, if those offenders are released on parole on the basis of the likelihood of their reoffending, then they will be let out very soon. What message will that give to the country from which they set forth about the attitude of the United Kingdom towards couriers who bring in drugs?
I give that as only one example. In our report we attempted to set out others. There are risks which we believe go beyond that of the offender reoffending to the possibility of other people reoffending as a result of the decision taken to release on licence. I ask your Lordships to take a moment to study some of the examples and to see whether you can think of any more.
I look forward to another occasion on which I can go into other details raised by the noble Lord and his colleagues in a truly fascinating report on which

475
I join in congratulating him and them. However, for this evening I shall be content if my noble friend applies his mind to the three points which I have mentioned to him.
Lord Goff of Chieveley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will forgive me for interrupting. It is simply to say that I have a long-standing engagement this evening and I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not stay until the end of the debate.
5.39 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I gather that I shall have the benefit of the presence of the noble and learned Lord for my remarks even if others suffer from his absence.
I join the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in expressing my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for missing his speech. I was informed in this House—the information is usually very good—that the debate might begin at five o'clock, possibly four-thirty, but certainly not before that. I was not doing anything of any value, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. I was chatting in some corridor, bar or something, but I am afraid I also missed his speech and I extend my apologies.
I have listened with great interest to my acting leader, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I gather that he was speaking for himself but nevertheless he speaks with a great deal of authority on these matters and I cannot claim an equal authority. I suppose I have known as many life prisoners in the last half century as any Member of the House. Whereas other Members who have known a number of life prisoners were probably employed to do so—to put it crudely, paid to do so—I have gratuitously poked my nose into their affairs. Whether that gives me more or less of a claim than professional men who have dealt with them I would not know.
I join in paying tribute to the high quality of this report as one would expect from the chairman and the excellent committee which included two of my present colleagues and one colleague about whose status I am not clear at the moment. I recognise, as others have done, that there are many good points in it which I do not propose to try to touch on in these few minutes. I particularly welcome the reference to better treatment of victims which the noble Earl mentioned at the end of his speech. That deserves a debate all on its own. However, I entirely agree with the noble Earl, and all of us approve of that.
Taking the main issues I entirely agree with those who say, with the report, that murder should no longer require a life sentence. Life sentences should no longer be mandatory. That has been argued very well in the report. It has been argued again and will be argued further today. Therefore I shall not deal with that.
I shall concentrate on three paragraphs in the report about which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, had something very valuable to say. I refer to paragraphs 176, 177 and 178. The last sentence of paragraph 176 runs as follows:
476
"The life sentence should remain available both for particularly outrageous murders and for those where there would be a degree of uncertainty about the risk, by reason in particular of his mental condition, of releasing a prisoner at the end of a determinate sentence".
I should like to take the second part of that sentence. It is not long ago that I opened a debate in this House on mental offenders. Like other noble Lords, this is a subject about which I feel strongly. I would submit that in the case mentioned, where the judge is faced with a man about whose mental condition he is very uncertain, the man should not be packed off to prison for many years. He should go to some kind of hospital, very likely a secure hospital. It may be said under the present law that it is not always possible to arrange for that. In fact some of those who commit the most outrageous crimes are in the end sent to hospital, sometimes after many years, but after having spent a long time in prison. I am saying that this is a backward step.
In the past 20 years people have been sent to prison who in the 1960s would have been sent to hospital. There has been a reluctance on the part of psychiatrists and others to accept them. That is what is happening, but that itself is a movement backwards. This proposal would endorse that arrangement. They should be sent to hospital, and if someone tells me under the existing law that that could not be arranged, then the law should be changed; if somebody says the hospitals do not exist at the present time to take them, then hospitals should be provided. We are here to suggest what ought to be done and if it cannot be done today, it should be done tomorrow. That is one topic on which I should like to record my opinion very clearly.
I pass to another criticism. Here I am echoing the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, in particular. We are told that where a life sentence is imposed the penal sanction will be announced at the same time. The penal sanction will be equal to the period of years that the judge would have imposed if a life sentence were not available. That seems to make good sense as stated in that way. Then we read on. Paragraph 178 states:
"The Committee expect that their proposals will lead to very lengthy penal sanctions being set in the most grave cases".
Put like that one can hardly object to it, but we must bear in mind that sentences in this country are already very grave. I inquired this morning and I understand that they have increased on average in this country by 30 per cent. in the past four years. It is not surprising that a higher proportion of the population here are in prison than in any other European country. To say the least, I am nervous as to where this kind of language will take us.
However, I am still more concerned with what comes next. The last sentence of paragraph 178 reads:
"In some cases [these proposals] may result in imprisonment for the rest of the prisoner's life".
I must press the Minister in the last resort to tell us whether the Government approve of that language and, if so, what does it mean? It is highly ambiguous. A rumour has reached me, which may be quite wrong, that it represents a compromise of views within the committee. But as it stands it is open to

477
the interpretation that it means that in some cases a judge will actually sentence people to life and say, "This means life". Once you do that, as has been pointed out earlier, parole after a period of years can have no meaning.
I do not know whether the Government will be able to say anything much tonight about this, but I must record the strongest possible horror at the thought that in future judges will sentence people to life, explicitly meaning life. It would be as far as I can discover unprecedented, I have made inquiries and no one can supply a case where a man has been allowed to die of old age in this country while serving a life sentence. People have died in prison—they have been ill or perhaps committed suicide—but the possibility in some cases in future that life will mean life will be an outrageous step backwards. It would be halfway to a return to capital punishment. It would be a horrifying development, utterly opposed to Christian ethics, Jewish ethics, humanist ethics or any other ethics that would appeal to your Lordships. If Christianity means anything, it means that we are all sinners, we are all equally children of God and we are all capable of redemption. All those principles are defied by a proposal of this kind, if that is the meaning of the proposal.
In the popular tabloids language of that kind is used very freely. I was reading an article the other day about a prisoner who served 24 years in prison. He was recommended for parole by the local review committee. The leading article started, "Forever Evil". Whoever uses that language about a fellow human being is accepting a criminal responsibility. I am revolted that such a thing could be published in this country in a very popular newspaper.
We have seen big developments in recent years. On the one hand we have far more enlightenment. Thirty years ago there were hardly any criminologists. Every college now seems to have a criminologist and very good work they are doing. There is now far more understanding of crime and the principles of justice than there was. However, there has been a remorseless increase in crime leading naturally to a very deep fear among the public which has been exploited ruthlessly by the tabloid press.
Now the Home Office has a new master. The officials of the Home Office are far more enlightened than they were 30 years ago, but what about the new master? I wish him nothing but good, but he is a declared supporter of hanging, which is a bad start. As we have a Prime Minster who also favours hanging the omens are not favourable. However, we hope that under the benign influence of the Home Office the new incumbent will train on. As I have said, I wish him well.
Having made these points I return to my starting point. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his colleagues who have helped us to approach these problems in a reasonable and enlightened spirit. Despite my criticisms I hope that their report will have much success.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Lane: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to those that have already been expressed to the committee and to my noble friend Lord Nathan on producing such a clear and readable report. I also apologise to my noble friend for not being here for his opening remarks. I was gainfully employed in the Royal Courts of Justice not on a murder appeal but on a conspiracy to rob when armed.
I respectfully agree with the proposals to abolish the mandatory life sentence. It has produced a number of anomalies not least of which is the anomaly that the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice are constrained to report to the Home Secretary on their views as to the length of time which the particular prisoner should serve on grounds of deterrence and punishment. Those views are not communicated to the prisoner by the judge—except perhaps at the end of the trial—or by the Lord Chief Justice. Indeed he never hears any representations from the prisoner. That cannot be right. Quite apart from the considerable burden which this imposes on the current Lord Chief Justice—over 300 cases in a year have to be considered—nevertheless it seems to me that the mandatory life sentence should go as proposed and should be substituted in the way that the committee recommends.
The change will produce difficulties in its turn as changes always do. Some of those difficulties will be directed to the question of when the life sentence should be imposed. Another difficulty will be for a judge to know exactly how he is to calculate the determinate sentence where a determinate sentence is possible. Those matters will take time to resolve. With the increased powers of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) by virtue of the new Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act, we can now review not only over-harsh sentences, but over-lenient sentences. In the course of time—it may take some time—it should be possible to reach a series of satisfactory guidelines to assist judges in that difficult task.
Perhaps I may be permitted to voice one matter which concerns me greatly about the committee's report. It is the proposed new definition of murder which is to be found at paragraphs 71 and 195 and on pages 25 and 50 of the report. Criminal law is, in the nature of things, very largely a compromise between what is, on the one hand, intellectually desirable and what is, on the other hand, practical, easy to explain, to understand and to operate. There are great dangers in over-intellectualisation of the criminal law.
If one were to be guided solely by intellectual considerations, the mental element in murder would be an intention to kill and no more. Indeed I am surprised that my noble and learned friend Lord Goff does not recommend that. The burden of proof being on the prosecution, that intention is exceedingly difficult to prove. That is demonstrated by the difficulty that all practitioners will appreciate of bringing home a charge of attempted murder where that is the mental element required.

479
Short of an admission by the defendant that he did intend to kill it is almost impossible to prove. So if such were the required definition in murder itself, many defendants, who would undoubtedly be considered by people in general to be murderers, would escape conviction. So there has to be a wider definition if totally unjustifiable acquittals are to be avoided.
As is plain to your Lordships, and also from the committee's report, what is required at present is an intention either to kill or to do serious bodily harm. I understand that the objection to that definition is that it is too wide and that it includes people who would not be considered generally by the public to be murderers and susceptible to the stigma of being called murderers. One sometimes hears of the example of the defendant who intends simply to break an arm or a leg of the victim but unfortunately succeeds in killing him. Such occasions will be rare but they can arise. They will usually result in some other defence being available to the charge of murder.
In order to meet that difficulty, the committee proposes that the definition of murder should be extended so that a person shall be guilty of murder:
"if he causes the death of another (a) intending to cause death"—
so far so good, and
"(b) intending to cause serious personal harm"—
so far so good, but with the addition:
"and being aware that he may cause death".
I pass over the use of the word "personal" which seems to be inappropriate. I do not see what is wrong with the word "bodily". "Personal" seems to have all kinds of connotations which will no doubt give rise to difficulties. But that is a very minor point. The object of the additional words is to exclude those occasions which are necessarily rare when no one could reasonably have foreseen that death would result from the defendant's action.
However, instead of that objective inquiry—that is to say, what was reasonably foreseeable which would be easy to administer—the new definition requires the jury to judge the likely result not through their own eyes but through the eyes of the defendant. Defendants come in all shapes and sizes: they come in all degrees of mental capacity. I regret to say that most commonly they come in every shade of intoxication usually by alcohol but now, more frequently than used to be, by other drugs. One does not envy the task of the judge and jury in trying to determine the degree to which the defendant's lack of intelligence, lack of sobriety or lack of foresight will prevent him from being aware that death might result. If the defendant says, as he no doubt will, "It never occurred to me that the man might die", how will the prosecution answer that question, the burden of proof still being upon them, except by suggesting that anyone in his senses would have realised and must have realised the danger. There one comes back to the objective test which is apparently anathema.
In short, perhaps I may suggest that the proposed alteration will produce a great deal more injustice than the definition which it seeks to amend and to remedy. It will certainly put a premium on insobriety
480
and will inevitably start a whole new series of questions and decisions and of footsteps plodding their way to your Lordships' House, as they have done for the past 16 or 17 years since the decision in Hyam. This will produce a new Hyam situation.
At the risk of speaking for too long perhaps I may mention one other matter. It is right to say that the decision in Nedrick, which is referred to on page 25 of the committee's report, endeavoured to provide a satisfactory definition of the word "intention". With great respect to my noble friend Lord Mishcon, Nedrick was not a decision of the Privy Council but merely of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) doing its indifferent best. It is equally true to say, as Professor Glanville Williams points out perspicaciously in an article reprinted on page 121 of the committee's report, that in Nedrick the court was obliged to phrase matters as it did because of earlier decisions in your Lordships' House by which it was bound. We had to tread very gingerly indeed in order not to tread upon your Lordships' toes. As a result, Nedrick was not as clear as it should have been. However, I agree respectfully with the conclusions of the committee that "intention" should be defined in the terms set out in paragraph 195 of the report on page 50. That seems to express clearly what in Nedrick we failed properly to explain.
Perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend Lord Goff who sits immediately in front of me that I must respectfully disagree with his suggestion that the words "wicked recklessness" should be imported in some way into the definition of murder in this country. Anyone who has had to try to explain in our courts, in the light of decisions in your Lordships' House in the cases of Caldwell and Lawrence and of a decision of Mr. Justice Burn many years ago in the case of Cunningham, what is meant by "recklessness" will appreciate what a quagmire the word "recklessness" represents. To add to the word "recklessness" such a vague term as "wicked" will only make matters worse. One is appalled to think of the difficulties which would arise in trying to explain to a jury, first, what "recklessness" means, and secondly, what "wicked recklessness" means. That would be a bonanza for the criminal Bar. It would never go short of fees for years to come.
I shall make one more point and one more point only. I refer to terrorist cases. I urge that one does not legislate for special cases. That way lies disaster. There are plenty of criminal and statutory provisions which can deal quite satisfactorily with terrorists. For offences under the explosive substances legislation which carry life imprisonment, the burden of proof is comparatively trivial compared with the kind of burden of proof which lies upon the prosecution in a case of murder. To start legislating for the particular difficulties which we face at the moment in the shape of terrorists would produce corresponding injustices which would be very hard to eradicate.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, the report of our Select Committee is before the House this afternoon so that your Lordships should have the opportunity of taking note of it and debating its

