Sitting of 5 December 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    FRASERBURGH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Fraserburgh Harbour: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be considered upon 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Vehicle Mileages
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he proposes to introduce measures to record vehicle mileages and prevent the sale of unroadworthy vehicles.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked me to apologise for his absence; as the House will no doubt be aware, he is otherwise engaged in Brussels at the GATT negotiations.
    In answer to the question, the Government intend to tighten up certain aspects of the law relating to the sale of unroadworthy vehicles and appropriate measures will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity. There are, however, no plans to introduce any statutory requirement to record vehicle mileages.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. A 1987 survey conducted by trading standards officers showed that about 77 per cent. of older vehicles were unroadworthy and another survey showed that about 20 per cent. of hire vehicles were unroadworthy. That means that about 1 million of the vehicles traded annually are classed as unroadworthy because they have not qualified for an MOT certificate. Bearing in mind what the Minister has said and as trading standards officers now have powers to inspect vehicles under the trade descriptions provisions and in respect of credit arrangements, will the Minister be giving trading standards officers further powers to inspect vehicles for safety—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Will he also give further consideration to recording mileages at Swansea?
    Mr. Leigh: Trading standards officers already have to administer no fewer than 30 Acts of Parliament and 900
    288
    sets of regulations. Unlike Opposition Members, the Government are not convinced that tying up the measures with further red tape will do the industry any good at all. It is already an offence to sell unroadworthy vehicles.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that a large number of the second-hand vehicles that are sold have been clocked? Is he aware that a number of garages in the King's Lynn area have made representations to me about their grave concern about clocking of second-hand vehicles? Surely, one way forward would be to have cars manufactured with milometers that could not be put back or tampered with in any way.
    Mr. Leigh: I certainly undertake to take my hon. Friend's proposal back to the Department and consider it carefully. My hon. Friend will be aware that there is already a large body of law that protects the consumer. It is already an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Road Traffic Acts and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 to clock vehicles.

    Joint European Research
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had on British companies' participation in joint European research projects.
    Mr. Leigh: My noble Friend the Minister for Industry has responsibility for research and technology policy. He attended the recent Research Council of EC Ministers on 20 November and discussed EC research and development issues with his ministerial counterparts and the European Commission.
    Mr. Jones: What action does the Minister for Industry propose to take to help ICL compete for European research money now that it has been taken over by Fujitsu?
    Mr. Leigh: We raised the matter in writing with the responsible Vice-President of the European Commission. My noble Friend the Minister for Industry, who now represents the United Kingdom on research and technology issues, met the Vice-President to discuss the matter on 20 November. He was reassured that, for the purposes of collaborative research, the company would continue to be considered to be a British company.
    Mr. Batiste: Will my hon. Friend confirm that British companies take about a fifth of the European Community research funds available for industrial development? Does not that show clearly that, when they are playing on a level playing field, British companies are well able to hold their own in the European Community?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes a very good point. We should always remember that the main spur to research is not what Government do but the profitability of industry. Industry's funding of research and development increased by nearly 50 per cent. between 1983 and 1988. My hon. Friend makes a fair point.

    Financial Services
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom financial services sector is able to compete fairly in the single European market.
    The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): The financial services industry in the United Kingdom is a great success and I am sure that it will do extremely well from the wider European market that is now being constructed and in which we are participating fully with our partners. The Government are doing their bit by negotiating constructively on a number of measures to create the right framework for the wider industry. At the moment, we are negotiating on the financial services directive and the complementary capital adequacy directive. We are also working closely with the Commission to get passport directives on both life and non-life insurance.
    Mr. Dunnachie: We welcome the single European market, but we and others in the insurance industry worry about the unfair competition facing our companies from the German, Italian and French conglomerates. What is the Minister doing to ensure a level playing field for our British companies?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course we want a level playing field for all companies in the European Community. That is the purpose of negotiating fair rules of conduct, such as those in the directives that the Commission is now proposing. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Government will battle hard to get a fair deal for our companies and for customers throughout the Community. If only Opposition Members had equal dedication to the purpose of creating an open and liberal market in Europe, that would make it even easier for us.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: Could my hon. Friend give us a little more information about the progress that is being made with the capital adequacy directive? Are we any closer to achieving the position in which small to medium-sized financial intermediaries in this country will be allowed to continue to provide the service that they provide at the moment, bearing in mind the fact that the position in other European Community countries is very different from that which has always prevailed in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is important for this country and for the European market as a whole that there should be a fair regime allowing independent financial advisers to carry out their important work. The United Kingdom Government have worked closely with the Commission to identify different categories of adviser for capital adequacy purposes, but we believe that their capital requirements should be related to the risks that they are running.
    Under the current draft, investment advisers will not be required to provide any capital for that purpose, but will still gain access to the passport. We are now working on the question of how much capital those advisers should have who also handle client money and arrange deals for clients. That is still an issue of contention in Community negotiations. My hon. Friend can rest assured that we wish
    290
    to see a flourishing independent financial advisory sector in this country and that we do not wish the directives to damage it.
    Ms. Mowlam: The Minister just said that he is keen that British competitiveness should be enhanced in the single market, so I am sure that he agrees that it will be enhanced if his Department acts swiftly and efficiently when dealing with fraud when it is based in the City. In that context, what has the Minister done about the problems and financial difficulties at Hamilton House, which have now been with us for over three years? More specifically, when did his Department last receive communications from the regulators on this issue and what did the Department do?
    Mr. Redwood: I do not intend to go into the details of individual cases across the Floor of the House in such sensitive issues. The hon. Lady knows that we are keen to pursue fraud and malpractice wherever it may be. It was this Government who introduced powerful new laws and regulations to do so and we have brought a number of cases to court for that purpose. We are seeing again today that Opposition Members are interested only in fraud and malpractice. That is not the way to represent the United Kingdom's financial services industry to the wider Europe.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that some European Community member states impose controls and restrictions on cross-border insurance services which are not necessarily in the interests of the policy holders and which, in the end, only reduce competition and increase prices?
    Mr. Redwood: As my hon. Friend says, there are a number of barriers in the insurance market. One of the points we are trying to get across in the early discussions on the possible directives is that there is no need to regulate product specification.
    The important thing is to regulate the solvency of companies and the fit and proper nature of those running them in carrying out the business. I hope that we have success in persuading our colleagues in Europe, because it is in the interests of all forward-thinking companies and customers in the wider Europe that maximum choice and competition is offered.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to boost manufacturing output.
    Mr. Leigh: The Government promote continued growth of manufacturing industry with policies such as reducing rates of tax on profits, privatisation, deregulation, elimination of restrictive practices, trades union reform and negotiations to reduce trade barriers through the general agreement on tariffs and trade and in the European Community. In addition, my Department continues to operate a range of schemes to improve business performance under the enterprise initiative.
    Mr. Battle: When the regional Confederation of British Industry and the Leeds chamber of commerce predict a bleak mid-winter for manufacturing as a direct result of the Government's policies, does not that suggest that those policies are not working? What practical action will the Government take to arrest the manufacturing decline in

    291
    Leeds? Will the welcome, positive developments in the finance, service and business sectors be at the expense of engineering, printing and textiles, and costed in rising unemployment in my constituency?
    Mr. Leigh: What a pity it is that Opposition Members always want to talk down British industry. They fail to say that, in the past decade, output in manufacturing has increased by a quarter, compared to what happened under a Labour Government, when it fell. This Government recognise that manufacturing output depends critically on profitability and competitiveness which, under the Government, are at record levels.
    Dr. Blackburn: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay a warm and generous tribute to manufacturing industry in the west midlands, which is still buoyant, particularly the hand-cut crystal glass industry, which is worthy of commendation?
    Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is a fine champion of British industry, particularly industry in the west midlands.
    Mr. Hoyle: If the Minister would reflect for a moment on his foolish remark that the Opposition are not concerned about manufacturing industry, he might realise that in the 1980s, 30 per cent. of it was destroyed by a Conservative Government and we are once more in a recession, with manufacturing industry going to the wall. Would not it be more positive if he were to make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce interest rates, which would give manufacturing industry the boost that is sorely needed under this Government?
    Mr. Leigh: It does not help argument in the House for hon. Members grossly to overstate the case as the hon. Gentleman has done. He failed to say that, in the medium term, the prospects for British industry are excellent clue to the completion of the single market and the creation of new markets in eastern Europe. He also failed to say—and I shall repeat the point because he clearly was not listening to my earlier answer—that, contrary to what Opposition Members would have one believe, manufacturing output has increased by a third under the Government. Moreover—I am happy to go on giving the Opposition statistics—manufacturing productivity and export volume are 60 per cent. higher after a decade of Conservative Government.
    Mr. Oppenheim:: Will my hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that all the simplistic interventionist formulae and subsidies were tried and failed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s? Will he remind them again that, the last time they were in power, manufacturing output fell, whereas in the 1980s, when this Government meddled less in industry, manufacturing output not only rose, but did so faster than in any other European country?
    Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes his point very well.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister confirm that manufacturing output is down by £.1·5 billion in one quarter? Will he also confirm that, with jobs losses in steel, aerospace and hundreds of small businesses, Britain has suffered a loss of 2 million manufacturing jobs under this Government? Why are the Government compounding
    292
    their high interest rate errors by cuts in training, technology and regional incentives? Now that we have a change of Prime Minister, what changes will there be in industrial policy?
    Mr. Leigh: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is happening to British industry. Overall, employment in this country is at record levels, with 27·5 million people in work.
    The hon. Gentleman talked about this year; I shall give him some more statistics, as he is clearly a glutton for them. In the first three quarters of this year, manufacturing output was still 25 per cent. up on 1980, and productivity is up considerably. Surely that is a record of which to be proud. It is important that we should not ditch our policies, as Opposition Members would, and that we persevere because they are the only policies that will result in keeping down inflation—the single greatest barrier to competitiveness in British industry and to creating real long-term jobs.
    Sir Hal Miller: Will the Minister confirm that, far from the Opposition's suggestions of a decline in engineering being true, the motor industry is increasing production to export and is planning to double productive capacity over the next three years? Will he and his right hon. Friend ensure that the industry's efforts are not frustrated by attempts in the European Community to limit exports of British-made vehicles to our Community partners?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. An interesting recent study shows that output in car manufacturing will shortly rise to a record level of 2 million—we can be proud of that. I certainly acknowledge my hon. Friend's point; as he knows, we make it vigorously to the European Commission.