481
recommendations. I have listened with great interest to the debate so far and to noble Lords' various views and will continue to do so this evening. This is a very serious subject, a matter of life and death. Mondays last year for the committee were dominated by murder, a very depressing subject. We were very fortunate in our chairman, who led our committee in a most efficient and orderly way so that we completed our report on time, having still had plenty of time to debate its serious recommendations. At the same time he led us in such a good humoured and fair way as to overcome somewhat the cheerlessness of our subject. I should like also to pay tribute to the helpfulness and efficiency of our clerk, Tom Mohan, and our adviser, Professor Smith.
In paragraph 2 our report lays out the limitations under which we operated and in paragraph 1 our terms of reference. Those two paragraphs had a major effect on the form of our recommendations, to which I shall return later. As a member of the committee I agreed with its recommendations in all but one respect, which is referred to on page 64. The first part of our report refers to the scope and definition of murder. Noble Lords will see that after long and careful consideration we decided against the categorisation of degrees of murder, and after the most serious consideration that terrorists should not be considered separately, although we felt most deeply that they should be brought to justice and punished severely for their crimes.
Other members are far more qualified than I to speak about the definition of murder referred to in Parts 4 and 5 of our report. When considering the defences to murder we recommended the retention of diminished responsibility and provocation and added to them the use of excessive force in self-defence. We did not accept the addition of duress or mercy killing. There will be many in the House who have great sympathy with the mercy killer, but I was deeply convinced of the rightness of the conclusion of the BMA's working party on euthanasia that the deliberate taking of human life should remain a crime. This rejection of a change in the law is an affirmation of the supreme value of the individual, no matter how worthless and hopeless that individual might feel.
I am a long-standing supporter of the hospice movement. As hospices develop they are able to improve the quality of life of the terminally ill. That is a most hopeful state of affairs in looking to the future. To take a more lenient view of mercy killing would be in sharp contrast to hospices' patient work and could lead to a lessening of respect for the sanctity of human life.
In Part 7 we come to the sentence for murder. We were asked to look at whether imprisonment for life should remain a mandatory rather than a maximum penalty. We were neither empowered to consider the question of the death penalty nor to recommend that the offences of murder and manslaughter should be combined into a single offence of unlawful homicide. The arguments for and against the retention of the mandatory sentence for the crime of murder are set out fairly on pages 33, 34 and 35 of our report. I
482
am sure that noble Lords will have read them and pondered the weight they carry. The arguments in paragraphs marked A are in favour of the retention of the mandatory sentence and those marked B are in favour of the discretionary sentence.
I must say that I was alone in the committee in being convinced by the paragraphs marked A of the need to keep the mandatory sentence, whereas those marked B convinced everyone else that it should be abolished. That situation led me to put forward the amendment set out on page 64, which, as noble Lords will see, was not supported. The majority of our witnesses were in favour of its abolition. However, there was also a substantial body of opinion in favour of its retention. Therefore I feel justified in ensuring that the minority view is put forward today.
The Crown Prosecution Service put forward its evidence in favour of retention on page 95 of Volume II of the report. The service believes that life imprisonment is the appropriate retributive sentence for murder and that public confidence in the criminal justice system would be eroded if the penalty for murder became discretionary. It also believes that the mandatory sentence has an element of deterrence, and it especially emphasised the importance of the power of recall throughout the lives of those sentenced. The service feels that these arguments for the retention of the mandatory sentence are conclusive.
The National Association of Senior Probation Officers also favours the retention of the mandatory sentence, believing that the penalty for murder expresses the value society places on life. The association drew particular attention to the rise in homicide and violent crime during the period 1978 to 1987 which, it says, does not encourage the notion that penalties should be reduced.
While the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and 12 out of the 19 judges of the Court of Appeal were in favour of the discretionary sentence, seven of them were not. In Scotland a number of people were in favour of the retention of the mandatory sentence, including the Lord Justice-General Lord Emslie representing the unanimous view of the High Court of Judiciary of Scotland. He took into account the importance of upholding public confidence in the proper punishment for serious crimes.
The Faculty of Advocates also formed the view that the mandatory life sentence should be retained, welcoming especially its flexibility in operation. It was felt that those in charge of the prisoner after conviction were best able to determine when it would be appropriate for such a prisoner to be discharged back into society. The Associations of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales and of Scotland were in favour of its retention by a majority view. The Scottish Police Federation also wished it to remain as a mandatory sentence.
The report states in paragraph 109A that,
"The distinction between murder and manslaughter … becomes meaningless if there is no difference in the sentencing powers available to the court; and the mandatory sentence is the only way of making such a distinction."

483
In paragraph 111A the report states that,
"The mandatory sentence is necessary for the protection of the public … 'A person who has killed once has demonstrated by his actions that he is capable of killing again' ".
Ten murderers who have been released since 1968 were convicted of a further homicide.
From the time I was appointed to the committee, very much as a lay member who is not qualified in the law, my major consideration has been the protection of the public in a time of increasing crimes of violence. When a murder has been committed the victim can no longer be heard. It is up to us always to remember that. Justice to the murderer is also of great importance, but the protection of innocent victims and of potential victims is for me the overriding consideration.
I was also pleased to read in the written evidence given by the Parole Board that its release policy is based upon caution and that when there is doubt the matter is resolved in favour of society. For me the mandatory life sentence can act both as a retribution and a deterrent, but more important is its effect as a safeguard against future risk. A life sentence does not usually mean imprisonment for life; it means that for the remainder of his life after his release the murderer is liable to be recalled to custody if he breaches the conditions of his licence or if his behaviour indicates a risk of committing a further serious offence.
Release on licence also includes a requirement that the licensee is supervised by a probation officer for the first few years after release. We had the privilege of sitting in during the proceedings of a meeting of the Parole Board. I was most impressed by the careful way members of the board considered the large bundles of evidence before them—which we also read—referring to the detailed situation of the prisoner whose release was under consideration. They considered the matter very carefully indeed and in considerable depth.
I turn now to page 47, where we state that whether or not the sentence of murder becomes discretionary, the judge should specify in open court the period of years which he considers necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence, and that this should be known as "the penal sanction" and be subject to appeal by either side. This new conception put forward by the committee will, I feel, be seen as a far more open and just method of specifying the time of minimum sentence to be served. I support this wholeheartedly and hope that it will be brought into effect as soon as possible.
Another new idea designed to meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights is that release after the expiry of the penal sanction should depend upon the decision of a judicial tribunal composed of a High Court judge, a consultant psychiatrist and a chief probation officer. In defending his position the prisoner will have access to relevant documents, the right of appearance and the right of legal representation. The decision of the tribunal would be final. But of course the release of a life prisoner would be on licence and would afford the public the same degree of protection as at present, including supervision by a probation
484
officer for the first few years and the right of the Home Secretary to recall a prisoner in an emergency. The matter would then be referred to the tribunal for its decision.
I am thoroughly in favour of the families of murder victims being better informed about the release of offenders than they are at present. It was a heartrending afternoon for members of the committee when the relatives of victims so bravely told us of their tragic problems.
I should like to make one final point. My noble friend the Minister announced on June 22nd of this year a substantial capital programme to improve prison conditions both this year and in the future. Whatever policies are adopted by the Government as a result of the report, those found guilty of the crime of murder are likely to serve long terms of imprisonment. That gives an opportunity, however slender, for rehabilitation. Millions of pounds are to be spent on prison improvement.
I hope that in planning for this expenditure serious consideration will be given to the subject of education and training of the staff of the prison service, of the probation officers who have to deal with lifers and also of the lifers themselves. During the evidence put before us that point was raised on several occasions. I am sure that expenditure on education and training of this kind would be one of the best forms of investment in the rehabilitation of the prisoner and would therefore lead to a reduction in the risk to society when and if such prisoners are released.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shona: My Lords, as the first and only Scot, so to speak, who was a member of the committee, I shall turn quickly to the Scottish element. However, I should first pay tribute to the skills and efficiency with which our chairman took us through our duties, to the efficiency and hard work of Mr. Mohan our clerk, and to the contribution made by our specialist advisers.
Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree, although I shall endeavour to put it in different words, with the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, about terrorism. It would be entirely wrong to deal with terrorism as a specialist case and define crimes because of terrorism. As I see it, terrorism is an assault on the rule of law. It can properly be met only by applying the rule of law as it exists and not by changing or altering it to fit the terrorist.
Before turning to the definition of murder, I wish to mention one odd statistic which turned up in the report. It is rather startling. In England and Wales, it appears that roughly 25 per cent. of those serving life sentences have not been sentenced for murder. In Scotland, on the latest figures, there are 406 prisoners serving life sentences of whom 400 were convicted of murder; so the percentage is 1·5 per cent. That is a grave difference. The reasons were outwith our terms of reference, but it is something that might be worth examining.
I do not want to become involved in criticism of the English law of murder. It is beyond my capacity. I defend the Scottish definition of murder. I suggest

485
that the difference arises out of the decisions of the House in the 1960s when the crime in England became one to be judged on the subjective intention of the accused. In Scotland we remain able to say that murder is an intention to kill, or wicked recklessness as to whether the victim lived or died. "Look at what you consider the accused did. If you consider"—a purely objective test —"that fits, he is guilty of murder, and you return a verdict of guilty".
It is difficult, as I see it, to have a subjective test and fit it with the right to silence and the onus of proof on the Crown. If someone sits silent and says, "Prove what I intended" one has to infer something. What it is that one infers, and how one approaches the inference, is one of the difficulties that I would not wish to take further.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised the difference mentioned in our report whereby the murder definition did not need to be the same in England and Scotland but the penalty did. The view of those Scots in favour of the mandatory sentence was clearly, "If you recommend the other because of evidence from England, Wales or elsewhere, it will be totally intolerable to have the sentence different in the two jurisdictions". I am sure that that is right; but I bring to your Lordships' attention the fact that the Scottish position was far from unanimous. The judges of the High Court were not unanimous. Members of the committee who visited Scotland, apart from hearing my own well known views that the mandatory sentence should go will have met other judges of the High Court who take a similar view.
It is all very well for judges, advocates or the police to say, "It should be a mandatory sentence". The people who are perhaps the most concerned are those who have to deal with it—the prison governors and prison staff. They are not in favour of the mandatory sentence. If you look at the impressive evidence given by the Scottish prison governors, and the strength of their views against the mandatory sentence, your Lordships may well find it persuasive.
There is one part of the report upon which I have a reservation; that is, the suggestion that in Scotland we should have the right to appeal against too lenient sentences. I do not believe that we gave sufficient time to that topic. It would be a radical change in the Scottish procedures, and if such a change were to be put forward, it would need far greater consideration than we were able to give it. The main issue is the quality of murder. The majority of murders in Britain—I seem to have spent a largish part of the past 25 years in court dealing with murder in one shape or another—seem to have been accidental or spur-of-the-moment killings. The number of killings that are deliberate, or premeditated in the sense of being planned killings, are small.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Is small.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. The robber fires his gun only if things go wrong for him. The drunken argument flares up in a pub and someone takes out a knife
486
and lashes out without any intent or purpose except to hurt. A domestic argument reaches a crescendo and a kitchen knife happens to be handy. Those are the types of cases. The difference between attempted murder and grievous bodily harm, or assault with severe injury as it would be in Scotland, and murder, often depends upon the chance track of a wound or the distance the victim happens to be from hospital. It is surely wrong that the difference between a judicially selected sentence and a mandatory sentence should depend upon how far the assault was from the surgeon or upon the chance result of an impetuous lunge.
One type of premeditated, planned killing, is of course mercy killing. In the genuine mercy killing, many of us would regard it as inappropriate that there should be a lengthy sentence. I strongly take the view put by the noble Baroness that mercy killing should remain murder, but that the only way to deal with it fairly is to have a discretionary sentence.
It is difficult to see why the judge should be considered the appropriate person to impose the penalty for all crimes except murder and that for murder the civil servant and the politician should be those who, in effect, set the sentence. It seems odd. And we had no basis to show that that sentence was necessarily any more right. It is not obvious that it is the risk of re-offending. The law excludes from the definition of murder precisely those killers who, because of their liability to be provoked or because they suffer from diminished responsibility, are liable to re-offend. The most dangerous person in prison, as the prison staff and governors tell us, is not the average person serving a life sentence for murder.
The action of the junior Minister in increasing the judicial tariff is dangerously obnoxious for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. In effect, in case it should be considered that the Scottish position is put forward as better, it is in fact worse because the judge never comes in at all. It is a civil servant who eventually suggests to the Secretary of State that it is perhaps now time for the case to be referred to the Parole Board and the Lord Justice General. That, in a sense, is an even worse position.
It must be right that such killings should have the sentence put on them by the judge who, if his training has failed him, can be put right by other judges in the Court of Appeal.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord forgive me if, before he sits down, I ask him a question out of fairness only? Does he accept that no one suggests a separate sentence for a terrorist or conviction of a terrorist when that does not apply to our present law? Would he agree that the Scottish definition of murder would cover a terrorist? I refer to the words in paragraph 38,
"displaying such wicked recklessness as to imply a disposition depraved enough to be regardless of the consequences".
However, the definition in regard to English law which is suggested by the committee would not cover the case that would be covered by Scottish law.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I would not presume to give a view as to what might be covered

487
by English law. The answer is that the Scottish definition might or might not—depending on the jury's view—be viewed as murder. It is a matter for the jury to decide. If one takes the case of a bomb left in a shop, the jury might take the view that because of the warning given half an hour before, there was not that degree of "wicked recklessness". On the other hand, they might take the view that there was.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it would be rather dreadful if, north of the Border, someone were convicted of murder when, on the same facts, he would not be convicted south of the Border?
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, that must happen now occasionally. Juries are different. It might happen through a jury in Cornwall perhaps taking a different view from a jury in Scotland of the same facts. I prosecuted in a case where three accused were charged with rape. For one reason or another they were tried separately, and separate verdicts resulted. That is bound to happen.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for not being in my place when the debate started and he introduced the report. I too understood that the debate would not commence before 4.30.
At the outset, I wish to say that it was a great pleasure to serve on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. He saw to it that we did not adopt too narrow a view of our terms of reference and that we were not to be tempted in these turbulent days to turn the clock back. The noble Lord was anxious that we should travel beyond Westminster, which we did; that we should take evidence in Scotland, which we did. He was anxious that we should visit murderers serving life sentences in prison and read letters from such prisoners, which we did. He was anxious that we should take evidence from victims' relatives, which we did; and that those of us who had not attended a "lifer panel" of the Parole Board should do so.
Again, he made sure that we took full account of the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights and how other legal systems approached the problems identified in the committee's terms of reference. For those reasons, I felt immensely grateful for the steering which he gave to the committee and also for the advice which we received from the two specialist advisers. We are grateful to our clerk, Mr. Tom Mohan, for his very hard work on behalf of the committee.
I merely wish to say a few words about three or four matters. First, do we have the right definition of murder for England and Wales? It is clear from the discussion in the House that this is obviously a complex question. It soon became evident to the committee's thinking, notwithstanding the powerful evidence that we received from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, that we should aim at a statutory definition. We arrived at that decision mainly for the reasons which have been advanced
488
by my noble friend Lord Mishcon from our Front Bench. There has been much uncertainty over the past 10 years about the meaning of the offence.
From the outset, I was very conscious of the significant speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, in the Cunningham case which was heard in 1982. I took the precaution of asking the noble and learned Lord whether the view which he expressed in 1982 was still his view in 1988. Your Lordships will recall that he said that he found it strange that in England and Wales a person could be convicted of murder if death resulted from, say, the intentional breaking of another's arm, where the offender had not foreseen the possibility of death. He went on to say that he looked forward to the day when Parliament would set out what the law on murder ought to be.
Is the definition recommended by the Select Committee too narrow? Is it too wide? The committee was mindful throughout that the terrorist poses a threat to modern society. The committee was concerned whether or not the definition was adequate. I think all that can be inferred from paragraph 76 of the report. But we concluded that it was neither satisfactory nor desirable to distort a definition in order to deal with the reckless terrorist. I should have referred to the terrorist throughout as the reckless terrorist. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chief Justice Lane, has confirmed that terrorist would in any case be liable or could be liable to life imprisonment.
The terms of reference raised another important question: should imprisonment for life remain a mandatory rather than a maximum penalty for murder? As our inquiry proceeded, I found it difficult to believe that a life sentence should be imposed in every case of murder, irrespective of the circumstances of the crime and irrespective of whether or not there was the risk of a murderer committing a second murder on being released. That points towards abolishing the mandatory sentence.
In addition, I became much impressed by the vivid evidence given by the prison officers, the probation officers and the prison governors in Scotland. These are the people who have to cope daily with life prisoners. Almost without exception and in all humanity they pressed that the life sentence for murder should become discretionary. They gave us evidence of the unsettling effects of the indeterminate sentence on life prisoners. We were told how it creates problems within the prison at a time when there is an increased burden on our prisons. Prisoners are unable to plan for a day on which they know they will be free. We are told that this leads to anxiety, frustration and deterioration in the ability of prisoners to cope.
I formed the impression—I put it no higher than that—when listening to the evidence from those in positions of higher authority and at a distance from the prisons, and also possibly when listening to the speech made by the noble Earl, that they were not aware or fully aware of the difficulties experienced by life prisoners within the prison walls. We know the committee has recommended that the mandatory life sentence be abolished. It has been said by some

489
people that this would be a leap in the dark, primarily because it is felt that the sentences for murder would thereafter vary considerably from judge to judge. I believe that the answer to that criticism has already been given. We have the appeals system, which would ensure against unduly lenient or unduly harsh sentences.
It is clear from the report that all members of the committee were deeply concerned at the disclosure that during recent years the Home Office had increased the tariffs set by the courts. It seemed to us that in the perception of the Home Office the role of the judge is to advise and that of the junior Minister is to decide. The committee believes that it is the job of the judge, who has seen and heard the defendant and the witnesses, to decide the penalty, and that that penalty should be announced in open court and should be the subject of appeal.
I believe that the members of the committee were also deeply concerned about the complaints which surfaced from evidence given by two organisations representing families of victims of violence. They complained of the insensitivity of the trial procedure to the feelings and interests of the families. They also complained of how they were kept in the dark about the impending release of the prisoner to the community without notice. The evidence is to be found in Volume III of the report. Those complaints having been brought to our attention, strenuous efforts must surely be made by the Home Office to seek to rectify the difficulties. Perhaps the Minister can say more about the action which is being taken to meet both criticisms. The noble Earl referred to one criticism, but we have heard of two.
I should like to say something about mercy killers. I must confess that initially I wrestled seriously with the question of whether a special or a qualified defence of mercy killing should be available where a person other than a doctor or a nurse hastens the death of a terminally ill person who is in great pain, suffering and anguish, and does so at his request. In those circumstances, to bring to an end the pain, suffering, anguish and possibly the sense of hopelessness would appear to some people to override all other considerations. Such a defence was supported by two of the witnesses who gave evidence. The point was then made that the committee had not heard full arguments on this contentious issue.
I was also taken by the point that if the life sentence becomes a discretionary sentence for the crime of murder that will enable the courts to take the full circumstances of the offence into account when passing sentence. That offers a solution. The label of murder will continue to apply to mercy killing. Many will say that it should apply because the intentional killing of a human being breaches the fundamental principle of the sanctity of human life. It seems to me that that last argument must be sound. I should like to thank the House for having given me the opportunity to serve on the Select Committee.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is a tribute to the relaxed efficiency of our chairman, the noble Lord,
490
Lord Nathan, that the committee was almost unanimous. It was unanimous on the definition, which may seem surprising in view of the warmth of some of the speeches that have been made. We have often seen the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, standing in a white sheet, but never in a kilt.
Those of your Lordships who have not had the disadvantage of a legal training may be surprised that there is this degree of disagreement and may wonder why. The explanation is very simple and, when fully understood, should reduce some of the emotion in the discussion.
Everyone is agreed that the definition of murder must include the intent to kill. Everybody is agreed that that is too narrow because, if it is limited to the intent to kill, many murderers will not be successfully prosecuted. This point is recognised by the Scottish definition which is to be found at page 16, paragraph 38:
"Murder is constituted by any wilful act causing the destruction of life …"
Note the next words: "whether intended to kill"—now we have the extension:
"or displaying such wicked recklessness as to imply a disposition depraved to be regardless of the consequences."
The Scots therefore wish to extend the offence from the ordinary intention to kill to something additional. The English have done it on the basis that in addition to the intent to kill it is sufficient if the prosecution proves an intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Both systems are therefore agreed that the intent to kill alone is not sufficient. To satisfy both jurisdictions something extra is required. The only disagreement is how one defines the extra element which must go beyond the ordinary straightforward meaning of intent.
The approach of the Scots is very fully argued by my noble and learned friend Lord Goff in the article which is reproduced in the first volume and, I respectfully think, very cogently answered by Professor Glanville Williams. If we are to change the English law we must do it by a statutory definition; otherwise it stays where it is. We would be hotly criticised if we provided a statutory definition which lacked precision and which made it Impossible for the jury to focus on specific elements but which left them with a broad moral response.
It may be that in Scotland juries are less sophisticated or more prepared to remain silent. In England that is not the experience. Juries frequently come back and say, "You have told us that the common law is x. Would you please assist us by explaining what you mean by intent?" If we had adopted in statute the Scots' definition and the jury came back and said, "Would you kindly explain to us what 'wicked recklessness' means?" that would defy any precise definition.
When we were up in Scotland, receiving all the hospitality and more that one would expect from the Scots, we were invited to listen to a summing up in a murder case. I waited with enthusiasm to hear "wicked recklessness" mentioned, not once but several times. The High Court judge who was summing up never mentioned it at all. In its place

491
he mentioned the word "evil" on six occasions. I wonder what it would be like if that had occurred in England and the jury sent a note asking for a definition of what was meant by "evil". That is the reason why we have not accepted, for a statutory definition, the Scots approach.
That is recognised by my noble and learned friend Lord Goff in the very article which he wrote. On page 119 of the report, five lines from the bottom of the penultimate paragraph, my noble and learned friend, Lord Goff, says:
"I must confess however that, having regard to the emotional content of the adjective 'wicked', and the ambiguity inherent in 'recklessness', I would prefer to describe the concept as indifference to death".
So he does not want the terminology used. Let us consider what he does want used. "Could not care less" was a rather throwaway observation; that is, not caring whether the person lived or died.
Emotions are always raised by reference to the word "terrorist". Perhaps I may try to explain the situation both under English law and, subject to correction, under Scots law. Under English law the Lockerbie case would be the clearest case of murder one can think of, either under our present common law definition or the statutory one. The person clearly intended to kill. That is why he put the bomb on the aeroplane.
Let us consider the case which is referred to in order to attack either English law as it stands at the moment or as we propose it. That is the case of the terrorist who plants a bomb, let us say in a well known store, rings up and says, "There is a bomb planted. It will go off in an hour's time. I suggest you evacuate the shop immediately". An evacuation takes place but someone does not hear the warning to leave, remains behind and is killed.
Under the approach of my noble and learned friend Lord Goff the terrorist is entitled to be acquitted of murder because no one could say that he could not care less. He had gone to all the bother of telephoning, running the risk of being identified, and given a warning. Under English law it would be a matter for the jury to decide whether or not they believed his story and what they thought about it. In neither case could one predict certain conviction or acquittal. However, under the approach of my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of "could not care less" there is a complete defence: "I cared so much that I took that particular action".
Further, if we adopted the Scots' approach we should be re-introducing into English law—if not entirely, then substantially—the concept of the objective approach: what would a reasonable person have inferred, anticipated or foreseen? Parliament rejected that concept by statute many years ago. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wants the clock put back in that regard.
In addition the approach of my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of "could not care less" would involve the reckless driver in future being convicted not of causing death by reckless driving but of murder. The drunken driver, who is an excellent example of "I could not care less", would also be convicted of murder.
492
Your Lordships will find at the end of Professor Glanville Williams' article on the final page of the first volume, referring to the proposal of my noble and learned friend Lord Goff, the following:
"Certainly the proposal would widen the law of murder, but it achieves this coverage only by a rule that makes everyone who consciously risks a lethal outcome technically guilty of murder, except that the rule is sufficiently abstruse to admit of being applied or not applied according to the condemnations or sympathies of the moment. It may be a good way of enabling judges and jurors to reach the result that they want on the particular facts without taking much thought; but it does not provide an informative rule of law".
The committee was not prepared to produce a definition which did not provide an informative rule of law.
Perhaps I may deal finally with the example of the desperate father cited by my noble and learned friend Lord Goff. I am astonished to find him suggesting that under the definition we proposed—which is very similar to the current definition in common law but merely adds a slight restriction that with serious bodily injury the accused must have appreciated a risk, however small, of death—the desperate father would be convicted of murder. I am sorry that my noble and learned friend is not here so that I could read again to him the definition of intention set out in paragraph 71 on page 25:
"A person acts 'intentionally' with respect to … a result when he acts either in order to bring it about …"
The suggestion that the father wishes to bring about the death or personal injury of his child when in order to prevent its death he drops it out of the window is, in my respectful submission, totally unsupportable.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of the mandatory life sentence, which we suggested should be abolished leaving the discretion to the judge to impose a life sentence where he thinks it appropriate. I should like your Lordships to accept that that is a very moderate proposal. I say that for this reason. If noble Lords look at paragraph 102 on page 32, they will see that in 1965, during the debates in this House on the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill, there was a strong body of opinion that the sentence for murder should be discretionary. The opposition to the present mandatory sentence was led by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, who moved an amendment at the Committee stage to make the sentence discretionary. His amendment was accepted by 80 votes to 78. Eleven peers who held high judicial office voted. All but one were in favour of the amendment. That one was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, who I understand was anxious that such an amendment did not queer the prospect of the death penalty being abolished.
The other reason I suggest that the proposal is a moderate approach is because of what happens in practice at the moment. Your Lordships have heard from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice that immediately after the sentence is imposed, in order that the Secretary of State for Home affairs can carry out his obligation under Section 61(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, he consults both the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice as to what should be the period of the

493
sentence—which is an indeterminate sentence, life imprisonment—which should be served to satisfy, to use rather the pompous terminology, deterrence and retribution. Punishment is a simpler word.
That period of years is fixed. Let us say that in a given case it is 12 years. Subject to the risk factor being accepted—that is, the authorities being satisfied that the prisoner is safe to be released—that is as a generality the period that will be served. So the judiciary is in many cases—in murder cases—imposing determinate sentences now. It wants to be able to continue to do that, not behind closed doors with confidential letters to the Secretary of State but in open court so that the defending counsel has an opportunity to mitigate before the judge pronounces and has the opportunity to appeal if the judge gets it wrong.
Perhaps I may make one final observation in reference to Scotland. I detected, as did others, that one of the main reasons for resistance in Scotland to a determinate sentence being available for murder was anxiety that the public might lose confidence in the administration of criminal justice by reason of excessively lenient sentences being imposed from time to time. As noble Lords have heard, there is no Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in Scotland. Therefore, if they have an excessively lenient sentence they are landed with it, whereas the Court of Appeal here has power to increase sentences and, as noble Lords will recall, has done so recently in two cases—an incest case and a case of causing death by reckless driving. If Scotland had that provision—I know that in some quarters they are resistant to it; there was resistance in this House—that particular anxiety would go. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said, a tariff will soon eventuate from guidelines from the Court of Appeal. They will be enforced by virtue of the power of appeal being given to the prosecution and of course to the defence.
That is all that I wish to observe. I commend our moderation in regard to the abolition of the mandatory life sentence and I hope that the wisdom of a statutory definition has been sufficiently made out.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I may be able to help him to come before the House in a white sheet, especially in the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff. Perhaps I may therefore be allowed to complete the quotation of which the noble and learned Lord gave only half, from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, said on page 119. He said:
"I must confess however that, having regard to the emotional content of the adjective 'wicked', and the ambiguity inherent in 'recklessness', I would prefer to describe the concept as indifference to death".
The noble and learned Lord ended the quotation there, but it goes on as follows:
"But that is just a matter of words. Let me however add this, that it must in any event be inherently desirable that the crime of murder should be the same both north and south of the River Tweed".
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I think I have made it clear that the matter of the words of the noble and
494
learned Lord, Lord Goff—"could not care less"—is wholly inappropriate. As regards the desirability of the position being the same north and south, that point has been recognised in the committee's report. The committee has also pointed out that both jurisdictions get on very well together despite a number of marked differences in their criminal law.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is always a great privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It reminds me of the days after the war when we went on the Western Circuit together. I was about to take up the forensic cudgels, in the best of humour, with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the logic and content of his approach and on how it held together and where it led. But it would be otiose for me to do any such thing because, as one would expect, it has all been done by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. So the speech that I intended to make will be a much shorter speech. I also wish to shorten my speech by taking on board everything that has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
It has been a privilege and, for me, an education to work on the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. The first point I should like to make—I do not think it has yet been made and certainly it is not in any speech notes that I made—is that the report contains many recommendations which may be considered separately and accepted or rejected on their merits; for example, the definition of murder, or whether there should be any definition of murder —that is terms of reference (a); or the discretionary life sentence—terms of reference (b); and decisions on release—terms of reference (c). Each of those and its component recommendations within those terms is open to consideration, acceptance or rejection by the Government on its merits.
I am particularly concerned with the new dimension which is terms of reference (c)—the decisions on release. As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, our doughty chairman, said, there is an interaction between each of the terms of reference. For example, one will find within category (a), where we define murder, that we conclude that no categorisation of murder is possible. That interacts in its turn on terms of reference (b), which affects the discretionary life sentence. That interacts back on terms of reference (a), the attitude to mercy killing, and so on and so forth. So it was right that our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, should have regard to the report as a whole; but the report does not have to be accepted or rejected as a whole.
I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has convinced noble Lords that the question simply did not arise with the committee that, because we concluded that there should be the same conclusion on life sentence for both sides of the Border, the disparity on the substantive law of murder north and south of the Border did not, so to speak, matter. That was not the way in which we approached our duties. The difficulty was that north of the Border—and we must face that there is a different