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Uruguay round of the GATT talks.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is this week leading the United Kingdom delegation to the ministerial meeting in Brussels called to conclude the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. While the outcome remains uncertain and many difficult issues have still to be resolved, success is in our view essential to maintain and strengthen the multilateral trading system. We are working with our Community partners in Brussels this week to bring this about. The House had a debate on the Uruguay round on 23 November.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that every family in Britain pays an unseen and unauthorised tax of £15 a week to sustain agricultural subsidies so as to ensure that Christian Democrat and Conservative small farmers re-elect the same Governments in Europe? Will he have a word with the Secretary of State in Brussels and ask him to consider seriously the United States Government's proposals to reduce agricultural subsidies and support throughout the world, so that the bill paid by British families can be reduced?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's enthusiastic support for an open trading

    293
    system, because that is what we believe in. I hope that I shall have that same support if we start talking about textiles.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Is my hon. Friend aware that the common agricultural policy is the biggest single obstacle to the success of the GATT round? Does he agree that it is time to get rid of a policy that does not help the farmer and places an intolerable burden on every family in Europe?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend should recognise the fact that, although agriculture is important to achieving a successful outcome of the Uruguay round of the negotiations, it is not the only matter at issue. We hope that a flexible approach by the Community to the offer on the table, which is a good offer, will enable progress to be made on other areas of great importance, covering the whole range of exports of goods and services, which represent about a quarter of the output of British industry and commerce. All those elements can benefit from a successful outcome. If we concentrate solely on agriculture, we mislead ourselves as to what the round is about—but I agree that we must adopt a flexible approach.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As the objective of the European Community is that we all speak with one voice, does the Minister think that that should be seen to happen in practice, especially in negotiations in connection with GATT? Does he agree that the Government's decision yesterday to break rank with the rest of the Community is downright disgraceful? Will not that damage the interests of the United Kingdom's agriculture and weaken the Community's negotiating stance at these talks?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I do not recognise what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. He speaks about the need for the European Community to speak with one voice. As I am sure he is well aware, the Community is the negotiating party in the GATT round. Of course, I hope he will agree that before the Community speaks with one voice, it would be sensible for the members of the Community to discuss and agree what is to be said by the Community on their behalf.
    Mr. Favell: Does it strike my hon. Friend as ironic that the European Commission, which is supposedly dedicated to free trade, should be suggesting a common economic and fiscal policy and a single currency at the same time as its flagship, the common agricultural policy, is jeopardising the whole of the world's free trade? Goodness only knows what would happen if there were a common defence policy and the Community were in charge of sending British troops to war.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important for the Community to show that it is able to make progress on issues for which it has been responsible for a long time, such as agriculture, before taking on fresh responsibilities. I hope, and I know that my right hon. Friend who is in Brussels also hopes, that flexibility will be shown at the meeting that is due to take place in about two and a half hours. I hope that we will be able to make substantial progress across the whole range of subjects being discussed.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Given the importance of the world trade talks to many industries and services and the seriousness of a breakdown, will the Minister tell us
    294
    whether the Prime Minister has talked to Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand, or will talk to them at their joint meeting today, to see whether at the highest level a positive and constructive European initiative can be agreed in order to avoid deadlock?
    Mr. Sainsbury: As I have just said, there is a meeting at 6 o'clock Brussels time, 5 o'clock our time, of Trade and Agriculture Ministers of the Community. I have every hope that that meeting will cover the whole range of subjects being discussed. The Commission intends to put to the Ministers attending that meeting the progress that has been made. As a result, I hope that the Uruguay round will be able to go forward to a successful conclusion and that there will not be any damage to the prospect of a successful outcome because of a lack of flexibility in agriculture negotiations.
    Mr. Riddick: Textile manufacturers in my constituency and throughout the country are concerned about whether the Government are taking a sufficiently tough line on the negotiations over the phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government and the European Community will take an extremely robust line to ensure that export subsidies and tariff barriers, which are holding back British exports, are done away with? British textile manufacturers are not afraid of free trade as long as it is fair trade, but we need a level playing field.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that we very much recognise the importance to our textile industry of better market and export opportunities because it is a successful exporting industry. He invites us to take a robust line. We are doing that in seeking reductions not only of tariff barriers but of other obstacles, including the subsidies to which he refers, so that we can create a more level playing field.

    Shipbuilding
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his European counterparts to discuss shipbuilding.
    Mr. Leigh: My noble Friend the Minister for Industry represented Her Majesty's Government at the Industry Council on 26 November at which the seventh directive on aid to shipbuilding was adopted unanimously.
    Mr. Orme: Did the Minister on that occasion raise the question of Cammell Laird, a shipyard which is crucial to the economy of the north-west of England and to thousands of workers? Did he ask for intervention aid and raise that matter with the Commissioner? People in the north-west want to know what the Government propose to do about the survival of that shipyard.
    Mr. Leigh: The future for Cammell Laird is not strictly relevant to the seventh directive, but I will answer the right hon. Gentleman, because this is a serious and important point. We are lucky to have such a hard-working local Member as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), who has been doing tremendous work trying to help the company to find orders. I also pay credit to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who, as always, takes a positive and sensible view of such matters.

    295
    The problem with Cammell Laird, as the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) is aware, is that it was agreed that the shipbuilding intervention fund would not be available to Cammell Laird. We have been back to the Commission and argued the case on behalf of the company, but we received a firm no. Subsidies will not be available to the company. It would be counterproductive for me to offer any hope that the Commission is likely to change its mind.
    Mr. Frank Field: While we do not want the Minister to offer baseless hope, will he undertake to return to the Commission and specifically raise the matter of individual orders for which the company requests intervention fund backing? Does he accept that his negotiating position has changed as the negotiations on the seventh directive have progressed? At the beginning, it looked as though the Jobs in the naval yards were secure, but it now appears that the 22,000 jobs in the naval yards will collapse to just over 8,000. On that basis, in this last month of negotiations, should not the Minister go back to the Commission and argue the British case to defend those jobs? If he fails to do that, not only will Cammell Laird suffer, but the Minister will have locked the whole of British shipbuilding into further decline.
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman's first question was also put to me yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey. I am prepared to give the commitment that the hon. Gentleman asked for. I will go back and ask the Commission to waive the rule for particular orders, but I must be honest and say that, so far, Sir Leon Brittan, on behalf of the Commission, has given a very firm no. However, we will try again.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister assure us that the Government are not out of line with our European partners in relation to subvention for shipbuilding? Does he realise that the majority of our European partners would like to see subvention remain at about 20 per cent. for at least six months and then, if it must be reduced, have it reduced in a structured way and not by the massive 50 per cent. currently proposed?
    Mr. Leigh: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in these matters. Indeed, he is leading a delegation to see me this afternoon. We are anxious to help Harland and Wolff in every way we can. It would be unwise for me to speculate on the outcome of negotiations that are still proceeding on the automatic degressivity of shipbuilding aid—[Interruption.] For those not familiar with European jargon, degressivity is the year-by-year cut in subsidies to shipbuilding. I repeat what I said in the debate on shipbuilding—it is extremely unlikely that aid will be cut to below the 10 per cent. margin. It will be somewhere between 10 and 20 per cent.
    Dr. Godman: While the small Ferguson yard in Port Glasgow is thriving, principally because it recently signed an order with assistance from the intervention fund, the economy of the lower Clyde would be transformed if Scott Lithgow were allowed to compete successfully for orders for large ships. As that yard has been denied access to the intervention fund for more than five years, does the Minister recall the Commission's amendment, which he quoted the other day, to the effect that after five years a
    296
    shipyard may be given access to the intervention fund? Will the Minister give Scott Lithgow's case the most serious consideration?
    Mr. Leigh: We are anxious to help our manufacturers in any way we can and I should be happy to give the most serious consideration to Scott Lithgow's case, but the general position, as the hon. Gentleman hinted, is that the Commission is absolutely firm about the rule of up to five years. However, there may be more flexibility after five years and I am happy to take up the hon. Gentleman's. suggestion and go back to the Commission.
    Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the past the Commission has changed the intervention rules for specific orders. May I, therefore, warmly welcome the commitment that he has given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) to go back with a specific request for intervention funds for specific orders?
    Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the trade consequences of a military option in the Gulf.
    Mr. Sainsbury: None.
    Mr. Dalyell: With 300 Kuwaiti oilwells detonated, tankers in the Gulf Exoceted, some Saudi and Emirate production missile-eliminated, fire trenches described to many of us by General Colin Powell in a Committee Room last night as incinerated, and the use of nuclear weapons not excluded, what then happens when the price of oil is $120 per barrel on the Rotterdam spot market? How do Ministers reply to today's Oxford survey? What happens then if there is a military option?
    Mr. Sainsbury: All that is needed to bring about a peaceful resolution of the crisis is for Saddam Hussein to obey the United Nations resolutions and to withdraw. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The hon. Gentleman has made clear his concern about these issues on a number of occasions and he has been answered by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend reflected on whether a quick resolution would ensure that we returned to normal trade throughout the region? Have not the high prices brought about by the crisis reduced the consumption of oil and petrol and thus reduced the greenhouse effect that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is constantly talking about?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is aware that the trade consequences of what has already happened have been severe, especially on certain states in the area. The consequences of the rather volatile movements of oil prices are difficult to predict and we shall not know for a little while whether the good consequence of less oil being consumed and less sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere has been brought about. I am sure that the entire House shares the common concern that we should obtain a peaceful solution, but one which means that the United Nations resolutions have been obeyed.
    Mr. Cohen: Has not the Minister of State for Defence Procurement's denial of The Sunday Times Insight teams report been less than full and clear? Will the Minister——
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Why did the hon. Gentleman not ask that question when I was on my feet?
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister publish the full departmental minutes?
    Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who were trying to listen to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) had our hearing of it interrupted by a Minister of the Crown. Is it appropriate for a member of the Cabinet——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I was listening carefully to what the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was saying. I do not think that anything disorderly occurred. However, this matter was raised at some length on Monday.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister publish the ministerial minutes? Is it not wholly inappropriate for a Minister to be leading the war effort who facilitated, with a nod and a wink, the sale of weapon-making equipment to the Iraqis?
    Mr. Sainsbury rose——[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will do the pointing.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the proceedings of the House on Monday as they appear in Hansard, when I made a statement on the issues to which he is referring and when a number of questions were answered.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory non-reply to my supplementary question, I hope to raise the ecological consequences of the Gulf military option in a debate on the Adjournment.