495
ethos—"wicked recklessness" has a certain Calvinist connotation which is well understood by both judges and juries. If one were to seek to transplant that concept of wicked recklessness into the English law of murder, it would import a source of totally unacceptable confusion. In this regard the speeches made by those noble and learned Lords, the Law Lords, must surely carry very great credence in this House.
One of the problems is that, on a very perilous analysis which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, sought to destroy, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, would import down here south of the Border and into English law the concept of recklessness. That is what he wants to do in one form or another. Why? It is because he is determined to catch the terrorist. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, that is a misconceived approach—I was about to say a mischievous approach but it is not —for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lords, the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Ackner. It is quite wrong to legislate for special cases. That answer and approach, and in particular the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, provide the answer to the presentation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was shrewd enough to observe at the outset, it was a great sorrow for some members of the committee—and that certainly included the noble Lord, Lord Morton, my noble friend Lord Windlesham who is in his place and myself—that we could not give consideration to the unitary offence of unlawful killing as it lay outside our reference. Such consideration that we gave to it took place elsewhere other than in the committee room and cannot find its place in the report. We were unanimous save for one recorded dissent—it is at pages 63 to 64. But we came to the committee without personal preconceptions.
The committee was comprised largely of laymen. Much has been rightly said to the credit of the chairman and clerk, but I should like to pay tribute to the process of your Lordships' House by which this committee was selected with so many laymen. I do not understand how it is done and believe that it is arranged through the usual channels or whatever. However, that was very helpful and welcome. As I said, we all got down to our work without preconceptions and it was a true effort and exercise of composite wisdom.
The new dimension is of the greatest possible importance having regard to the position of Her Majesty's Government under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is considered on page 48, paragraphs 182 to 188. To save time, the point made by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross also should be taken aboard without repetition. Nonetheless, taking it aboard, the new dimension of jurisprudence affects both life sentences and fixed sentences, as was mentioned the other day at Question Time.
It is proposed that the decision-making process as to release will now be undertaken by a tribunal which has the characteristics of a court in conformity with
496
the human rights convention. It would be wholly independent of the executive. That is crucial if we are to comply with our obligations under the convention. Such was the evidence received from Professor Trechsel from the European Commission who gave oral evidence to the committee.
That is perhaps one of the most important aspects of the report. It may be controversial because, like all government departments, the Home Office does not enjoy relinquishing power and at the moment this matter lies within the power and province of the Home Office. It should not; it should not lie within the Executive. It is contrary to our obligations. That is why I stress that new dimension, in the knowledge that it will not be a popular concept for any government to accept. But popular or not, it is right. It is inevitable. It must be taken seriously.
Furthermore, as part of the new dimension the system of private communication between the Home Office and the judiciary will end. All judicial observations on sentence would be made in open court and subject to appeal. The system under which a recommended sentence can be increased on the say-so of some junior Minister in the Home Office would end. That greatly distressed and shocked all members of the Select Committee when it was discovered exactly what happened. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has already referred to the system in Scotland which in his view is slightly worse, if anything. But it was a matter of surprise and concern to all the witnesses who came to give evidence before the committee. Heaven forfend that your Lordships should read the evidence! But if your Lordships read it, it will be seen that witnesses were taxed with that situation. The committee asked: Did you know that this went on? Did you know that the junior Minister in the Home Office increased the sentences? They said no. We said that we did not know either when we started but that now we knew and that was the form. We showed them the evidence and asked them what they thought about it. They were horrifed.
That system will end if our recommendations are accepted. Retention beyond the period of judicial sentence would now have to be justified in all cases by the Executive before the tribunal, a High Court judge, a consultant psychiatrist, and the chief probation officer. The hearing before that tribunal would be conducted according to appropriate procedures and be subject to judicial review.
Finally, the committee recognises that the so-called mandatory life sentence at times works injustice and is seen by not only the public but those convicted, the victims and their relatives as a sham and a nonsense, which in fact it is.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I too must start by apologising to the House and to the first three speakers for having missed their speeches. I had been informed that the debate could not possibly start before five o'clock and was more likely to start shortly before six. As a layman one is accustomed to declaring that one takes part in legal debates of this importance with considerable trepidation. The

497
trepidation is accentuated today by virtue of the distinction of the legal speakers and the fact that almost all other lay noble Lords taking part are either members of the Select Committee or known specialists in this field. Like other noble Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the committee for the mental, and indeed physical, effort that it has put into producing this formidable and impressive report.
I enter the fray for two reasons only. The first is that I have expressed views on this issue in this House from time to time over the years. The second is a feeling of unease that there sometimes seems to be a tendency among people of great intellectual distinction to overlook, or at any rate to be dismissive of, the views of ordinary people, or to give the impression of so doing, which produces the same result. It cannot be helpful for the body politic when a state of affairs persists in which between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the population firmly believes—justly or unjustly, I am quite prepared to believe that it is unjustly—that "them", the authorities, the powers that be, the establishment, the great and the good, the liberal consensus, call it what you will, are soft on crimes of violence against the person. It is crimes of violence against the person which concern the man or woman in the street: few of them lose much sleep over forgery, embezzlement or even arson unless somebody is hurt thereby. That is why one of the main recommendations, and possibly the most important recommendation, of the Select Committee is so much to be welcomed. I refer of course to the proposal to introduce determinate sentences for almost all those convicted of murder—something, I feel, that should have happened almost 30 years ago.
One matter that seems scarcely if at all touched upon in the report is the understandable confusion in the minds of most people, even highly literate and highly numerate people, arising from the mingling of what might be termed gross and net sentences. Banner headlines in the tabloids shriek, "Twenty years for bomber". What that means is that an individual convicted of planting a bomb which has killed one or more people has been sentenced to life imprisonment, the judge having recommended that he serve a minimum of 20 years in prison. The very next day the same tabloid newspaper—along with most of its readers—waxes indignant that latter-day great train robbers who, like the original ones, have used a relatively minor degree of violence, have been sentenced to 30 years in prison. That is ostensibly a 50 per cent. more severe sentence than that meted out to the murderer the previous day although the editor, if not his readers, ought to be well aware that a nominal 30 year sentence means that only between 10 and 20 years will be spent in prison, except in exceptional circumstances.
Of course some, like the noble Baroness, Lady Platt and the witnesses she cited, maintain that murder is a unique crime which merits a unique sentence. But apart from the fact that a life sentence is quite often imposed for crimes other than murder, it is an inescapable fact that the notion that "life" means nine years is deeply embedded in the
498
consciousness of the British public. Nothing that those in authority can say to try to refute this will convince the public of anything other than that the authorities are trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
Apart from that, a determinate sentence of 40, 50, 60 or 75 years is far more dramatic and awe-inspiring, and hence far more deterrent in its value, than a life sentence can ever be. Therefore the recommendation in paragraph 201 can be welcomed unreservedly.
However, on the recommendations of paragraphs 202 to 209 inclusive, a few tentative queries may be in order. First, is it really necessary to retain life sentences even for the very worst cases of murder? Could not the same result be achieved much more dramatically and therefore much more effectively from the point of view of deterrence and of satisfying perfectly justifiable public demands for retribution by copying the United States of America and imposing 99 year sentences, subject to the normal remissions and rights of appeal? If the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, regarding parole in relation to the crime of murder are adopted, as one hopes that they will be, an individual sentenced to 99 years in prison would have to serve 49 years in prison before his release. That is surely enough for anybody. But if it is not enough, there is nothing to stop a nominal sentence of 120 years being imposed.
On the other hand, where life sentence is thought to be appropriate not because of the particularly heinous nature of the crime but because of a fear that the offender may possesss chronic homicidal tendencies, might not the answer be the imposition not of life imprisonment but of two sentences to be served consecutively? The first would be a straightforward determinate sentence subject to the usual remissions equivalent to what the committee terms, very usefully, a "penal sanction". After being served, the penal sanction, subject to remission. would be followed by an indefinite period of what might be termed consequential confinement or consequential restraint. I urge inclusion of the word "consequential" not because of the convenient alliteration, but because it is essential to make it clear to all that such confinement or constraint could be tagged on to the end of an existing sentence only for a very serious crime and could never be imposed in isolation.
The late John Braine, the author, once told me that the future penal system that he feared most was one in which people were sent to prison not for crimes they had committed but for crimes which some anonymous civil servant or doctor felt they might possibly commit at some unspecified time in the future. That is an apprehension that I share. Hence the absolute necessity for the word "consequential" or some synonym.
The form of consequential constraint in practice might range from the released individual having to report to the police on occasion, having to report on more frequent occasions, undergoing quasi-probation, or being confined in a secure mental hospital or an open or closed prison depending on the danger that the individual was thought to represent. Should physical confinement

499
have to apply, the detainee should not be treated as a conventional prisoner but should have access to superior food, possibly even the occasional drink, better recreational facilities, more letters, visits from relatives, and, ideally, the ability to earn money at normal wage rates instead of the artificially low rates that normally pertain in prison. The end result would not differ very much from what is proposed in paragraphs 206 to 209 inclusive of the report. But the terminology would be different, and any residual punitive element would be eliminated.
Working backwards through the remaining recommendations, the proposal in paragraph 210—that families of murder victims should be kept informed of release conditions—would surely be warmly welcomed throughout your Lordships' House, and indeed among the public at large.
On the question of mercy killings in paragraph 200, I cannot help feeling that there is a lot to be said for the Law Commission's recommendations. I acknowledge that it is a minority point of view.
On the recommendation in paragraph 198—that using excessive force in self defence should be treated as manslaughter rather than murder—the danger would seem to be that juries who at present, one suspects, are inclined to bring in a "not guilty" verdict in exasperation at a murder charge having been brought in the first place, would be readier to return a guilty verdict if the initial charge were manslaughter. There must be some who welcome this. I do not, given the subjective nature of the word "excessive".
On the precise definition of murder, I am still undecided, having read with absolute fascination the duel between my noble and learned friend Lord Goff and Professor Glanville Williams and having listened to the contending arguments in the House today. The definition of murder proposed by the Select Committee seems on the narrow side—but that is a minority view. Paragraph 191 rejects the idea of introducing first and second degree murder as exists in the United States of America. That is a conclusion that I regret.
I believe that to members of the general public manslaughter evokes the image of a railway signalman who, having had a night out with the lads, falls asleep in the signal box, thereby causing two inter-city trains to collide at speed. Alternatively, it is the image of a baggage handler at Heathrow who, in his anxiety to clock off to meet his girl friend, omits to secure the catch of the door to the cargo hold with the result that the plane decompresses and explodes at 30,000 feet. Both crimes may lead to many deaths but those responsible are totally innocent of any criminal intent.
It is deeply distressing and wounding to the family of the victim when people who deliberately kick to death a total stranger outside a pub and are then charged merely with manslaughter when a charge of murder—even if classified only as second degree—appears to be more appropriate. For that reason I still believe that there is much to be said for the concept of two degrees of murder. After all, it works perfectly well in the United States.
500
Having urged more relaxed and comfortable prison conditions for those who must be detained beyond the period of "penal sanction", as defined by the Select Committee, I now balance that by making a radical suggestion which doubtless will cause many liberal hands to rise in horror—namely, that for those convicted of the most heinous and shocking forms of murder, prison conditions during the initial months or years—a psychologist would know the appropriate period—should be made less comfortable. In a nutshell, they should be made austere and rigorous and such a policy might be termed "rigorous" imprisonment.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that he will find prison officers—who, we know, are average citizens and reasonably humane—ready to enforce such conditions? My experience is that today in Britain one will not find people who will carry out those brutal instructions.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I do not believe that what I am suggesting is brutal. I have not specified what I mean; I have left open the question of exactly how rigorous imprisonment should be. I do not suggest physical brutality. The noble Earl will be aware of the short, sharp shock policy—
The Earl of Longford: That failed anyway.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it may or may not have failed —
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He has made an interesting and important point. However, according to the evidence that we heard, the noble Earl is right. I do not believe that prison officers would implement the regime. If the noble Lord is going to do away with the life sentence in favour of the determinate sentence, does he not in certain cases see the value, for the protection of the public, of the liability to recall which runs with a life sentence? If that is so, how does he compensate if he does away with it?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I have already proposed that there should be a period of consequential confinement. I am sorry if the noble Lord misunderstood; perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. It would have the same effect as retaining a life sentence but would have a different name and would ensure a more relaxed and easier regime as it would be for the protection of the public and not for punishment or deterrence. As regards whether prison officers would be prepared to operate an intensified version of the short, sharp, shock treatment, I do not suggest physical brutality. But the question needs to be investigated. At least I should like to be allowed to expand upon the principle and rationale behind the suggestion.
It is often argued that deprivation of liberty is sufficient punishment in itself. That is only partially true. Open prison is much less of a punishment than normal, closed prison. An up-to-date, hygienic closed prison is much less of a punishment than a rat-infested, insanitary Victorian pile. Detention in itself is not the be all and end all.