    Shadow Directors
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received representations on the role of shadow directors as defined in the Companies Act 1989.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend asked about measures under the Companies Act. I have had several representations on related issues under the Insolvency Act 1986.
    Mr. MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is strong circumstantial evidence that a number of companies that are running into financial difficulties are being put into receivership because the banks involved are concerned about putting their own people into those companies because they might be defined as shadow directors under the Companies Act? But for that, those companies might have been saved. Will my hon. Friend assure the banks that they will not be prosecuted, provided that they are not involved in any wrongdoing?
    Mr. Redwood: I can give that assurance. Under the legislation to date, no banker has been successfully prosecuted for acting as a banker. Only one case has been brought under the legislation and that was withdrawn by the liquidator before being pressed to a conclusion. The
    298
    reasons for that are evident in the nature of the legislation, which states that the bankers must be doing more than offering advice in a professional capacity. The courts would have to examine the consequences of any action to determine whether it resulted in wrongful trading and whether it made the position worse.
    I assure my hon. Friend that it is not the intention of the legislation to frighten bankers who are acting properly, as bankers, in trying to rescue companies. Of course, such matters are subject to test in the court. I shall consider carefully the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Is there not another group of shadowy people actively trying to mislead and misrepresent their policies? What representations has my hon. Friend received about recent statements by shadow Ministers? Will he refer them to the appropriate regulatory authority?
    Mr. Redwood: I wish that there was adequate legislation to deal with that serious threat. It is of great concern that the Opposition make so many misrepresentations. They claim to be the friend of industry and commerce, yet spend all their time here running it down.

    Textile Industries
    Mr. Vaz: T: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on Government plans to assist the textile industries.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend is seeking to improve the protection of intellectual property and to strengthen the rules and disciplines of the GATT in a way that will benefit the textile industries.
    Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister aware that the British textile industry is in a deep crisis? Is he further aware that in the past six months, 3,500 jobs have been lost—including 85 at the Corals factory in Leicester last Friday? Is not the Government's policy of high interest rates and their failure to tackle import penetration having a dramatic effect on the future of the industry? Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, convene a meeting with the employers and the unions to fashion a strategy to save that vital industry before it is too late?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My many discussions with employers and unions, and my many visits within the industry, lead me to believe that the hon. Gentleman's description of the textile and clothing industry does not bear much resemblance to reality. He says that the industry is in a deep crisis, but its exports this year are 16 per cent. up on the same period last year and it is investing heavily. Naturally, we all regret job losses, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that many of the reductions in employment are the consequences of the very investment that we all want in the industry.
    Mr. Latham: As an unashamed Tory protectionist, may I press my hon. Friend about the textile industry in Leicestershire and also the multi-fibre arrangement? Will he make it absolutely clear that in no circumstances will Ministers allow the MFA to be phased out unless there are satisfactory alternative provisions under the Uruguay round?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that not only are we determined, as has always been the case, to ensure that strengthened rules and disciplines and better market

    299
    access accompany the phasing out of the MFA, but that the benefit of those strengthened rules and disciplines and of the tariff reductions in other countries should come into effect when the Uruguay round comes into effect, which we expect to be at the beginning of 1992. The MFA will be phased out over a longish period—just a little less than 10 years—so there will be benefits to the textile industry from the beginning.
    Mr. James Lamond: Now that the Minister has made it clear that the MFA is to be abandoned in the talks in Brussels and that the GATT rules are unlikely to be strengthened in the way the industry wants, will he take it from me that it is no use trying to suggest that criticism of the Government comes only from Opposition Members, when employees and employers alike have written condemning the Government for their lack of interest in retaining the textile industry, particularly the spinning end of it, in Britain?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I sometimes wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past four years—Glasgow, perhaps. If he has only just discovered the commitment that was made not just by Britain, and not just by the European Commission, but by all the contracting parties to GATT that—as part of the Uruguay round the—MFA would he phased out and textiles, like all other commodities, would be brought within the general rules of world trade, I wonder how much interest he really has in the industry.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that despite considerable improvements in production processes in the textile industry in Leicestershire, there is still a belief throughout the county that a 10-year multi-fibre arrangement is essential? Will he comment further on the threat to British markets of illegal subsidies in India and Pakistan, which is of particular concern?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern for the industry. A good example of the benefits of the Uruguay round is that newly industrialised countries that have been using subsidies, in our view improperly, have agreed to phase out those subsidies in the event of a successful outcome of the Uruguay round. That will be of great benefit to the textile industry and to industry generally. That is one reason why we are determined to obtain a successful outcome and a commitment to phase out the MFA is an essential part of that.
    Mr. Henderson: The textile and clothing industry trade association, the Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance, has expressed in a letter to all Members of Parliament its profound concern that the Government are trying to weaken the EC's position in the GATT and the MFA talks. Will the Minister today, in taking the robust line to which he referred earlier, allay those concerns by giving a clear commitment that any phasing out of the MFA will be conditional on a safeguard clause and new regulations on anti-dumping, the protection of intellectual property and reciprocity in terms of open markets in countries closed by excessive tariffs?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that we can be assured that the Opposition share our view that our economy and, indeed, that of the world, would benefit from a more open trading system—a view which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) clearly shares. I therefore hope that
    300
    they will support our objective of a successful outcome to the Uruguay round, which requires that we deliver on the commitment to bring trade in textiles within the general rules covering all other trade. As we have always said, that must be accompanied by strengthened rules and disciplines in the GATT system covering matters of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Waller: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the United States Government are left in no doubt about our attitude to the protectionism that they afford to their textile industry? Does he agree that tariffs of well above 30 per cent. not only act as a severe barrier to our exports but lead to the diversion of trade into our markets, which are far more vulnerable to dumping and other unacceptable practices?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that I personally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and all those negotiating on our behalf have made it clear to the United States that we regard it as unacceptable for a country such as the United States to shelter an industry behind tariffs as high as those to which my hon. Friend referred and that we also regard as unacceptable the offer that the United States has made so far for reducing textile tariffs.

    Weapon Components and Research
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new initiatives he plans on the international trade in conventional, nuclear, biological and chemical weapon components and research information.
    Mr. Sainsbury: We continue to work with other like-minded countries to take effective action to prevent the proliferation of missiles and nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and to control the export of conventional weapons. In the light of recent developments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided to extend the controls on the export of chemical weapons precursors and on chemical plant and equipment for use for chemical weapons purposes.
    Mr. Flynn: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he confirm that such measures have proved so successful in the past that if war breaks out in the Gulf British soldiers will be bombarded with howitzer and mortar shells manufactured using machinery exported from Britain, spied on by British-made radar, shot at by tanks travelling on British tracks, and attacked by missiles propelled by British fuel, all supplied to Saddam Hussein with the help and guidance of British Ministers? Can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that potential future Saddam Husseins are not even now being armed to the teeth by Britain?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I can give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that we have one of the world's strictest systems of controlling the export of defence equipment. Furthermore, we adhere strictly to our treaty commitments, which cover the export of nuclear material, and we intend to continue doing so.
    Mr. Conway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have effectively controlled export licences for goods which could be used for military purposes, to the

    301
    extent that that has had an effect on some companies in my constituency, which had export licences refused to them? Should not those who have evidence to the contrary seek recourse to the law—rather than knock British industry, as Opposition Members do, for cheap party political gain?
    Mr Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I assume from the attitude taken by some Labour Members that they would like to ban all defence exports, which would immediately put at risk, if not immediately destroy, at least 100,000 jobs.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: In view of the new-found confidence in the United Nations, which is shared by the British Government, will the Minister look with favour on the proposal, which has the support of Germany's Foreign Minister in particular, for the United Nations to maintain a register of all arms sales?
    Mr. Sainsbury: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that idea has been around for a long time. If such a scheme were to be effective, it would require universal adherence—and that does not yet seem to be obtainable.