501
The introduction of the concept of rigorous imprisonment would have a number of advantages. First, it would take much of the heat out of demands for the reintroduction of capital punishment. I remind the House that it was public demand for the reintroduction which led to the restoration of capital punishment in several states of America. Improbable though it may now appear, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that public opinion in this country and possibly in France will swell to such an extent that one day it is restored.
My proposal would also help to convince the families of the victims that justice was being done. It would save money and resources by enabling shorter sentences overall to be imposed for the most heinous crimes. If the recommendations contained in the report are adopted it will be necessary for a judge to impose a sentence of at least 50 years for the most vicious murders. Of that, 25 years must be served if the Carlisle recommendations are adopted. If the concept of rigorous imprisonment during the first few years were introduced a sentence of 35 years would probably be sufficient. Of that 17½ would be served; that is, two and a half years under a rigorous regime and the balance under a normal regime.
This would have the added advantage of conforming with two principles. The first is widely agreed, the second less widely so. The first principle is that punishment as opposed to deterrence and rehabilitation should always follow as closely as possible upon the crime. The second principle, which may be less widely agreed, is that it is not entirely seemly to continue to punish a mild, middle-aged man or woman for an act or acts of violence that they committed during the wild days of their adolescence. Let the punitive element therefore come at the beginning of the sentence.
I submit that the adoption of the principle of a short period of rigorous imprisonment at the beginning of a long sentence for the more abominable cases of murder would not only please the public and the victims' families and reduce the burden upon the Exchequer and prison services but would in the long term be to the advantage of the prisoners.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his committee on the comprehensive and informative report which they have produced within their terms of reference. It was a painstaking exercise which makes fascinating reading. It has produced a series of recommendations which in due course will lead to considerable debate when and if legislation follows in order to implement those which the Government accept.
I wish to dwell on a matter earlier referred to by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. It is the terms of reference under which the committee operated. It is stated in paragraph 2 under the heading "Limitation of the terms of reference":
"The Committee wish to make clear at the outset certain limitations of their terms of reference. First, under point (a) they were not empowered to recommend that the offences of murder
502
and manslaughter (in Scotland, murder and culpable homicide) should be combined into a single offence of unlawful homicide".
I detect a note of regret in that sentence. Perhaps in reply the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will indicate whether the committee would have been happier if granted the facility of considering whether the crime of murder should have been eliminated in favour of homicide, justifiable, unlawful or some other such category. It appears that that limitation was an extremely constricting factor in the considerations of these important matters.
It is the existence of the name "murder", with the emotive connotations which it carries in the public mind, allied to the associated mandatory life sentence for the crime, which causes so many problems in society and in prison administration. We know that death is caused in such a variety of methods that they are almost indescribable. Every year there is something new in the methods by which people kill other people. They do so in such varying circumstances that to some of the crimes the word "murder" is attached and to others it is not. Therefore, it becomes a matter of judgment for the prosecuting authorities to decide to which cases the title should be ascribed in charging a person. Sometimes it is because of the nature of the crime itself. In some cases which are borderline and there is a sufficiency of legal evidence, with a n element of public interest involved, the prosecuting authorities feel obliged to leave it to the jury to decide whether the events should be categorised as murder or some lesser crime.
Much of the supplementary material in the appendices to the report makes reference to the various categories of homicide in other countries. It is plain from those appendices that the omission of the consideration of whether the crime of murder should continue in the law of the United Kingdom is a major defect in the final shape of the report.
Of course its absence also has an effect on the matter of sentences for causing the death of other persons and the terms of their release. That seems to me an unfortunate omission, as the question of the abolition of the term "murder" is one which comes up day in and day out on almost every occasion on which this sort of material is discussed. I can say that if the word "murder" was removed from the calendar of crime, in practical and economic terms it would have the effect that people would be prepared to plead guilty to unlawful homicide, subject to the explanation of the circumstances going before the presiding judge, when they would not put their hands up, as the saying goes, to murder because of the connotations that I have already mentioned.
This year I have conducted three unnecessary murder trials at great public expense—that does not relate to my fees but to the general expenses surrounding the matter. In those three cases there was no answer to the question of killing but in none of those cases would the accused admit that he was guilty of murder. In each case there was a trial and in each case the jury found the accused guilty of culpable homicide. That is why this matter is of extreme importance and has ramifications throughout the legal system.

503
The committee has heard much evidence on the question of homicide as opposed to murder. The circular letter sent out from the Council of Europe, which your Lordships will find at page 69 of the report, seeks information initially not on the question of murder in each state but whether each state from which information was sought distinguished between:
"different forms of the crime of homicide".
That accounts for the welter of information which has been put before the commitee. It is only at question 3 of the letter that the subject of murder arises and it continues until question 6. The initial focus of the letter is on the matter of homicide as opposed to murder and it has elicited some fascinating and terrifying information from the states which responded.
Some of the sentencing policies of other countries make United Kingdom sentencing policies very light for homicide in general but, as in all these matters, there are qualifications which lessen the initial impact of the information; for example, as regards what actually constitutes a life sentence.
I have dwelt on that for some time because, as the committee has heard and received an abundance of information on the various forms of homicide as opposed to murder, it would be unfortunate if that knowledge and expertise which it has acquired could not now be fully used in considering whether the crime of murder should be retained in the criminal law of the United Kingdom. I no doubt make myself very unpopular with the members of the committee in saying that it is my view that, if it is technically possible, the terms of reference should now be widened in the light of information received and it should be asked to produce a supplementary report on that vital issue. Of course that will have an effect on the other matters considered at length in the report.
Murder has been with us in the criminal law for a long time and it may be that in modern times, with modern-day juries, the time has come to abolish it altogether. It causes problems all round. It has an emotive ring in the public ear, and even the parliamentary one, which, taken with the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, has not always achieved justice for the individual offender. He is immediately put in a special category of prisoner. He is a "lifer". Indeed, the whole issue of murder is so deeply entrenched in our custodial system that it is still not unusual within the prison system to have prisoners, even untried prisoners, categorised as "capital" cases where they are charged with murder. That follows on as a legacy from the days of capital punishment, which incidentally was another issue which the committee was not allowed to discuss. While I ask for the committee to reconsider whether murder as a crime should be eliminated, I am not so enthusiastic that it should under wider terms of reference be asked to consider the issue of capital punishment because that is a subject on its own.
At this stage in the consideration of the committee's findings it is not possible to argue in detail for or against any of the proposals, there being
504
20 of them. That can be done if and when legislation is introduced. Therefore, I look at the report in general.
The committee has attempted to redefine murder for England and Wales at paragraph 76. In so doing it has eliminated from the definition what are called "reckless" killings. I find objectionable in that approach that, as is shown in paragraph 72, it would apparently exclude terrorists or anybody else who,
"should not be liable to be convicted of causing a prohibited result unless he intended to cause, or was reckless whether he caused, that result".
There is much discussion in the report about intention and foreseeability. However, that approach seems to me to restrict the power of the prosecuting authorities, for example, to prosecute a person who had telephoned to say where the bomb was, as has already been mentioned, for murder. If the bomb is not found in time or goes off accidentally before the time and someone is killed, is the person who planted the bomb not to be charged with murder? Surely that is manifestly against the public interest and it cannot in all conscience be correct that a person who plants a lethal bomb, whether or not a terrorist, should not be prosecuted for murder on the basis that the result of the planting of the primed bomb went further than he intended. That is surely a matter for the jury to decide in the light of the explanation tendered by the accused and all the circumstances surrounding the event rather than the prosecutor pre-empting that option.
Much has been said about the Scottish definition of murder. Perhaps I may say that we have sophisticated juries in Scotland and they return sophisticated verdicts, depending on which way you want it to go whether you are defending or prosecuting. However, juries have no difficulty in understanding in Scotland what is the crime of murder.
As the second home-based Scot to speak in this debate, I should say that we in Scotland are not trying to ram the Scottish definition of murder down English judicial throats. In any event they find it hard to swallow and it would be a fruitless exercise. However, the definition is there for consideration as an element in trying to reach a meaningful definition of murder.
I believe that there has been misinterpretation of what the Scottish definition is all about. It is about two things: first, a wilful act—and I repeat "wilful". For example, if a person walks up to somebody with a shotgun, sticks it in his chest and blasts it off, one does not need the second category of "wicked recklessness". However, in the absence of that, a jury is entitled to look at all the evidence retrospectively in deciding whether the accused has displayed such wicked recklessness as to imply a disposition depraved enough to be regardless of the consequences.
In simpler terms that means that if the jury finds that the person did that act deliberately—that is, the planting of the bomb—in a place where people or property will be affected by a possible explosion, with the perpetrators not usually knowing or even caring who will be there at the time, and people are

505
killed, the jury should be entitled to find that person guilty of murder as the law stands, and that is entirely a matter for the jury.
Much criticism has been made of the phrase "could not care less". Using that phrase is an attempt to put the matter in colloquial terminology, and that is what it amounts to. Juries very seldom come back and ask the judge what is meant by "wicked recklessness". Perhaps it is the very simplicity of the definition which is causing the problem and causing problems at the other end of the scale in the attempt to reach a statutory definition in England and Wales.
The legal system has to be careful not to get itself into situations where the public perception is that it is not doing its job in protecting the citizen and apprehending and convicting the guilty as well as acquitting the innocent. It is important that the law does not get bogged down in academic concepts which, while interesting from a jurisprudential point of view, do not get down to the basics of a reasonably simple approach to definition and the making of a decision for the jury—one which they can readily comprehend.
There should be a balancing point where the law and common sense meet. That is one of the reasons for the continued existence of the jury system. Professor Glanville Williams, in the paper already referred to, speaks rather scathingly of what he calls "jury equity" as being sometimes illusory, and bases that comment on the result of one case and one case only. There will always be cases in which lawyers, or even the public, will disagree with jury verdicts, either of guilt or acquittal, but as long as the system forms part of the criminal process that will remain so.
The Scottish definition of murder is said to be pragmatic. If so, it is none the worse for that provided that it is not unfair. Long experience in the criminal courts shows that it works and that juries tend to understand it in its pragmatic simplicity, and they always have the choice of finding that the degree of criminality and guilt in each case do not come up to the standard required for murder and to convict of the lesser crime of culpable homicide. That approach has been rejected by the committee on the basis that the word "wicked" is too emotive. It does not do to split "wicked" and "reckless" into two separate units and look at them separately. One must bring the two together. If the words "wicked recklessness" are run together, one gets the true concept of the Scottish definition. It is up to the authorities in England and Wales to make their own decisions on these matters.
The new definition, if I may venture into uncharted seas as far as I am concerned in English law, may not necessarily resolve the problems arising in earlier cases where appeals have been taken, and will merely add another layer to the definition of murder. As has already been said, inevitably it will land back in the Appeal Court for clarification. The main difficulty will be proving, by inference or otherwise, that the person charged did the act, "being aware that he might cause death". The problem in murders, particularly in what one might call spontaneous murders (some carried out with great
506
viciousness), is that at the time it is unlikely that the criminal was intellectually considering or aware in the way defined that he might cause death. But when the act is looked at retrospectively in court it is plain, assuming that he is fit to plead, that he should have known of the possibility, for example, that by stabbing a person in the area of the heart he might cause death. Is he to be acquitted on the ground that at the time of the event he was not aware that such an act might cause death? A charitable jury might find him guillty of manslaughter, but it is difficult to see how this definition could work in all practicality.
Mention is made of intention to cause serious personal harm. Surely if the intent is to cause serious personal harm, it is difficult to draw a borderline between that and an attempt to cause death as a consequence. The present definition will lead to a fragmentation of the law and will take the definition no further.
I do not propose to take up any more of your Lordships' time on other matters which I had intended to raise but most of them have been referred to in previous contributions from others in your Lordships' House. This is a report which will cause a great deal of debate in the months to come and I look forward to the stages to follow.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, at this late stage of the debate I rise with some diffidence since, although there was a time when I was involved in the kind of issues we have been talking about this evening, it is all some years ago and I am only too conscious that my personal knowledge is getting out of date. I can only hope that that fact does not show too prominently in the remarks that I shall make this evening.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his colleagues for their report and the illumination it sheds on these difficult issues. They are issues which are not made easier by the fact that we do not yet have any indication of the attitude of the Government to the Carlisle recommendations about the parole system. This is a system to which the arrangements contemplated by the committee would have to be hitched, but the Minister when he spoke—which now seems some time ago—made it clear that we must wait a little longer before we know what the Government's conclusions will be. We do not know whether the Government are prepared to resile from the two decisions taken in 1983 about refusing parole to those serving sentences of more than five years for certain types of offence and about keeping in prison for at least 20 years those murderers convicted of certain categories of crime. The first of these was condemned from all round the House a few weeks ago and the second, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reminded us when he spoke, comes in for deserved criticism in this report.
There is another underlying problem of quite a different nature which has long bothered me. That is the difficulty of the trial judge in looking so far ahead when he feels obliged to impose a very long sentence or recommend a very long minimum period of detention in a murder case. I realise that not all judges find this a great problem, but some do.

507
There are two aspects. First, the judge does not necessarily have full information about the prisoner when he passes sentence. It can happen, for example, that an accused may be mentally disturbed—to use a neutral phrase—but he instructs his lawyers to defend him on the ground that he did not do the deed. This means that if that defence fails, evidence about his mental condition will never have been fully before the court. I well recall that in the days of capital punishment the detailed inquiries which were made about the convicted prisoner before a final decision was taken sometimes brought to light relevant information which came as quite a surprise to the trial judge when he was consulted. To be fair, one advantage of going over to determinate sentences would be that the judge would then be given information about the prisoner's antecedents before he passed sentence; a procedure which is hardly in point if the only formal sentence available to the court is life imprisonment.
The second problem relevant to the judge's decision at the trial is the difficulty of knowing how an individual is going to develop over 25 or 30 years in custody. I realise that these problems have arisen in the past mainly in respect of convictions for crimes other than murder, but this report serves to underline very clearly this possible significance for the future.
I turn to the report itself. In speaking about it I shall confine myself to England and Wales and avoid discussing the definition of the law of murder. I am bound to say that I have been inclined to the view put to the committee by some distinguished witnesses that murder is a uniquely serious offence in that it involves the intentional killing of another human being and it should attract a distinctive penalty to mark the revulsion with which society regards such a crime.
I am not sure that I agree with the point put by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in evidence—I know he will not mind me saying this as it is not a legal question—that that revulsion is marked by the verdict of guilty of murder rather than by the imposition of a distinctive penalty. I thought, on the contrary, that The Times put it rather well some time ago when it said that life imprisonment for murder is a penalty with an eloquent judicial symbolism in that it declares that those who deliberately take another life lose the right to the free use of their own whether in custody or when released on licence which runs until they die. That is an approach to which the Minister referred in his speech.
Having said all that, I fully recognise the force of the arguments for going over to a discretionary sentence which are so well set out in the committee's report and which have been elaborated in a number of speeches today. I am very conscious of the fact that a new element has been introduced by the power which the Court of Appeal now has to increase a sentence. Even though the right of appeal is likely to be more freely used by the defence than by the prosecution, in time it is likely to result in standards being set by the Court of Appeal for the guidance of trial judges.
508
I do not think that the case for doing away with the mandatory sentence is as clearcut as all that. I listened with close attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, said this evening and I read with interest the proposition which she put to the committee, tucked away as it is in some obscurity in the minutes at page 64 of the report. It is a proposition that is aimed at maintaining the mandatory penalty. She was in a minority of one as does sometimes happen to members of her sex. But the views she advanced then and which she spoke about tonight would command support from quite a number outside the membership of the committee.
For my part I must keep an open mind until I can see the picture as a whole more clearly than I am able to at present, including the arrangements for parole on which we are still awaiting decisions and the arrangements for the release of life sentence prisoners. As I shall explain in a moment, I would like some clarification on that matter, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, have said.
Before dealing with that, if the decision is finally to give up the mandatory sentence, I am doubtful about retaining the defence of diminished responsibility. It was borrowed from Scotland in 1957 as a means of softening the impact of the mandatory sentence. Although I know it has acquired a life of its own and that it continues to flourish north of the Border, I still feel that if the mandatory sentence goes, that defence should probably go too in England and Wales.
I now turn to my questions about release. If to some extent I go over ground that has already been tilled, I make no apologies for that as I wish to put the questions in my own way in what is a very important area. My first problem relates to the case where the offence is of especial gravity. We have already had the last words of paragraph 178 read to us but I believe that the House can bear to hear them again:
"The Committee expect that their proposals will lead to very lengthy penal sanctions being set in the most grave cases. In some cases, this may result in imprisonment for the rest of the prisoner's life"
These words are slightly ambiguous but they seem to contemplate that there may be offences that are so grave that the judge will find it necessary to say that imprisonment for life means exactly what is says. As far as I can see, the report does not specify any maximum for the penal sanction and if it is to be life, and if that sentence is upheld on appeal, it follows from the committee's report that no Minister can at any stage interfere.
What then happens about remission and parole? As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, it is impossible to earn one-third remission on a sentence which runs until death. If the individual knows from the start that he can never be released what incentive does he have to be of good behaviour? Is it not putting a burden on the prisoner, on his family and also on those responsible for his custody greater than can reasonably be borne? It may indeed prove necessary to keep a prisoner in custody for the whole of his life. There may well be some in prison now

509
who will never be released. But to say right at the outset that the case can never even be examined when a young man or woman may have 60 years of life ahead seems to be going too far. If the words in paragraph 178 which I have read out do not mean this I wonder what they do mean.
My second difficulty arises in the more usual case where the combined results of remission and parole have the effect that the individual can complete the penal sanction and be considered for release at a certain date; but the question of whether he can actually go out then is decided by a judicial tribunal. Incidentally, I find it slightly odd to see described as a judical tribunal a body of three of whom only one is a judge. Whether the tribunal has to be unanimous, whether the judge can be outvoted, or whether it sits in public, I do not know. Nor is this form of procedure the only one likely to be acceptable to the European Court of Human Rights. But all that is by the way.
The question on which I seek enlightenment is where the information is coming from on which the tribunal comes to a decision and of what nature it will be. The Parole Board must already have taken a view on risk before deciding that so far as it was concerned the prisoner could properly be released since it is a prime function of the board to consider what the prisoner's prospects are of leading a good life on release. It has to look to the future whereas remission looks to behaviour in the past.
I am puzzled to know just what are the considerations which the tribunal has to take into account from those which the Parole Board has to consider and where that new information comes from. Is it for the Home Secretary through counsel to make his own inquiries and then to put the case for continued detention notwithstanding the decision of the Parole Board? I wish the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, were here. He said that it would be for the Executive to put the case for continued detention but I do not find anything to that effect in the report itself.
Will the prisoner be given legal aid to have a representative to rebut that evidence, whatever it may be and wherever it may come from? If the Home Secretary sees no objection to release, will the judicial tribunal rubber stamp the Parole Board's recommendation or is it expected to make fresh inquiries of its own and, if so, of whom?
These are not pettifogging technical details; they are matters on which we must be informed before we can grasp the whole picture. I was somewhat encouraged to know that the present chairman of the Parole Board himself does not quite see how the machinery is intended to work as described in the committee's report.
There are a great many other points which one could touch on including the risk which the noble Earl the Minister referred to of reports not being genuinely honest and frank if they are all to be made public. I have been speaking for too long. I shall limit myself to one more brief point before I sit down.
510
In paragraph 178 the committee says:
"After the introduction of a discretionary sentence for murder, the Committee anticipate that the average length of time served under a life sentence would be considerably longer than it is now".
I do not think that the committee means "anticipate", but I shall let that pass. Like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I find this passage rather ambiguous. Is the committee saying that under its proposals individuals are likely to be kept in prison longer than are prisoners at present who have been convicted of comparable crimes? There are, after all, a number who have already been in prison for more than 30 years. If the committee means that, I regret it. I cannot see why that follows from the committee's proposals. If it does not mean that, perhaps I may humbly suggest that it might have been more happily phrased.
I am sorry to end on this somewhat querulous note. I should like to reaffirm that the inquiry has been a most useful one. It has succeeded in eliciting some slightly surprising information and in throwing a beam of light on what is at present a somewhat confused and gloomy picture, even though more has to be done before we have in front of us a complete new picture sharply in focus.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I too served as a member of the Select Committee under the admirable chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I share the embarrassment of others in having missed our chairman's opening speech, for which I apologise.
This varied debate has been a worthy response to the report. A number of pertinent points have been raised, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who has just spoken. Although it is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, rather than for me, I am sure he would agree that we would welcome an opportunity to discuss some of these important practical questions with the new Home Secretary when he has had an opportunity to settle in, and before he decides on the Government's response to the proposals contained in the report.
To anticipate the possiblity of a meeting of that kind, perhaps I should say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that where we refer to a discretionary life sentence for murder being imposed were the mandatory sentence to be abolished, there would always be a penal sanction; that is, a fixed period within the life sentence. He should read paragraphs 177 and 178 in the light of that explanation.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I have read those paragraphs four times. I cannot read that point into them as they stand. But the statement which the noble Lord has just made is of great importance. It will be of great interest to all those who have taken part in the debate.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, that is why, in assisting the Home Office to consider the implications of our proposals, a meeting of the kind I have proposed would be constructive.

511
I listened closely to all the speeches made in the debate, but I listened to none closer than the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. He avoided committing the Government, as was proper on an occasion of this sort, so it was more a matter of tone and emphasis. However, I do not think I was alone in detecting a certain coolness towards the committee's proposals. Therefore I should like to present to the House, and through it to the Government, two arguments at this stage of the debate. The first relates to the mandatory life sentence, and the second to release decisions.
The mandatory life sentence was a compromise introduced in 1965 as part of the accommodation reached on the abolition of the death penalty. We have already heard that, so far from its being sought by the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice of the day and others who had held high judicial office and spoke and voted in the House at the time did not wish to have a mandatory penalty. They wanted the courts to have sentencing discretion for murder with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment in the same way as that maximum applied to other grave crimes. It was not the eventual outcome, however, so we have now a penalty which is unique in the sense that the court has no power to vary it. The penalty for murder is prescribed by Parliament. It is not imposed by the judge. It is unique to that extent. On the other hand, life imprisonment is precisely the same penalty which applies for a number of other grave crimes. The previous symmetry between the uniqueness of the penalty, when capital punishment existed, and the crime of murder no longer pertains.
We have been left with half that inheritance, from which a great deal of the consequent problems have arisen. A mandatory penalty must by definition apply to all convictions of murder, irrespective of the circumstances. It is this inflexibility that has undermined what should be regarded as the most severe of all the penalties known to the law. Apart from a brief and unsuccessful interlude between 1957 and 1965, the law has never recognised categories of murder. What has been the result? The consequence has been that the only way to bring about a relationship between the degree of punishment which is appropriate to the circumstances of the crime is to adjust the amount of time spent in custody. However, this process of adjustment is decided not by the judge who has seen the defendant in court and heard the case against him, but by Ministers of the Crown who may be influenced by other considerations. It is self-evident that murders vary as much as any other crime in their heinousness—hence the emergence of the tariff and the complicated way in which the tariff system has evolved and been administered.
If the trial judge is allowed, as we propose he should be, to select the appropriate penalty—whether it is a fixed, determinate sentence suitable to mark the gravity of the offence, or whether it is in certain circumstances a life sentence—the result should be a smaller total number of life sentences. As we say in the report, we envisage that the sentencing court would use the life sentence, generally but not exclusively, in two situations: first, where there is an exceptionally grave murder; "outrageous" is the
512
word used —a crime which is deeply offensive to public opinion; and, secondly where the circumstances may not have been so grave but where there was a high element of risk, often revolving around the mental instability of the offender. The number of life sentences would be markedly smaller but—this answers one of the many pertinent points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen—the average period spent in custody by those sentenced to life imprisonment, because it would be used with greater selectivity, would be longer. If that happens it would contribute towards what the Home Office states is an objective of the system of criminal justice; namely, that it should command greater public confidence. Such a change would therefore be entirely in tune with what is one of the essential planks of the Government's current policies.
I turn to the second argument which I put before the House this evening. It concerns the way in which the decisions on release are taken. Here the issue is not whether to change it, but how to do so. We should be quite clear that the current procedures are simply indefensible; and no one has attempted to defend them in this debate. Nor did anyone attempt to defend them in evidence before the Committee. The Home Office must accept the fact that the procedures are untenable in the present situation.
The first problem is one of sheer comprehension. Other than my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who followed me at the Parole Board, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who preceded me, there are very few people in Parliament or in public life outside the Home Office, and only a handful of people in penal reform groups, who actually understand what is involved in the release procedures. That cannot be right. The process is so complex and so intricate that it taxed the collective mind of the Select Committee in a way which no other issue did.
Despite the patient, helpful and detailed explanations which we received from Home Office witnesses who gave evidence more than once, both orally and in written form, and evidence from my noble friend Lord Colville and his colleagues on the Parole Board, it became clear to the committee that the superimposition of successive procedural layers resulting from quite different pressures over a period of 20 years or so had led to an apparatus that commanded little or no support outside official circles. The most objectionable feature was only too evident to all: the setting in private of a tariff—an ugly, distasteful word, but one which is in general circulation—which served as the quantum of punishment. This, as has already been said in the debate, is disclosed neither to the defendant nor to his legal adviser; nor is it subject to representations of counsel; nor is it subject to appeal.
Let us be clear about what is the central objection to the current system. It is that it transfers the responsibility for punishing the errant citizen from the independent judiciary, where it properly belongs in our constitutional arrangements, to a branch of the Government.
There have been cases in our domestic courts over the past few years—the Handscomb case is one such that is referred to and explained in our report; and

513
there have been some others—which have resulted in changes being made in the release and recall procedures applying to life sentence prisoners. Other cases have been brought before the European Commission on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. There are four current cases which have been admitted by the Commission, which are now pending a hearing of the court next year.
It is inevitable there will be further changes. Anyone who has studied the matter is aware that there will have to be changes for the reasons which I have given; because the procedures simply do not conform either with what our own courts regard as proper practice or with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights by which we are bound and in which British jurists played an important part in the original drafting.
There is an alternative now to be faced. Either we can go on patching and mending, reluctantly introducing such changes as must be made to come into line with the requirements of the courts, political pressures or demands from whatever other source. That is one way, with which we are only too familiar as the result of past experience. But there is a rational alternative, which is to seek out an improved process which conforms not only with the European Convention—although I am aware that is not politically the most popular argument to bring into play—but which also corresponds with the traditions and principles of the common law. That is the path outlined in the report. I say to your Lordships that in my mind, and in that of my colleagues on the committee, there is no doubt which is the better way.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I must say that I totally agree with the contents of his speech. I think that he and the rest of the House will agree that this has been one of the most interesting debates which we have had in the area of criminal justice policy for some years. There has been substantial disagreement on one issue; that is, the question of the new statutory definition of murder as recommended by the committee.
However, on the other two principal proposals—namely, the abolition of the mandatory life sentence and the question of whether judges rather than Ministers should make a decision in terms of the release of life sentence prisoners—I think that there has been strong support for the recommendation of your Lordships' committee. Before becoming involved in some of these issues I should like, in beginning the process of winding up the debate, to make one or two references to speeches which have been made.
I shall refer first to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. If I may say so, I think that it is a great pity that the committee was denied his presence as a member. He is without doubt the leading authority on the very issues we were discussing. I hope that in the future the usual channels will be far more sensitive when approached
514
on such matters. However, I shall leave the matter there.
I very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Allen, in one sense. It is extremely difficult to form a final view on some of the recommendations of the committee without knowing what the Government's response will be to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, on the parole system. Like the noble Lord, I very much hope that we shall receive a White Paper on the subject in the relatively near future. No doubt the noble Earl will be able to help us on that question this evening.
The Carlisle Committee was strongly critical of the procedure introduced by Mr. Brittan in 1983 when he was Home Secretary, in terms of creating two categories of potential parolees—that is, one where the case would be considered on its merits; and the other, the restricted category, where there would be an assumption that people would not get parole. The committee said that the policy was flawed in principle. I agree with that view.
But, I say in addition to that, that all the evidence we received showed that the second leg of the "Brittan policy"—namely, that applied to life sentence prisoners—was just as objectionable and had done grave damage to the morale not only of inmates but also of governors and prison staff. That view was repeated to us at prison after prison which we visited. Indeed I think that every member of the committee who visited prisons would confirm what I say on this particular question.
The second matter that I want to mention is one introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I agree with him entirely that it was a great pity that our terms of reference did not allow us to look at whether there should be one offence of unlawful homicide. We are not, however, in a strong position to complain about that because we should have raised the question when the Motion went down on the Order Paper.
The third speech to which I wish to refer at this stage is that of the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and I, who have both had the opportunity to make speeches on a report of your Lordships' committees when sitting on the Government Front Bench in the past, tend to look for the code words which indicate whether the Government are attracted, or otherwise, to the proposals. I fear, like the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that I found that the Minister was cool on all three issues. I do not propose to become involved in the question of the new statutory definition of murder, but I did note that the Minister indicated some polite scepticism about it and went on to quote apparently with warm approval, the statement on that issue made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice when he gave evidence to the committee.
Strangely enough, on the second matter upon which we made recommendations—namely, the abolition of the mandatory life sentence—the Minister did not quote the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice with approval. That may give us some indication of the Government's preliminary attitude. I hope that I am wrong. Obviously the