    Insider Dealing
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he proposes to take in the light of the reaction to his consultation document "The Law on Insider Dealing".
    Mr. Redwood: The Government are currently considering the responses to the consultative document, and we will bring forward legislation when parliamentary time permits.
    Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that although insider trading is difficult to prove—as evidenced by just nine successful prosecutions in the past 10 years, not one of which attracted a prison sentence—we ought to strengthen the armaments against insider dealing by, for instance, introducing civil law penalties on the lines suggested by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry as well as by the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board, a remedy which is widely used in the United States?
    Mr. Redwood: I cannot agree that we have been unsuccessful in pursuing insider dealing in recent years. Out of 21 cases taken to court, convictions were secured in 12 of them, involving 14 defendants. The Government intend to prosecute any case in which good evidence exists. In sifting through the consultation replies, we shall take on board all sensible advice from whatever source. There may need to be a strengthening of our law in some respects, to bring it into line with the directive—which, for example, seeks to create an offence for insider dealing in Government and local authority securities, which is not covered by existing British law.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the panoply of legislation that the Government have brought to bear on the whole question of insider dealing and regulation of the City shows that the Government care about that area of activity and about regulating it properly, in contrast with the Opposition's lamentable failure to do any such thing when in office? Does he agree that the financial practices of the National Union of
    302
    Mineworkers, Liverpool city council and other Labour authorities give one no confidence that the Opposition would tackle the subject in the future?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. There are worries about financial probity in a number of organisations. The Government intend to use the full force of the law wherever they can do so to root out those malpractices. It is a sad testimony to the Opposition, who are always on about insider dealing, that when they had the power to bring proposals before the House, they did not do so. In contrast, the European directive was in large measure influenced by the legislation that the Government put through the House earlier in their period in office.

    Brewing Industry
    Mr. Bidwell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the Director General of Fair Trading on the implementation of Government regulations on the brewing industry.
    Mr. Redwood: The director general is monitoring compliance with the Supply of Beer Orders and he has not so far advised me that any change is necessary.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does the Minister realise that many people in the industry are worried about the apparent climb-down by the Government on the brewing industry question? Will the Minister ask the Office of Fair Trading to monitor what are known as swap arrangements in the industry, or is he too mindful of the brewers' donations to the coffers of the Tory party?
    Mr. Redwood: The director general has powers to monitor arrangements. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that he thinks the director general ought to see to help him carry out his task, I suggest that he sends it to him or to my office.
    Mr. Butler: With the closure of the largest regional brewer, Greenall Whitley, and with other regional brewers possibly following suit, is not something going very wrong with the structure of the industry? Should not the Monopolies and Mergers Commission reconsider the matter urgently?
    Mr. Redwood: The director general is keeping the industry under review and he also has powers to advise my right hon. Friend about any transaction or merger which he thinks might be damaging to the public interest and should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) has been doing an extremely good job for his constituency and the interests of the brewery there, and I have helped him to forward evidence to the director general, who will be advising us and my hon. Friend in due course.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of the steel industry.
    Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Steel whenever appropriate. Their last meeting was on 7 September and there are no plans for a further meeting at this stage. My noble Friend the Minister for Industry visited British Steel at Port Talbot last week.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister persuade his right hon. Friend to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the constructive alternatives being proposed by the work torte at Ravenscraig and Clydesdale? Is not it disgraceful that a man known as "Black Bob", because he has dug so many industrial graves, is refusing to meet the work force to discuss the future of the industry in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Leigh: Labour Members are always quick to talk down the management of British Steel. Perhaps we should consider the record of British Steel, which is now ma king a profit of £700 million a year, compared with an operating loss of £1·7 billion under the last Labour Government. It is not surprising that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow spokesman on trade and industry, said at the party conference that the British steel industry is now the most efficient in Europe.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I support the hon. Gentleman's plea for my right hon. Friend to meet the chairman of British Steel. Could he use the opportunity to persuade the chairman to offer the assets of British Steel in Scotland for sale to any interested party, as an integrated whole, before they are chipped away and destroyed under the current management of British Steel?
    Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend will know that: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that closure is a matter for the commercial judgment of the company concerned, and that remains the Government's position. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland asked the Scottish Development Agency to consider the implications of the closure for the work force. I mentioned the visit of my noble Friend the Minister for Industry to Port Talbot, and British Steel's record in terms of profitability. As my noble Friend is a helpful sort of Minister, he asked them, "What can I do to help?" The management said quite clearly, "Keep out of our business."
    Dr. Moonie: The Minister seems totally unconcerned that time is running out for the Scottish steel industry. Does he agree that the Government should step up the search for an overseas buyer for Clydesdale? Will he tell us exactly what Ministers have done to deal with the steel crisis in the six months since the strip mill closure was announced? Now that we have had a change of Prime Minister, is not it time for a change in steel policy—time for action rather than platitudes?
    Mr. Leigh: The steel policy that has been maintained by the present Government for 10 years has resulted in a company which 10 years ago was making a loss of £1·7 billion now making a profit of £700 million a year. Why should Ministers such as I be better at picking winners and deciding how to operate British Steel than the directors who have been so successful in turning British Steel into a profitable company?

  BILLS PRESENTED
    CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (PROTECTION FROM TOBACCO)
    Mr. Andrew Faulds, supported by Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mrs. Maureen Hicks, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. John Home Robertson, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Stever Norris and Mr. Roger Sims, presented a Bill to increase the penalties for the sale of tobacco to persons under the age of 16 years; to make illegal the sale of tobacco to such persons from vending machines; to require local authorities to enforce those provisions and publish reports; to prohibit the sale of unpackaged cigarettes; to prohibit the advertising of tobacco or tobacco sponsored events from retail premises; to require the publication of warning statements on cigarette packages and in retail premises; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
    PIG HUSBANDRY
    Sir Richard Body, supported by Teddy Taylor, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Gary Walker, Mr. Christopher Hawkins, Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Ron Davies and Mr. Matthew Taylor, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of neck and girth tethers on breeding sows; and to prohibit the confinement of breeding sows in narrow stalls: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January and to be printed. [Bill 20.]
    NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (COMPENSATION)
    Mrs. Rosie Barnes, supported by Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Frank Field, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Sir Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. Alfred Morris, Dr. David Owen and Mrs. Ann Winterton, presented a Bill to provide that persons injured, distressed or subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering during care by the National Health Service may be awarded compensation without having to prove negligence on the part of the National Health Service; to define eligibility for compensation; to establish a Medical Injury Compensation Board and to make other provision for the assessment of eligibility and payment of compensation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
    PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION
    Mr. Steve Norris, on behalf of Mr. John Bowis, supported by Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Mr. Roger Stott, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Mr. John P. Smith and Mr. Ian Taylor, presented a Bill to give certain bodies duties regarding information concerning public safety; to require the designation of a public safety officer by such bodies; to provide for the keeping of registers of such information; to provide for public access to that information; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 February, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
    BADGERS
    Mr. Roy Hughes, supported by Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Donald Coleman, Mr. Andrew MacKay, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. Paul Murphy and Mr. Gary Waller, presented a Bill to make provision for the protection of badger setts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 February and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
    COURTS (RESEARCH)
    Dr. Mike Woodcock, supported by Mr. Humfrey Matins, Mr. Roger King, Mr. Barry Porter, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Ian Bruce, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Michael Knowles and Mr. Gareth Wardell, presented a Bill to make provision for research covering the televising of proceedings in court; and for research concerning trial by jury; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 February and to be printed. [Bill 24.]
    ESTATE AGENTS (PROPERTY MISDESCRIPTIONS)
    Mr. John Butcher, supported by Sir Robert McCrindle, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Lewis Stevens, Mr. Douglas French, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Alan Williams and Mr. Austin Mitchell, presented a Bill to prohibit the making of false or misleading statements by persons carrying out estate agency business in connection with property transactions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March and to be printed. [Bill 25.]
    DOMESTIC SMOKE ALARMS
    Mr. Conal Gregory, supported by Mr. Stuart Bell, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Alistair Burt, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Douglas French, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Ian McCartney and Mr. Patrick Thompson, presented a Bill to require the installation and maintenance of smoke alarms in private dwelling houses; to provide for financial assistance in certain cases; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
    RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (ROAD TRANSPORT)
    Mr. Dudley Fishburn, supported by Mr. Neville Trotter, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Chris Butler, Mr. Matthew Carrington and Mr. Ted Garrett, presented a Bill to make new provision with respect to the transport of radioactive material by road; to repeal section 5(2) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1948; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
    REGISTERED HOMES (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. John Butterfill, supported by Mr. David Hinchliffe, Sir Peter Blaker, Mr. A. J. Beith, Sir David Price, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Sir Robert McCrindle, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. David Evans and Mr. Barry Field, presented a Bill to amend Part I of the Registered Homes Act 1984 so as to require registration in respect of small residential care homes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 February and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
    TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (ANIMAL TESTING)
    Mr. Joe Ashton, supported by Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. Stan Crowther, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mrs. Ann Clwyd and Mr. Andrew Bowden, presented a Bill to require an indication to be given if specified goods have been tested upon animals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 February and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
    CROFTER FORESTRY (SCOTLAND)
    Mr. Calum Macdonald, supported by Mr. Brian Wilson, Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Elliot Morley, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. James Wallace, presented a Bill to extend the powers of grazings committees in relation to the use of crofting land in Scotland for forestry purposes; and to make grazings committees eligible for certain grants in respect of such use: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 February and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
    ROAD TRAFFIC (TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS)
    Mr. William Cash presented a Bill to make new provision in place of sections 14 and 15 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 February and to be printed [Bill 31.]
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (PUBLICITY FOR AUDITORS' REPORTS)
    Mr. Michael Mates presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the furnishing or making of copies, and inspection, of auditors' immediate reports made under section 15(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
    EMPLOYMENT (UPPER AGE LIMITS IN ADVERTISEMENTS)
    Mr. David Winnick, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ron Leighton, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, Ms. Joyce Quin, Ms. Joan Walley and Mrs. Audrey Wise, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of upper age limits in the advertising of employment vacancies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
    MOTOR VEHICLES (SAFETY EQUIPMENT FOR CHILDREN
    Mr. Michael Jopling, supported by Sir Michael Shaw, presented a Bill to make provision in relation to safety equipment for children in motor vehicles: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 February and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

    CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY AND UNFITNESS TO PLEAD)
    Mr. John Greenway, supported by Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. David Bellotti, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. John

    307
    Cartwright, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. leuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Eddie O'Hara, Mr. Andy Stewart and Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the special verdict and unfitness to plead; to increase the powers of courts in the event of defendants being found to be insane or unfit to plead; and to provide for a trial of the facts in the cases of defendants found to be unfit to plead: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday I March and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

    WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Donald Coleman, supported by Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Geraint Howells, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, Mr. Martyn Jones, Sir Anthony Meyer, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Gareth Wardell, presented a Bill to amend sections 5 and 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 so as to make it an offence to cause or permit the commission of offences under those sections: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
    PARISH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION)
    Mr. Roland Boyes, supported by Mr. Kevin Barron, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. George J. Buckley, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Cecil Franks, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. David Knox, Mr. Keith Mans and Mr. Martin Redmond, presented a Bill to provide for greater access by the public to meetings of parish councils and community councils, and to certain documents and information relating to parish councils, parish meetings, community councils and community meetings; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 February and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
    AIRCRAFT (NOISE RESTRICTION)
    Mr. Terry Davis presented a Bill to make provision with respect to permissible noise levels of civil aircraft operating to and from airports in the United Kingdom; to place upon the Secretary of State a duty of licensing civil aircraft in respect of engine noise levels; to impose restrictions on civil night flying; to increase the extent and scope of noise insulation grants; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
OPPOSITION DAY
[IST ALLOTTED DAY]
OPPOSITION DAY

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Furthermore, in view of the large number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 and 8 pm. I hope that those who may be called either before or after those times will bear in mind that general limit.
  3.35 pm
  Mr. Brian Gould: I beg to move,
  That this House asserts that experience has shown beyond doubt that the poll tax is objectionable in principle and unfair and unworkable in practice; concludes that the problems it creates for local taxpayers and for local government cannot be overcome and are getting worse; notes the recent denunciation of the poll tax by many senior members of the Government including the new Secretary of State for the Environment; and urges the Government to have the courage of its changed convictions by recognising that the poll tax is beyond redemption and must be abolished.
  I begin by welcoming the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) back to the Dispatch Box and to his new, and perhaps resumed, responsibilities. I offer him a particularly warm welcome to that bed of nails, the poll tax. The right hon. Gentleman's appointment shows that the new Prime Minister, whatever his other qualities, at least has a sense of humour—to be fair, not grey but black humour—although the right hon. Gentleman may have difficulty in seeing the joke. The issue which he made the centrepiece of his election campaign and which was to sweep the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) to victory in the Tory leadership election has been used by his conqueror to shackle him to his failure. He is the first turkey trussed for Christmas this year—indeed, if it is not too indelicate to say so, a turkey stuffed on this occasion with a well-seasoned poll tax stuffing.
  The right hon. Gentleman nevertheless deserves some credit. He alone of all the senior Conservatives dared to tell the truth about the poll tax. His denunciations carried conviction because they were true. He had the courage, and he alone had the freedom, to speak out. Where he went, the others dared not refuse to follow. If it were not for the right hon. Gentleman, I have absolutely no doubt that we would still be faced today from that Dispatch Box with the same mealy-mouthed protestations about the poll tax's unfailing virtues. Less than a month ago, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor assured us that the poll tax review was over, that nothing more remained to be done. Once the right hon. Gentleman had dared to speak out, those deceptions could no longer be sustained. Even the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten)—now at least freed from the responsibility of defending the indefensible—has at last been persuaded to confess that the poll tax is a bomb which has to be unpicked.
  We cannot, however, be too generous to the new Secretary of State for the Environment. He discovered the truth, or at least decided to act upon it, very late in the day. He happily supported the legislation that inflicted the poll tax on Scotland. At no stage did he vote against the principle of the poll tax in England. During the 1987
  310
  election campaign, he made it clear that he would not criticise the poll tax on any occasion, thereby putting party advantage above truth and principle.
  Mr. Robert Adley: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his bit of fun. As one of those who voted against the poll tax on Second and Third Reading, and throughout, may I plead with the hon. Gentleman—it is a plea that I shall also make to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—to agree with me that income tax is not a controversial issue, that it is accepted to be a fair tax? Does he not think that we in this House, on both sides, could and should try to find a form of local government finance that is not a partisan matter—one that can be accepted and seen by the people of this country to be a fair and reasonable attempt by the House to establish an acceptable form of local government taxation?
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is interesting and constructive. It is a measure of the mess into which the Government got themselves that I believe that they are now incapable of pursuing the course that he rightly recommends. As I shall show, all the sensible options have now been excluded by senior members of the Government. The only sensible option—the one that we have adopted—is now the one least likely to be accepted, because we are there already.
  The new Secretary of State's record is patchy, but it is one of shining foresight and perception when compared with that of his right hon. Friend the new Prime Minister. From his earliest days in the House, the Prime Minister revealed himself as being among the strongest supporters of the poll tax. In government, he was deeply involved, as Chief Secretary and then as Chancellor, in the development of the poll tax from his membership of the Committee that first decided to abandon the phasing in of the poll tax in favour of overnight introduction, through his preparation of the package that fought off the revolt that might have carried the amendment of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). During an interview on "On the Record" he confirmed his intimate involvement in the most recent but now apparently inadequate fundamental review. Earlier this year, he was still at it, assuring a constituent that the poll tax
  "will be seen to be a very much fairer and more acceptable system."
  The right hon. Gentleman's only real attempt at fundamental reform came in his Budget earlier this year, but that was totally flawed by the fact that he forgot about Scotland—a recurring theme in the poll tax saga—and miscalculated the number of beneficiaries and the extent to which they would benefit. No wonder the Prime Minister has been a late convert to the idea that the poll tax is now indefensible. Even when the need to move in the quest for votes for the leadership became clear to him just a week or so ago, he revealed that he had very little idea of what steps could or should be taken. In an interview in the Daily Mail on 24 November he said, memorably:
  "I don't know what we'll have to do and neither does anyone else"—
  the smack of firm government if ever I heard it.
  The new Secretary of State has no such difficulty. His problem is a different one. He has no shortage of ideas but a superfluity of them. He is a man who believes six impossible things before breakfast. Ideas spin off the top of his head without thought, preparation or costing. They

  311
  are all mutually contradictory and unworkable and are all cheerfully abandoned in turn as new ideas occur to him. As the Prime Minister acidly observed:
  "reforms cannot be entertained until they have been prepared, examined, costed and considered."
  Those are all things that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to do. There is no such caution for the new Secretary of State.
  On 10 May, the right hon. Gentleman set out his stall in an ill-considered article in The Times. The ideas that he put forward on that occasion, including his revival of his 1981 peculiarity that there should be a referendum every time a council budget departs from the Government's view, were so bizarre that they were laughed to scorn. The right hon. Gentleman had to run for cover, and not a peep was heard from him for three months. When he finally resolved to enter the fray, surprise, surprise, he had a totally different agenda and a new set of ideas that were equally unworkable and ill thought out.
  Mr. Robin Squire: Will the hon. Gentleman put the matter in the context of the Opposition's approach, which, as he knows, has produced no fewer than 65 changes of Front-Bench opinion since spring 1987? Were all those proposals costed, too?
  Mr. Gould: I shall come to that a little later. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not unaware of the existence of the excellent document, published at the end of July, setting out our proposals and available from Walworth road at £1·50 per copy. It has been selling well.
  The real problem that the Secretary of State faces, however, is that each of his ideas has been categorically slapped down by the man who is now his leader. "Transfer education," he said, "from local to central Government." He suggested that on 14 November, but that idea was torpedoed by the then Chancellor two days later. He said:
  "Resources pre-empted by shifting education spending to central government could not be spent on health, pensions, defence or other proper claims on the public purse."
  The right hon. Gentleman needed not have bothered: the present Secretary of State had already provided the answer himself. In that same ill-judged article of 10 May, he had written that if such a step were taken,
  "the Government might find itself blamed for poor standards and income tax might have to rise."
  By 15 November, just a day after the Secretary of State had floated his ill-considered proposal, he was already backtracking, describing it as "a fallback position".
  What about abandoning the flat rate principle in favour of banding? The present Secretary of State has spoken in favour of it—indeed, he voted in favour of it. In 1988, the then Chancellor condemned that proposal as having
  "deep and damaging flaws that would introduce a whole range of unfairnesses and anomalies that could not be defended."
  What about the realistic grant settlement that the Secretary of State advocated in his article on 10 May? There was very little chance of that, I am afraid, when the Prime Minister was still at the Treasury. It was under his regime that local government was again short-changed by central Government grant. The burden is again scheduled to fall on poll tax payers and, as a consequence of that gap, the poll tax bills will rise comfortably—perhaps I should say "uncomfortably"—above the Government's estimate of their likely level.
  The problems that the Secretary of State faces do not arise solely from the fact that he has been systematically
  312
  contradicted by his own Prime Minister. He also has problems with his ministerial team. The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities was, we all recall, appointed to that position to act as a minder for the then Secretary of State. He was a member of the Stasi, in my preferred phrase—someone put there to ensure that there was no backsliding from the sacred principle. He alone still appears to have the courage of his party's former convictions. Less than two months ago, he was asserting to the Tory party conference—admittedly to a less than enthusiastic reception—that the poll tax,
  "far from being a vote loser, will be a vote winner and will launch us on a fourth term."
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is delighted to hear his words repeated. Just a month later, he was confidently assuring anyone who would listen that the poll tax "review is now complete", implying that all wrinkles had been ironed out and all the problems solved.
  The hon. Gentleman is not alone. It turns out that the new Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Salisbury (Mr. Key), is also a secret admirer of the poll tax. Just two days ago, he almost burbled with enthusiasm when he was asked whether he supported the flat rate principle of the poll tax. In response to the challenge from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), he made it very clear that he was nailing his colours to the mast of that sinking flagship. There is not much evidence in the ministerial team of reforming zeal or commitment to a fundamental review.
  But the Secretary of State's problems do not stop there. Contradicted by his Prime Minister, by other senior members of the Cabinet and by his own Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman has also succeeded in contradicting himself. On 10 May, he proclaimed that capping, as a solution to the problem of the poll tax,
  "would negate accountability and be an act of centralised political power outside our experience."
  However, just two days ago, in his first act in the House as the newly appointed Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Gentleman presented a Bill, for which he then proceeded to vote, which turned the capping screw down even tighter. What hope do we have of a little consistency or firmness of purpose from the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Tim Devlin: While we are on the subject of differences of view among colleagues, is the hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) refused categorically to defend the rating system during the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988? Since the hon. Gentleman has the Labour party's document with him, perhaps he can tell us from his little booklet—he does not tell us in the motion—Labour's preferred alternative to the community charge.
  Mr. Gould: I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to deal with the issue of the poll tax, since it seems likely to prove to be his nemesis when the general election comes. It is precisely because we recognise that the old rating system had some deficiencies—although they pale into insignificance by comparison with the poll tax—that we are proposing a fair, modernised rating system that is brought up to date arid made relevant to today's conditions.
  Mr. Ian Bruce rose——
  Mr. Gould: No, I shall not give way at the moment.
  I was dealing with the options that have now been closed to the right hon. Member for Henley. Where do we go from here? The right hon. Gentleman may yet surprise us all. He may have up his sleeve a solution that no one has yet thought of—a solution that will leave intact the principle of the poll tax, that will make no demands on public spending but will reduce poll tax bills across the board. As a very wealthy man, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman intends to pay everyone's poll tax bill himself.
  However, in reality, there is only one sensible solution. We know—because we have traversed this ground ourselves—that that solution is to restore a property-based tax, to bring it up to date and to make it fairer by linking it to the ability to pay. That is the solution that we advocate in this excellent statement in which we set out the details of our proposals. It enables us to do what the Government should have been doing all along. Instead of going off down the disastrous byway called the poll tax, we should have started with a system that we knew would work, brought it up to date, modernised it and made it fairer wherever possible and in stages.
  Incidentally, that solution appears to commend itself to The Times, which does not normally support the Labour party. It commends itself also to no less than Mr. John Chatfield, the chair of the Tory-controlled Association of County Councils, who said on 24 November:
  "elements of Labour's plan to abolish the poll tax and return to the rates could be an improvement."
  That solution also seems to commend itself to and to attract the support of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). It is that one solution——
  Mr. James Couchman rose——
  Mr. Tony Durant rose——
  Mr. Gould: No. I have given way enough for the moment; I want now to proceed with my speech, because many other hon. Members wish to participate.
  It is that one solution, set out in our fair rates proposal, which would require virtually everyone in the senior reaches of the Tory party to eat his words. It is for that single, bad reason——
  Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to make an intervention under the guise of a point of order, because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order in the House for an hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the point of order.
  Mr. Bruce: Is it in order for a Front-Bench spokesman to refer to a document that does not come from the House, as I understand it, is not in the Library and to which Hansard cannot refer? Should it not be read into the record?
  Mr. Speaker: Documents that are not in the Library are frequently referred to. I thought that I understood the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to say that the document was available for £1·50.
  Mr. Gould: Spurious points of order are always the last refuge of those who know that they are losing the argument. It is interesting that the Tory party, which for so long demanded to know our alternative, is now so embarrassed because we can show it a workable solution.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed rose——
  Mr. Couchman rose——
  Mr. Gould: I shall not give way any more.
  That one solution would require virtually everyone in the Tory party to eat their words, and for that single, bad reason, it is probably the one solution that is unlikely to be adopted. We shall have to wait for a Labour Government before sense can prevail. In the meantime, the Secretary of State is trapped. A Government who care nothing for the chaos and misery they have caused are at last compelled, by the need to save their own skin, to concede that they have made a terrible mistake. Every day that goes by makes that mistake more calamitous, but the Government and the Secretary of State cannot muster a single sensible idea between them about what should be done about it. They cannot even summon up the courage to face the truth: the poll tax is beyond redemption and must be abolished.
  The British people will not be fobbed off any longer with further promises of reviews and changes. The Government's policy means that there are always solutions tomorrow, but real and painful problems today. The British people will say, with justice, "The Government have had 11 or 12 years to get the poll tax right; we now know that the truth is that the poll tax will never be right." When the poll tax bills arrive next spring, that will be the final proof—if it is then needed—that the old problems still remain, nothing has changed and the Government remain too arrogant to recognise a mistake in prospect and too weak and divided to correct that mistake when it is brought home to them.
  The crisis becomes daily more urgent. The delays and confusion are crippling local government—not a matter that concerns the Conservative party very much. However, the uncertainty about what the revenue support grant should be and what further changes might be made in the poll tax make proper budgeting impossible and imposes an intolerable burden on local authority treasuries. Every day of continued confusion accelerates and exacerbates the already serious problems of collection that are crippling administrations in so many parts of the country.
  There is only one thing—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Pointing across the Chamber encourages rather than discourages disturbance. Let us settle down and listen to the debate.
  Mr. Gould: I intend to put the Conservative Members out of their misery promptly. They do not like to hear the truth, which is that there is only one thing that the Secretary of State should do to meet the poll tax crisis on his return to the Dispatch Box: commit himself and the Government to abolishing the poll tax and tell us clearly what is to be put in its place. Nothing else will do.
  3.59 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the Prime Minister and the Government for their decision to undertake a careful and fundamental review of the community charge; and deplores the fact that despite several unsatisfactory attempts, the Labour Party has failed to come forward with any clear or workable proposals of its own.".
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has described the Government's review of the community charge which he has invited me to lead as very thorough, very constructive and very fundamental. It is time to raise the whole tone of this debate—[Interruption.] I hope that the Labour party will not rule itself out of our continuing discussions.
  The debate is not about who pays how much in each local authority. The issues——
  Mr. Alexander Eadie rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: The issues involved far exceed the precise financial impact on particular groups or constituencies of this or that local tax. The heart of the matter is the future relationship——
  Mr. Eadie: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No.
  The heart of the matter is the future relationship between central and local government, and the relationship that local government will have in its turn with its local community, in the fullest sense.
  These relationships go to the heart of the sort of society that we have and want to have. I make no apology for putting that issue before the House. The question of the proper relationship between central and local government has lurked beneath the surface of policy making in successive Governments for the past quarter of a century. I believe that it is widely recognised that in those 25 years we have not been able to bring ourselves to look at the structure and finance of our local government as two sides of the same coin.
  Mr. Eadie rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: The time has now come to address both issues together.
  In seeking to improve standards, central Government have begun to change attitudes to the pursuit of value for money, significantly by the establishment of the Audit Commission, but Government have yet to see sufficient progress in raising the quality of services that many local authorities deliver. In advocating accountability, successive Governments have not dealt with the structural and functional weaknesses to make accountability a reality.
  We will not solve this problem unless we are prepared to recognise the proper partnership between the different parts of our democratic system——
  Mr. Eadie rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: —and my first purpose must be to try to bring that about. I shall begin with the Opposition parties.
  Mr. Gould: Before the Secretary of State goes off on a detour, perhaps he will save us all a great deal of time and
  316
  trouble by answering the single question that is in the minds of millions of poll tax payers. Will he now commit himself to abolishing the poll tax—yes or no?
  Mr. Heseltine: There is a certain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or No?"] There is a certain quaintness about the fact that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has not been able to answer any questions in three years, but he thinks that I will give him a yes or no answer in three days. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or No?"] Let me help the hon. Member for Dagenham and the Labour party.
  Mr. David Clelland: rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: I shall start with the Opposition parties. If Opposition Members could bring themselves——
  Mr. Eadie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is an experienced Member, and he knows that, as the Secretary of State has not given way, he must resume his seat. There is no point in persisting.
  Mr. Heseltine: If Opposition Members could bring themselves to do so, I should like to take this matter beyond the narrow bounds of party political conflict. The country wishes us to try to identify a stable and just basis for the future development of local government and the provision of local services. I should like to explore with the Opposition parties the extent to which we can establish common principles for the future role and direction of local government. [Interruption.] The country will not have lost sight of the fact that, when we offer to discuss these matters, all we get is baying and divisiveness. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate is of great interest not only to every hon. Member in the House but to many other people outside who may well be listening to it. If this din continues, they will not be able to hear it.
  Mr. Heseltine: What I could hear from the Opposition was not worth hearing.
  I hope that the Opposition will take my proposal seriously, because it might help them in a material way. If they were prepared to enter into dialogue, it might help them to clear their own minds about the answers to questions that have escaped them for so long. I hope that local authorities will recognise that they have an important role to play. They too must help to improve the climate in order to allow these essential developments to flourish.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Perhaps there was so much noise that the Secretary of State did not hear the question that was posed earlier. Will he answer yes or no about whether he will commit himself to the abolition of the poll tax? That is an easy question. Why does the right hon. Gentleman dodge it?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman clearly heard what I said. I said that, in our review, we wish to enter into a dialogue with Opposition parties to see whether we can find a basis of stability in our future relationships with local government.
  Mr. David Blunkett: So that we may be clear about the matter, will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to try to take the issue of the poll tax out of party politics and to go for a second review of both the tax and the structure of local government, even