515
Home Secretary could not have looked into this question, given the fact that he has held his present office for only a relatively short time. However, I detected, from what the Minister said, that he and his colleagues are far from being persuaded that our proposal on that question is right. That is a great pity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, who, as she said, put forward a minority report on that issue, said that she feared that public confidence would be at risk were we to move away from the mandatory life sentence. I fear that the opposite is true. There is deep public scepticism at the moment about what the life sentence means. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will confirm that there is a general belief among many people, otherwise well-informed, that a life sentence means nine years. Of course it means nothing of the sort. That is an average of the length of sentence of those who have been released. There is little public confidence at the moment in the present life sentence procedure which is hardly surprising.
Let us consider one or two typical cases; first, the case of a man with a shotgun who murders a security guard when trying to rob a security van of a considerable sum of money. That is murder. There is an intent. He is rightly convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Secondly, we have the case of a woman in the terminal stages of a grave illness. She is dying. She begs her husband to help her kill herself. He helps her and she dies. That is murder. It is murder because there is an intent to kill. How can it be right that a judge is obliged to pass the same sentence in those two cases? That does not help public confidence; it erodes public confidence. That is one of the reasons why I believe our recommendation is right.
I move on to the third question which is whether judges rather than Ministers should decide when life sentence prisoners should be released. When he came to that point, the Minister said that, with respect to the recommendation for a tribunal, the committee might have taken the view that there was safety in numbers. That is not why we came to our conclusion. We came to our conclusion because we were appalled by the highly undesirable practice of Ministers becoming involved in that process and the way in which they were using ministerial power secretly. There was no question of a break with tradition, which is how the Minister described it. The position of Ministers in that matter, and the reason why they are involved in the first place, as they are not involved with armed robbers or people convicted of theft, is that until 1965 we did not have mandatory life sentences; we had a mandatory sentence of death.
At that stage, Ministers had to decide whether to recommend to the Sovereign that there should be a reprieve. That is why Ministers became involved in the process. The question now, a substantial period after the passage of the 1965 Act, is whether we should review that position. For a number of reasons, that is now inescapable whatever the Government want to do. That came out extremely clearly, if I
516
may say so, in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
I wish to deal with that issue at some length because it is fundamental to the committee's report. As the Minister will be aware, until 1983, under a procedure which was instituted by the noble Lord, Lord Can, when he was Home Secretary, and my noble friend Lord Hunt was chairman of the Parole Board, there was a joint committee of the board and the Home Office which considered the cases of all life sentence prisoners at the three to four-year stage. The existence of that committee has been referred to. It consisted of the chairman of the Parole Board, the vice-chairman, who was always a High Court judge, a consultant psychiatrist and two senior Home Office officials. They decided whether to fix a date for the first review of a prisoner's case by the local review committee in, say, a further four or five years' time or, alternatively, to ask that the case be referred back to them after a period of years because of the impossibility of determining, at that stage, a date when it would be sensible to refer the case to a local review committee.
My noble friend Lord Hunt and I considered that that system worked well. However, as we know, in 1983 that system was scrapped by Mr. Brittan on the grounds set out in paragraph 134 of our report. I am bound to say that I find the arguments that he advanced in favour of his new policy extremely difficult to take seriously. It was said that the committee fixed a firm LRC date in only 50 per cent. of cases. That of course was one of the advantages of the system. It was the precise reason why the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, set up the joint committee in the first place.
As for Mr. Brittan's suggestion that this sytem was unsettling to prisoners and staff, all I can say is that having visited the prisons as we did, it is impossible to overstate the hostility of prison staff and inmates to what has arisen since 1983.
In a Statement made on 30th November 1983, when announcing the abolition of the joint committee of the Parole Board and the Home Office, Mr. Brittan said that in future Ministers would decide the date of the first reference of a case to the LRC following consultations with the judiciary. He added that the first review would normally take place three years before the expiry of the period necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence.
I think we may now establish some possible motives of Mr. Brittan in abolishing the joint committee. As a result of asking the judiciary for their comments three years after conviction, rather than at the time when the Parole Board was examining the case, Ministers have become far more able to influence the length of sentences. Although of course a Home Secretary was always able to refuse to accept a positive recommendation from the Parole Board, he invariably did so on the grounds of risk and not on the issue of retribution and deterrence, the matter specifically referred to by Mr. Brittan in his Statement of November 1983. In my own experience as chairman of the Parole Board, the views of the Lord Chief Justice on tariff were accepted both by the board and by Ministers.

517
As we now know, that is no longer the situation. When Home Office officials gave evidence to the committee, we were told that in a substantial number of cases a junior Minister had set a tariff higher than that recommended both by the trial judge and by the Lord Chief Justice. We asked for further information and this was given to us. We can now measure the extent to which the abandonment of the joint committee system has led to a massive increase in ministerial intervention.
In a six-month period in 1984—that is the year after the introduction of the new policy, the first year of Mr. Brittan's new system—Ministers increased the trial judge's recommendation in 80 cases out of 195, in other words, roughly 40 per cent. of cases. In a similar period two years later, in 1986, they increased the trial judge's recommendation in 25 out of 78 cases, or roughly 30 per cent. of cases. Last year, they established something of a record. They interfered with the judicial recommendation in the majority of cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said earlier, in 63 cases out of 106 mandatory life sentences, Ministers set a higher tariff than that privately indicated by the trial judges.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? Like myself, he has been a junior Minister and he knows that they are not all that important in their department; they are treated fairly lightly. Where does one place the responsibility for these extraordinary decisions?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, that is extremely difficult to answer. I am just putting as fairly as I can the evidence that was given to us by the Home Office. I think it is a pity that it took the appointment of the Select Committee before we discovered this in the first place. If it had not been for the appointment of this committee, we should never have known what was going on.
That leads to a question to the Minister: why was Parliament not informed about what was going on? I am sure that he will be able to tell us. When was the Lord Chief Justice told what was going on? Was he ever told, or did he find out about it from the newspapers when the report of what Home Office officials had told us was published? I very much hope that we shall receive answers to these questions.
As the House will be aware, your Lordships' committee takes the view that the question of tariffs should now be a matter for the judiciary and the judiciary alone to determine, and that this should not be revised either upwards or downwards by Ministers. Following Handscomb, that is now the law in the case of discretionary life sentence cases. We believe that this should now be applied to all life sentence cases.
The present procedures are I believe a denial of the basic principles of natural justice. A confidential letter is sent by the trial judge to the Home Office via the Lord Chief Justice. The trial judge had the advantage of having seen the prisoner and possibly heard his evidence. He makes his recommendation. As we heard this afternoon, the Lord Chief Justice has immense knowledge of dealing with life sentence
518
cases. This year alone he is dealing with 300 cases. Therefore in his experience as Lord Chief Justice he has obviously dealt with thousands of cases. He sends his views to the Home Office.
As we now know, in many cases these views are simply ignored. Last year it was the majority of cases. By a stroke of the pen a junior Minister, who has no direct knowledge of the case, except from the summary which is prepared by the department, or of what the appropriate tariff should be, simply adds a few years to the judicial recommendation. The process is conducted in secrecy. No one knows about the criteria by which the decisions are made or indeed whether there are any criteria. The prisoner knows neither of the judicial recommendation nor that it has been altered by a Minister.
However grave an offence a prisoner has committed, he still has certain rights. One of the most fundamental is that he should be told at the earliest possible stage how many years he will have to serve to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence. That is why it seems clear that the decision on tariffs should be announced in open court.
I come to my final point. I support the proposal that the decision on release should be entirely judicial. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I would prefer it to be a judge with two assessors, but that is for Parliament to decide. It became quite clear to us, as a result or the evidence which was given to us by a senior representative of the European Commission on Human Rights, that the Government will have to move on this issue, whether they wish to or not.
Under the European Convention a decision on release has to be taken either by a judicial tribunal or by the Executive, subject to review by a judicial tribunal. In this situation, I can see no advantage in maintaining a role for the Executive. As any prisoner who is turned down for release by the Executive would automatically appeal to the tribunal, it is obvious that it would be a waste of scarce resources to introduce a two-stage process. It would be far better to establish a new judicial tribunal which would make that decision.
I end as I think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, did. The present situation—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but again we seem to be eliciting some very valuable pieces of information which have not been set out in the report. Would I be right in thinking that it is a considered recommendation of the committee that the judicial tribunal should consist of a judge, supported by two assessors?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: No, my Lords, it is not. I indicated that that was my view of the matter. I think that questions of this sort are a matter, first, for the Home Office and then for Parliament to determine. There was no decision by the committee on the issue. I merely gave my own view of the matter.

519
In conclusion, turning to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I agree with him. The present situation is indefensible. Change is coming. Why cannot we on this occasion anticipate it rather than waiting to be dragged once again to the European Court of Human Rights which will then have to impose its decision upon us?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. Surely paragraph 185 at page 48 includes the recommendation which was called in question. I am open to correction if I am wrong and I apologise, but I think that I am right.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, it always gives me immense pleasure to agree with him. However, I do not think that that paragraph deals with the specific question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I indicated that my belief was that it would be better to have a judge helped by two assessors. However, it may well be that if the matter had been voted on by the committee, the members might have taken a different view.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I apologise for not having been in the Chamber during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I was absent for the same reason as that given by other noble Lords.
It should be acknowledged that the subject of this debate has been a report of special quality, lucidly and economically written. At one level the issues that it addresses are of the highest professional technicality, providing scope for the most sophisticated levels of professional disagreement among lawyers. Your Lordships have been entertained by the difference between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
At a more fundamental level the report addresses the ethical questions of how the legal system should respond to the taking of life by one human being of another. It has addressed the related questions of how murder should be defined and whether the mandatory life sentence should continue so as to underpin society's abhorrence of murder. The series of decisions by the courts which are set out in the report show how confused and uncertain the law has become. They are the best arguments for legislation. Was an intention to kill necessary or was an intention to cause grievous bodily harm sufficient? If either was sufficient, was constructive, not real, intention sufficient, so that if the natural and probable consequence of the defendant's conduct was that death or grievous bodily harm would result, then in law he was to be presumed to intend death or grievous bodily harm and so be a murderer? Was any intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm unnecessary because an awareness of a high probability that the result of the conduct would be death or grievous bodily harm sufficed?
The committee has concluded that murder should be defined by statute. The noble and learned Lord,
520
Lord Lane, warns against the dangers of over-intellectualisation of this area of the law.
The committee has proposed a definition which, it should be noted, may require two subjective states of mind. It is plain that an intention to cause death will suffice. However, if the intention is to cause serious personal harm, there must also be an awareness that death may be caused. Therefore, of this proposed definition it is fair to ask: will it resolve the old uncertainties in an acceptable way or will it do no more than institutionalise them?
The committee would also like to have the word "intentionally" defined by statute and it recommends the definition which other noble Lords have read out:
"A person acts intentionally with respect to a result when he acts either in order to bring it about or being aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events".
If the defendant has not been acting in order to bring about serious personal harm, then his conviction could be secured only by proving that he was aware that in the ordinary course of events serious personal harm would result from his conduct and also aware that he might cause death. The second awareness, as I understand it, requires not an awareness that in the ordinary course of events death will result but merely an awareness that death is a possible consequence of his conduct. Therefore the jury has to be satisfied that the defendant was aware that in the ordinary course of events serious personal harm would occur and also aware of the possibility of his causing death.
The definition would, I suppose, catch Smith who drove with the police officer clinging to the bonnet, but I am not so sure about Mrs. Hyam. Was she aware when she put the petrol through the letterbox and lit it that serious personal harm would occur in the ordinary course of events? Does "in the ordinary course of events" mean that which is generally likely to happen? I can foresee juries asking for guidance about what is meant by "in the ordinary course of events". The words are no doubt intended to qualify and dilute an awareness that serious personal harm will occur. If it is a balance of probabilities that is intended, the definition should say so. If it is not a balance of probabilities, I have difficulty in understanding it.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, that the definition of murder should correspond to the understanding of ordinary people; but I doubt whether I share his perception of that ordinary understanding. Public detestation of terrorists and all their doings is undoubted, but I would beg leave to question whether ordinary people, once satisfied that a particular terrorist did not intend to kill, would regard him as a murderer. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that we should not redefine murder to cater for terrorist cases.
I am conscious that I am parting company from what the law is in both Scotland and England and the opinion of the committee, but I wonder whether further consideration should be given to the fundamental point. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, would stigmatise it as the ultimate

521
over-intellectualised point, but intention to kill should be the sole mental element for murder and intention to cause serious bodily harm should not qualify. Arguably, that would accord with the general conception of what murder is and ought to be. If a person intends serious bodily harm but is also aware of the risk of causing death, then that would be material from which a jury would be entitled, but not obliged, to infer intention to kill. Therefore murder would be reserved for the most serious cases of culpable homicide where there is an intention to kill.
I appreciate that the principal argument against this point has been given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner: that murder cannot be limited to intention to kill because in practise that would make the conviction of murderers too difficult. However, it should be considered how significant that is once the mandatory life sentence has gone. I agree with my noble friends Lord Mishcon and Lord Macaulay of Bragar that the report would have been a more influential document if its authors had felt able to address the question of whether there should be a single offence of unlawful homicide.
I welcome the committee's recommendation that the mandatory life sentence for murder should be abolished and replaced by a discretionary sentence so that the range of penalties for murder will be the same as for other serious crimes. If murder were confined to intentional and unprovoked killings there would be a stronger argument for retaining the mandatory life sentence in order to mark society's abhorrence of the wilful taking of human life. Even then, the mandatory life sentence would surely be a blunt instrument. A mercy killing is of a different moral order from a sadistic sex-based child murder. Where murder has a much more extended definition so that the mental element is satisfied by an intention to cause serious bodily harm, combined if need be with an awareness of the possibility of death, I would suggest that it is beyond argument that murder embraces such a multitude of diverse sins that the single mandatroy life sentence must be inappropriate. The mandatory life sentence does not underpin public abhorrence of murder because everyone knows that life does not mean life but on average something less than 10 years. Sentences modulated to the gravity of the individual case would be more likely to achieve the public abhorrence that is desired.
It must be recognised that adoption of the committee's recommendation will inevitably lead to public controversy over whether a sentence was too lenient or severe in a murder case on which public and media attention has been focused. Detailed sentencing criteria will have to be laid down. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, has called attention to the need for that and pointed out that it will take time.
The Minister may recall that on a previous occasion in this House he expressed interest in the idea of a sentencing council with a strong lay element laying down sentencing guidelines. Perhaps he can say when he speaks again whether his thinking has advanced on that subject.
522
I should welcome in particular two recommendations of the committee which advance the cause of open justice: that the judge awarding a life sentence should give his reasons for imposing life rather than a determinate sentence and that the judge should fix in open court the period of years, or "the penal sanction" in the report, necessary to meet the twin requirements of retribution and deterrence, which period should not be subject to revision by executive diktat.
The role of the Home Office in revising upwards the tariffs indicated as appropriate by the trial judge in mandatory life sentence cases is the most remarkable of the revelations to emerge from the committee's deliberations. My noble friend Lord Mishcon called attention to it in his speech at the outset of the debate. It is a remarkable story. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, called it, rightly, scandalous. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pertinently asked—and we hope that we shall receive an answer—why was Parliament not told what was going on?
More specifically, by mere announcement to Parliament in November 1983, but without any parliamentary approval whatever, the Home Secretary fixed 20-year sentences for particular categories of murder. It would be welcome to hear the noble Earl when he replies to the debate state in terms that he accepts the constitutionality of the committee's objective that penal sanctions should be set by judges and not be subject to modification by the Executive. The point is that the duration of imprisonment should be decided by judges in an open process and not by the Executive behind closed doors, without even the authority of Parliament.
I gather, however, from what he has already said that the noble Earl is not sympathetic to the recommendations. That is a great pity. This has been a good debate which I do not desire unduly to lengthen. It has been a good debate on a report of high quality. We must hope that what emerges from it is of comparable quality. But if I, in common with the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Harris of Greenwich, have read correctly between the lines of what the noble Earl has already said—I hope I am wrong—the auguries for action on the report are not good.
9.4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that we have had an extremely interesting debate. It has been one of the best debates that we have had on one of the most serious matters.
In all the speeches that have been made noble Lords have struggled to find an answer to a complex series of questions. Murder is, after all, the most shocking of all crimes. It is not surprising that in its variety it is not easy to particularise regarding intent, sentencing, tariff or treatment. Those are all individual matters. It is therefore not surprising that it is not easy to come to a clear-cut decision.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham said that I had said nothing in my opening speech. I am grateful to