  317
  though he knows that he has no intention of abolishing the tax? He has no permission to abolish it, on the very simple grounds that it would be the greatest U-turn in political history and a clear admission that we have been right all along.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that I am offering the Opposition the chance to contribute constructively to the establishment of a basis for stability within which local government can operate. It is quite apparent that the Opposition have no interest at all in constructive dialogue, because they can produce only negative proposals.
  I hope that local authorities will also recognise that they have an important role to play. They must help us to improve the climate. In the past, I have not been slow to criticise waste and inefficiency in local government. I make no apology for that, and that will continue to be an aspect of criticism. However, I have also paid tribute to the part that local government plays—and should play—in defining and giving expression to our quality of life.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham spent some time quoting speeches that I made when I was a Back Bencher. I am not sure whether he was wise to call in aid what Back Benchers say about their party's policies. If the hon. Gentleman listened to what his Back Benchers say about Labour's policies, he would realise that Back Benchers have a degree of freedom and discretion which is at the heart of our parliamentary democracy.
  I do not for one moment attempt to escape from the fact that I have been involved in these matters before. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have views that I have expressed, and they are on the record. I have always assumed that that is what Back Benchers are for. Today, as Secretary of State, it is my responsibility to start afresh; in doing so, I neither overstate the possible, nor deny the potential.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The Secretary of State may or may not be aware that the offer of co-operation was made three years ago, in Committee on the Local Government Finance Bill, when my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made the then Secretary of State for the Environment the same offer. He pointed out the dangers facing the Government, and we told the Government to forget the poll tax altogether. We said that they should take the Bill back and that we should look together at a proper system of local government funding. The Secretary of State's present offer is three years too late. Does his present offer of co-operation include the abolition of the poll tax if it is found to be at fault?
  Mr. Heseltine: My position is absolutely clear. We are conducting a comprehensive review, as defined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In that context, we rule nothing in and nothing out. In that spirit, I believe that the Opposition will come to regret their instant hostility to my offer.
  Mr. Malcom Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that my party believes that his philosophical approach is correct and that we must have a system for local government that will be permanent and which will last? Does he therefore accept that we would be willing to
  318
  discuss with him all possible options, provided he repeats that no options, including complete abolition, are ruled out?
  Mr. Heseltine: I made it quite clear that no options are ruled in and no options are ruled out. The observations of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) are a great deal more statesmanlike than the instant party, divisive views of the hon. Member for Dagenham.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I want to understand what is being offered to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a constructive dialogue. What is he actually offering? Is he suggesting all-party talks or that other parties join the working party? What is he suggesting exactly?
  Mr. Heseltine: We can all welcome the thinking man's contribution from the Labour party. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has suddenly spotted the trap into which the hon. Member for Dagenham fell from a million miles. My offer could not have been clearer. I am offering to consult the Opposition parties to see whether we can find a basis of stability for the relationship of this House with local government. That could not have been clearer, and it is recorded in Hansard.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for recognising that a variety of views are held by hon. Members who represent different Opposition parties on what should replace the community charge. My party has made that clear with our amendments and in our letter to him. Is the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a time scale for the completion of the dialogue to which he has referred?
  Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that that matter will be addressed in my speech as I make progress.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: First, I take the opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his return to the Government Front Bench. I can well understand his difficulty in answering the question yes or no, but surely he can answer with a yes or a no the question whether he will extend the poll tax. There still remains one party in Northern Ireland, the Conservative party, whose spokesmen want an extension of the poll tax. It is the only party left in the nation that takes that view. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will not extend the poll tax to Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Heseltine: I said that I rule nothing in and rule nothing out but I hope that the House will understand if I rule out the concept that the poll tax should be extended to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I welcome the Secretary of State's undertaking that nothing whatsoever is ruled out. It will obviously take time to examine such a broad scenario. Can he give an undertaking that, in the meantime, some assurance can be given to the beleagured poll taxpayers that some relief will come as from next April?
  Mr. Heseltine: I hear clearly what the hon. Gentleman says, and my answer is the same as that which I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to expand my speech, I think that he will find that these matters will be thoroughly covered.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State has now given way to all the minority parties in the House. I think that it would now be wise to get on with the debate. Hon. Members will have an opportunity later of expressing their views if they are called.
  Mr. Heseltine: I think that the House will feel that I have tried to reflect the interests of the House. If I give way further I might be trespassing on what I have to say later. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) might have a small part to play in what I have to say.
  Mr. Gould: I have been listening carefully to the Secretary of State. He appears to be saying that he and his party are now so bereft of ideas that they are prepared to come a-begging and to ask others whether they might be prepared to help. As we have already developed a fully worked out position, I am prepared to make a counter-offer, from a position of some strength.
  If the right hon. Gentleman would care to talk on the basis of an agenda on which the abolition of the poll tax is the first item, and a proper consideration—with the help of the civil service and the Government's computers—of our alternative is the second item, I am prepared to make available to him, free of charge, our fully worked out proposal. I make a further offer. If the right hon. Gentleman recognises the merits of what we propose, we shall support him in any Division that takes place over any legislation that he brings forward to implement our proposals.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an additional copy of his party's policy. It contains only one fact—the price, and that is too high. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a new record. He has been the proud possessor of the ability to move from policy position to policy position at three-day intervals. He has now done that in about three minutes. Having rejected what I have been saying, he now realises—with the assistance of his right hon. Friends—that I was actually giving the Opposition the most generous opportunity that they have ever been offered.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: I think that I should continue arid say something more about my attitudes towards dealing with the matter.
  I yield to no one in my belief that central Government must exercise their mandate; that in the end, power lies in this House. Indeed, all Governments insist that the mandate upon which they were elected should prevail. The Labour party must learn to accept that in opposition, just as surely as they have always accepted it in government.
  Certainly, no Chancellor of the Exchequer can tolerate a challenge to his authority to manage the economy with prudence and discipline. No Secretary of State can turn his back on inadequate standards simply because they are administered by a local authority. Indeed, I would go further—I do not believe that this House would have legislated to share so much of its responsibility for financial prudence or for the quality of services if it had believed that local authorities would claim the right to frustrate or undermine the mandate of central Government.
  320
  I have made as clear as I can my belief that, with the authority of Parliament, the will of Governments must prevail. However, that clear statement does not and should not close the options for a partnership with local government that provides for civic pride and local initiative; nor should it close the potential for men and women to have their desire to serve their community fully satisfied within their own local authority; nor should it divert our attention in Parliament, or outside in local government, from the responsibility to deliver quality of service and value for money, without which it is the nation and its people that pay an unacceptable price.
  I believe that now, far more than appeared possible 10 years ago, the importance of partnership is recognised. For all the rhetoric, and despite all the difficulties in the relationship between central and local government, there is a sense of partnership and co-operation in our inner cities, very much satisfying the aspirations that I held years ago. Despite all the tensions of the past 10 years, central and local government are now able to work together to regenerate some of our worst urban areas. Local authorities throughout the country, of all parties, have accepted the vital role of the private sector in economic revival——
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman is saying a great deal about partnership and the role that he wants to be developed between national and local government. Would he care to reflect on the fact that, when he was previously Secretary of State for the Environment, the amount of central Government expenditure as a proportion of total local government expenditure fell from 61 per cent. to 52 per cent., and that over the same period there were education cuts of 16 per cent.?
  Mr. Heseltine: Those figures are not immediately in my mind. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, when his party was in government, the collapse of local authority council building was imposed upon them by the International Monetary Fund. The reason why our waters and our sewers are in such a state today is that the Labour Government slaughtered the capital programmes. It is nothing short of hypocrisy for the right hon. Gentleman to try to deny what his Government were forced to do by the profligacy of their economic mismanagement.
  I repeat what I profoundly believe—that, despite all the tensions of the past 10 years, central and local government can now work together to regenerate life in some of our worst urban areas. Local authorities are working together. Local authorities which told me 10 years ago that the message of involving the private sector was unacceptable are now at the forefront in their plans to do exactly that.
  In all our big cities, there are now collaborative projects which show the right way ahead. The Birmingham Heartlands initiative is bringing together the city council, a number of private companies and central Government to regenerate east Birmingham.
  In St. Helens on Merseyside, Ravenhead Renaissance is a consortium of private sector companies and the local council. With Government support, it is regenerating a large rundown area of the town.
  Mr. John Evans rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: In Newcastle, the Cruddas park project to regenerate two council estates grew out of a private