523
him for that courtesy. He is quite right. The whole purpose of the debate has been to hear what your Lordships had to say. I was mildly miffed when my noble friend said that he did not like the tone of what I said. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that he had looked for coded words. The noble Lord, when he speaks, is as plain as a pikestaff. It might be a little more helpful to the Government if he would use a few more coded messages instead of being quite so direct. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, thought that it might be fun to run with that hare.
The Government came to the subject with an open mind. If I am accused of saying nothing, the reason is only that I was trying to point to one or two matters which I thought were of concern and to highlight some other views that might be put in the course of discussion. I did not intend to convey that the Government had come up with decisions but did not like to adumbrate them or that the Government were cool towards the committee's recommendtions. The committee has produced a very significant report. It is one of great importance. The Government will wish to consider it most carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—who had a fair old go—blamed me for the observations that I made on the position of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary regarding the release of murderers back into society. The noble Lord thought that I was disparaging when I said that it had a flavour of numbers. I was referring to the Home Secretary's responsibility for releasing back into society those who have previously committed murder.
What I said was:
"Those who advocate a change of this nature will have to weigh up the advantage of sharing the awesome and singular responsibility of decision-making with the disadvantage of corporate and diffuse responsibility. There is a flavour here of the safety in numbers argument".
That is perfectly fair. I did not say that one was better than the other or that one was worse than the other. There is an advantage in singular responsibility; there is an advantage in corporate responsibility. However, I remind the noble Lord that, when he refers to the advantage of a tribunal making a judgment, that is a judgment of the offender. The Home Secretary is responsible for the public. He is responsible for public safety and is accountable for the actions that he takes. Even if we all think that the other is desirable, that factor must be taken into account. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will, with his generosity, understand that that is a perfectly reasonable point of view to put forward and that that matter should be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, implied the question, "How may Ministers suggest a different tariff from that which the judge states?" That matter has concerned a number of noble Lords. However, perhaps I may remind him that the judges give advice. It is not a matter of a sentence. The judges give advice to the Home Secretary and Ministers then have the discretion to keep a life prisoner in custody for as long as they think is correct. Noble Lords may say that that is wrong and
524
should be altered. But that is what happens now. I do not think that it is unreasonable.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will clarify one point. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice puts forward a view as to the appropriate tariff and the Minister of State, or whoever, changes it, is there any consultation with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that decision remains with the Minister. I am not in a position to tell the noble Lord whether such a discussion took place on every case or on any case. But whether or not it did the final responsibility is that of the Minister because it is his responsibility to ensure public safety. One must also remember that the tariff arrangement is a secondary mechanism for fixing the review date. That fixes the date upon which the review may take place. The present system allows for flexibility and does not tie the hands for many years into the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, also asked whether what happened was announced in Parliament. The policy was announced in response to a parliamentary Question. I understood that the matter was discussed in advance with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice who agreed with the new system to be operated by the trial judge and the noble and learned Lord would write to the Home Secretary. That is the position.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is reported and quoted in the report as having heavily criticised the procedure?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, wants to know why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice takes a certain view, he had better ask the noble and learned Lord because that is his responsibility.
A number of noble Lords were anxious about the definition of murder.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he will deal with a point which I am sure he appreciates worries many of us. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice should obviously not have been quoted in his absence, if I may say so with great respect, as having been consulted and as having approved of the procedure when, in his evidence on page 42, he says:
"It is unsatisfactory, to say the least, that the length of a prisoner's stay in prison should be determined or partially determined behind the scenes by someone who has not heard any representations by or on behalf of the prisoner on grounds which the prisoner does not know".
There could not be a clearer condemnation of the system. It would be unfair—I know the noble Earl is always so fair—to indicate that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice had been consulted and had approved of the procedure.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety and I shall respond to it as best I can. I could not agree with him more.

525
If that does not satisfy your Lordships or if I have misportrayed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, I shall certainly inform myself and communicate with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; indeed, if necessary with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend the Minister will give way. This matter is of absolutely crucial importance. The whole of the committee was unanimous. On this point it appears that the whole of your Lordships' House is unanimous. Indeed, all the speeches have shown unanimity. It is a matter of crucial importance.
I know not, but it could well have been that when some years ago the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was asked whether he would assent to a position, in fact he assented to that position. However, the evidence that he gave to the committee and the speech of the noble and learned Lord made it totally plain that he does not at all approve of it today. We are dealing with an issue on which we are unanimous in supporting him. Surely the Government must face it on that basis.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite understand the view of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. As I said at the start of this speech and indeed in my earlier speech, the Government are here to listen to what your Lordships have to say. I heard very clearly what your Lordships have to say. If I may say so, I am now being given proverbial stick for not agreeing with what your Lordships have to say. But at the beginning I said that I had no intention of taking up a point of view on what the Government will do because there are a number of matters that come into that consideration.
I know that your Lordships are entirely fair and are prepared to give the Government time to consider this matter, with all its difficulties. We have talked about the European Court and the report of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. All those matters have to be taken into account and we shall take account of them. When my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway says that all your Lordships are concerned about this matter, I just reply to him clearly, "I have got the message".
I could not help but be slightly amused when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the definition of murder, and said, "Those who have not had the disadvantage of a legal training might wonder what the argument is about". I am one of those who have not had that disadvantage, as he humbly put it. My experience is that those who have had that disadvantage have their argumentative prowess extended to its limit when they find themselves engaged with another person with the same training; when two of them have the same bone, as it were. We heard it this evening.
I followed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, in his arguments when he said that terrorists might not intend to kill. He referred to the bomb in the shop, the bomb in the public monument, the surgeon trying to save life and the father who threw the little girl out of the window. I followed him like a dog
526
on the end of a lead. I found his argument very convincing until the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, came and blasted him out of the water. That is the interesting part of listening to noble and learned Lords who inconveniently do not take the same view.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said that if the definition were accepted many of those who committed what most people considered as murder would not be convicted and that it would produce more injustice than that which it was intended to remedy. That is a matter which obviously will have to be carefully taken into account. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said that mercy killings should also be considered as murder.
My noble friend Lord Colville of Cutross said that the risk of prisoners reoffending should not be the only criterion for release. He gave the example of the drug runner who would be extremely unlikely to reoffend. As he said, if the likelihood of reoffending is to be the criterion, they would be let out early and that would send a very bad message. I agree with that. I can assure him that when considering that point the Government will listen very carefully to the views of the practitioners and what should be included in the evaluation of risk.
He also asked whether we could not legislate to provide that somebody who kills by using excessive force in self-defence should be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. That is quite a problem. I think that my noble friend's reference to the problems in Northern Ireland shows why we have to be very careful. Convicting a British soldier who kills by excessive force of a less serious offence than murder could easily be misinterpreted. I understand the argument that, if that soldier honestly believed that he was using only reasonable force, we might risk convicting someone of murder who in his own mind does not see that he is acting unreasonably. The counter argument is that, although we allow people to defend themselves with reasonable force, we should give them every incentive to err towards caution in how they do so. It was interesting that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said that we should not legislate especially for terrorists.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Perhaps he used the word "murder" when he did not mean it. What the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was suggesting was that excessive self-defence should be culpable homicide or manslaughter rather than murder, as I understood the proposition.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may be so. But I believe that the same principle stands. We shall certainly consider those points.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, wanted an assurance that there is no intention of introducing a life sentence that explicitly means life. I am bound to tell him that life may indeed mean life if the risk of release is judged unacceptable. On at least two occasions recently the judge has recommended detention for life.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. Is he saying that that will be the new doctrine? Until now in this country, according to information received from the Home Office, no one has ever been kept in prison for life although he may have died in prison.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know how many times I must explain to your Lordships that I am not adumbrating a new doctrine. I have tried to tell the noble Earl that a person may be given a life sentence which is reviewed and he is released when it is believed that the risk is sufficiently reasonable to let him out. However, if it is judged that the risk to public safety is not sufficiently acceptable, of course he will not be let out. That is the position at the moment.
As time is progressing I shall refer only to one other remark. It was made by my noble friend Lady Platt. She said that she was in a minority of one on the committee. I suggest that she should not be too worried by that. Whenever you are in a minority of one it is uncomfortable. If I am in a minority of one, I usually think that I have got it completely wrong, or alternatively that I am being arrogant. But when I see other people in a minority of one, I look at them with great respect for the sincerity of their judgment and the conviction of their thoughts.
I can assure noble Lords that the Government will take great note of what has been said. A great many points of importance have been made. It would have been an impertinence for me to refer to many of them, not least because it would have detained your Lordships for too long but more importantly because it would be inappropriate for the Government at this juncture to come to any conclusion even—dare I say it?—on some of the speeches that noble Lords have made. However, we have listened to them. We shall read them and imbibe the wisdom that has been forthcoming, as it was expected to be, from noble Lords who have so much experience. I refer not only to the Law Lords who have spoken but also those who advise Ministers and those who simply have an interest in the position.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, due to the speed with which your Lordships dispatched the business concerning self-governing schools in Scotland, I made my opening remarks as it were before dawn. It is indeed over five and a half hours since I did so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was kind enough in his opening remarks to refer to the relaxed way in which I served as chairman of the committee.
Lord Ackner: Relaxed and efficient.
Lord Nathan: That is charming. Noble Lords will have some flavour of the nature and vigour of the debates that we had in committee from the vigour of the debates in your Lordships' House today. It would be a mistake to think that the unanimity—and I shall come to the one point of dissent —which pervaded our conclusions was the outcome of a series of compromises, as I have heard suggested. It was not so. The unanimity arose out of
528
full and vigorous discussion, argument and persuasion. Some members gave way and some pursued their arguments to the full. That is the way in which the conclusions of the report were reached and it is a sound basis on which to operate.
I should like to refer to the members of the committee for whom I have an enormous respect not only for the continuity of their attendance at the large number of meetings but also for being tolerant but vigorous in their discussions. My remarks apply no less to the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, than to anyone else. As always, she participated in the most vigorous way and in good mood. In the end we agreed to differ.
At this hour there would be no purpose in seeking to review the many excellent speeches which were made during the debate. Some clearly require to be recorded as classics of their time and as a marvellous source of knowledge and information regarding the subjects that we have discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was most kind when referring to the factors that I had in mind during our consideration in committee. It would be a great mistake now or when the matters arise for further debate in other surroundings to be too legalistic in a narrow sense about the questions at issue. Of course we were concerned with the law and its administration but, as has been said tonight, we were also concerned with morality, philosophy, public perceptions, penal policy, the law and the constitutional questions which arise, particularly in the context of the release mechanisms which have been so fully discussed today.
We must consider the position of the families of victims of murder. I and those who accompanied me were impressed and assisted by our visits to the prisons. We had the opportunity to meet the governors and the prison officers and to obtain their views without taking formal evidence from them. We also had the opportunity to meet a large number of prisoners convicted of murder and that was most instructive and informative. That is an area which we must bear in mind when deciding how to deal with the issue and not, as was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, be too intellectually inclined.
We must also consider a new development—the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the present law and its future at which we looked and received evidence. It was most enlightening to obtain the information about crimes of murder and the penalties in other countries, not only in common law jurisdictions—that is, in the United States and in Commonwealth countries—through evidence given by the Law Commission but also in civil law jurisdictions among the membership of the Council of Europe. We found that extremely helpful and enlightening.
It is quite clear to us from this study—and no doubt also to your Lordships—that at present we are not living in the best of all possible worlds in relation to the matters which we are discussing. One might put that in the reverse order of our terms of reference. One might say, as I personally feel, that the whole position with regard to the release mechanisms is the most unsatisfactory on any basis.

529
We then reach the position with regard to life sentences, which is clearly not a satisfactory situation. It is giving rise to great public disquiet as to how it is working and what a life sentence really means.
We come to the vexed question of the definition of murder. I do not not believe that anyone would say that the present situation regarding that definition under common law in England is satisfactory. It may he the best which can be achieved but we thought not. Therefore, on the three matters with which we were concerned a great deal of work requires to be done. If our report has stimulated some ideas as to how those problems may be addressed, it will have served some purpose, although I would naturally hope that the proposals which we have made will be implemented in the fullness of time.
I am very glad to hear from the Minister that he has listened carefully—as I know he has—to the debate and the numerous points made. It seems to me that as we are having this debate so shortly after
530
the publication of the report, the most we could ask, which has been accorded to us, is that the Government would listen to the observations which have arisen in a debate of this kind. It would be quite impossible for any government to reach any conclusions within a period of two weeks because it is only two weeks since the report was published.
The suggestion was made that at a suitable time a meeting with the Home Secretary may be appropriate. If these matters could be discussed with him when he has an opportunity of turning his attention to this subject, I believe that that could be a very useful development.
Therefore, I thank noble Lords for taking so active a part in this debate and trust that we shall move, not too slowly, a step further.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  COMMUNITY CHARGE—WALES: TRANSITIONAL RELIEF
  COMMUNITY CHARGE—WALES: TRANSITIONAL RELIEF
  COMMUNITY CHARGE TRANSITIONAL RELIEF: COST ESTIMATE
  COMMUNITY CHARGE TRANSITIONAL RELIEF: COST ESTIMATE
  STRATEGIC DEFENCE: POLICY
  STRATEGIC DEFENCE: POLICY
  FYLINGDALES RADAR STATION
  FYLINGDALES RADAR STATION
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOL PROPERTY: SALE
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOL PROPERTY: SALE
  MOTH-PROOFING AGENT RELEASE—INCIDENT
  MOTH-PROOFING AGENT RELEASE—INCIDENT
  LORDS AMENDMENTS TO BILLS
  LORDS AMENDMENTS TO BILLS