  321
  sector initiative. In Glasgow, there is a striking example of the transformation that can be achieved when central and local government work in partnership with the private sector. If hon. Members doubt the success of that partnership, I urge them to go to Glasgow and see for themselves what is being achieved by partnership between local authorities and the private sector.
  Mr. John Battle rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: There is now a range of co-operation in the network of enterprise agencies giving advice and support to small companies. The Groundwork Trust is using the enthusiasms of the voluntary sector, the enterprise world and local authorities to clean the rural fringe in many of our older towns. [Interruption.] The nation will be dispirited by the Opposition's total indifference to all those major advances.
  Mr. Thomas Graham rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: For a century, the Opposition have shown a deep embittered resentment at any constructive attempts to bring new life to the inner cities. They have a vested interest in talking down the success of Scotland. Time and time again, when they get the opportunity, they shout down anyone with whom they disagree.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: I take a wholly more optimistic view. There has been a change of culture in Britain. Just as the flow of private sector cash into urban renewal has followed from the Government's initiatives, there is now a widening range of opportunities in our run down areas.
  It is not simply a question of urban renewal. My Department has to deal with environmental issues. The entire nation is preoccupied with the view that we should develop an international presence in environmental matters. It is gravely damaging——
  Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.
  Mr. Wilson: It is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the debate is entitled "Abolition of the Poll Tax". It is not an opportunity for a tour d'horizon to cover the five years during which the Secretary of State has been out of government. May we have your guidance on whether the Minister should address himself to the subject of the debate?
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Order Paper, he will see that the Secretary of State is moving his amendment, and that is what he is addressing himself to.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed, in what I hope will be good order, I should add that many of those hon. Members who are seeking to intervene are the very same hon. Members who are seeking to participate in the debate. It will be difficult for the Chair to call them if they seek to delay the proceedings in this way.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. As there was no point of order, the hon. Member cannot raise anything further on it.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: It is really not good practice to seek to intervene in a speech by making a point of order, but I will allow the hon. Member to do so on this occasion.
  Mr. Home Robertson: You, Mr. Speaker, drew attention to the fact that the Secretary of State is speaking to his own amendment, which is all about the poll tax. His comments about urban renewal and the international perspective are fascinating stuff, but they have nothing to do with the business before the House.
  Mr. Speaker: Every right hon. and hon. Member has a right to make points in his own way. I have heard nothing that is out of order. If the hon. Member will examine the Government amendment, he will clearly see that the Secretary of State was perfectly in order.
  Mr. Heseltine: It is inconceivable that one could address the subject of financing local government by whatever means and not be preoccupied with local government structure or the quality of the services for which the money is to be raised. I am glad that, despite the Opposition's totally artificial and almost irrelevant attitude, local Labour councils know that they must co-operate with central Government in the ways to which I referred.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: At the moment, no. The hon. Gentleman does not even pay his poll tax.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the way that he has presented the review, which provides for open and honest consultation, the electorate and others outside the House who are watching this debate will not understand artifically imposed conditions on his offer of discussions, designed to avoid councils participating in what many of them accept is an absolutely necessary reform of local government finance?
  Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The general public will understand exactly the role that the Labour party is playing this afternoon. I greatly regret it, because from my talks with councillors of all political persuasions, I know full well that they want stability. They want to know the nature of the relationship and that it will stretch into the future. The Opposition are trying to frustrate a genuine attempt to find a constructive way forward.
  I must refer to one more area in which co-operation is essential in the national interest. Local and central Government have an inseparable role in attracting inward investment—discretionary and footloose—to depressed areas of Britain where jobs need to be created. That will not happen if an alien atmosphere is created by Labour for party political reasons.
  In all those matters, it is increasingly obvious that a new relationship is emerging between local and central

  323
  Government. Local authorities are beginning to perceive and come to terms with their new strategic role as enabling authorities, as opposed to providers of all services. All that is fostering a new spirit of co-operation at local level, as private companies compete with local services, as owners intermingle with tenants, and as parents and teachers play an increasing role in school management. All those trends are to be welcomed, and are characteristic of the change in attitudes that occurred under the premiership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
  The 1984–86 review of local finance, which led to the proposals for the community charge, concerned itself very much with the issue of accountability. It explored the mechanisms of central funding, which produced local tax rates, which bore little relation to local spending decisions. It found that, in many areas, only a minority of voters contributed to the cost of local services, and it found that in some areas much of the extra cost of services was met by those without a vote. That situation had to be addressed.
  In practice, under our previous arrangements, many who consumed the local services were paying relatively little or nothing for them. That is why there has been a broad measure of support for the simple idea that nearly everyone should make a contribution to the cost of the local services that they consume. It is not that principle which has caused difficulty.
  One thing that I have always made absolutely clear is that there is no quick fix for this problem. For next year, my predecessor announced some important proposals, which will significantly improve the financial position of local authorities and local charge payers. I am now considering the response to the consultation on those proposals. I will place the statutory reports before the House in the light of those comments, once colleagues have considered the matter.
  As all right hon. and hon. Members know, there is no prospect whatsoever that a final answer can be designed, passed through Parliament and implemented in under a two-year time scale. A complete solution may require a longer time scale. That is a matter of hard reality. But: that is not an excuse for procrastination or delay. The issues involved have been explored many times. I must keep open, however, a proper sense of timing. Our review could well identify a programme, divided into quite different time perspectives. It may well be that what is required is a programme of building blocks, constructed logically and carefully towards a clearly defined objective.
  In the context of such a review, it is obviously right to explore why it is that the ambitions originally set for the community charge have not found the necessary degree of public support and understanding.
  An argument which is much advanced is that, if the charge had been introduced at a lower level, its underlying principles of accountability and broad coverage of most of those who benefit from local services might have been more readily accepted. We shall consider whether that is true; but there is one truth which cannot be avoided. Local authorities as a whole increased their spending by nearly 13 per cent. this year—and by nearly a quarter in only two years. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that local authorities have sought to use the turbulence of the changeover to mask their spending increases and to pass the blame on to others.
  There is another truth. The law is the law. Bills legally issued under the authority of this place must be collected.
  324
  There can be no dining a la carte with the law of the land. I want to say just a brief word to Opposition Members who hold to the constitutional novelty that they are the arbiters of what is legal and what is not, and particularly that they are justified in refusing to pay. I cannot abide the concept that many on low incomes from limited savings in their twilight years—[Interruption.] Of course the Opposition do not care, but we care. I cannot abide the concept that such people should be expected to pick up the tab for those who are elected to this House in the name of the world's foremost parliamentary democracy, and then claim a bogus veto over the mandate of the people. It is neither moral nor fair; nor is it constitutionally justified. The Labour party would never tolerate it from us if we were in opposition, and it is unforgivable that they should allow it to themselves in the present context.
  Mr. Nellist: Is it not a fact that, had it not been for the 14 million who have yet to pay the poll tax, the Secretary of State would not be here this afternoon announcing a review suggesting changes or possibly abolition? Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about people on low incomes, why—despite his announcement of a two—year review-is his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security still imposing on every local authority in the country a £100 million cut in the Government payments made to them to provide rebates for the lowest paid? He is cutting those Government rebates from 97 per cent. to 95 per cent.
  Mr. Heseltine: As the hon. Gentleman knows, one in four people receive a rebate. He has asked the wrong question: the question for the House is whether, by majority decision, we create the legislation that governs the country, or whether the hon. Gentleman's entrenched bigotry imposes a veto on what the majority of us decide here. But it is not just a question of the hon. Gentleman's having a veto; it is a question whether a large number of people who are a great deal less well off than he is should be expected to pay for his self-indulgent hypocrisy.
  We are determined that the taxes that we advocate should be seen to be fair, and the British public must be persuaded that the arrangements proposed at the conclusion of the review will be fair. Our priority must now be to address their concerns as fully as possible.
  Our second priority is to put the relationships between central and local government on a healthier footing—to replace conflict with partnership, preferably within a widely accepted consensus about their proper roles. This is not a debate about complete localism or complete centralism; a myriad of options lie in the middle ground. Some we may be quick to implement, while others will take longer. The task now is to identify what is available, and what will serve us best in the long term. That is why the Government have decided to include in its review issues of structure alongside issues of finance. If we can resolve those matters, there is, I believe, a chance for a new, constructive phase in the development of local government.
  In all my consideration of these difficult issues, I cannot escape the fact that some of the greatest moments in British history have coincided with the times of resolve, civic pride and municipal initiative in our great towns and cities. I am therefore determined not to set a rigid timetable for our review. I cannot anticipate what agreements can be found; I can only promise to listen with

  325
  care, to decide, with my colleagues, on the way forward once our review is complete, and then to act with determination. That is the responsibility of Government, and the responsibility that we shall discharge.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Joe Benton: On the occasion of my maiden speech, let me first thank those hon. Members who have extended a welcome to me, proffered all sorts of advice and helped me to settle in. I truly appreciate that.
  Let me also pay tribute to previous Members of Parliament for Bootle—Simon Mahon, Allan Roberts and Mike Carr. I fully appreciate that I follow a long line of Members who were devoted to the Labour movement and to the people of Bootle. I pay particular tribute to my immediate predecessor, Mike Carr, who, very sadly—as we all know—spent a very short time among his colleagues in the House. In that short time, however, he endeared himself to the people of Bootle by showing such diligence, concern and general good feeling towards them. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to reiterate their sympathy and condolences to Mike's wife Lynn, his family and his parents.
  In his maiden speech, Mike paid particular regard to education and training. Let me say, on behalf of the people of Bootle, that he was right to do so. I do not wish to be controversial, but Bootle is a classic example of the deterioration of our modern society over the past decade.
  Bootle contains a wonderful collection of young people—witty, sparkling, exuberant and full of life. However, the ravages of unemployment have dulled that sparkle, and those young people are now wandering around aimlessly. It is not uncommon now to meet people in my constituency who have had no experience of a working life, despite being in their mid or late twenties. This is a tragedy for this country's economy—but, more important, it is a tragedy for the people themselves, who cannot feel positive and part and parcel of the society and the community to which they belong. That is the real tragedy.
  I believe that any Government, of whatever complexion, must apply themselves to the problem. A Government who do not recognise the needs of their young people are doomed to failure in any event.
  Bootle has many problems. At least 50 per cent. of the adult population receive some kind of state benefit. That seems a remarkable statistic, but it is true. It demonstrates the absence of an economic miracle on Merseyside. I must make that point, because I am here to plead on behalf of the local people. I am also here to plead on behalf of the 2,000 people in Bootle who are waiting for homes, and the 7,000 in the metropolitan borough of Sefton. All those people face very difficult problems.
  It is fortunate that I should be making my maiden speech on the day when we are debating the poll tax. I must agree with what some of my hon. Friends have said: I have heard little evidence from Conservative Members of any discussion about the matter. I am sorry about that, because, on top of all its other problems, Bootle has a problem with the poll tax—not because anyone wants deliberately to confront the law, but because people are genuinely unable to pay.
  A remarkable conflict is taking place in homes throughout Bootle, of which I have first-hand experience:
  326
  law-abiding parents are trying to prevail on their children not to break the law. Meanwhile, the old and the sick must rely on friends and relations to pay their contribution for them. It is inconceivable—it is un-Christian, and a scandal in a modern society—that people should have to condition themselves to live in such a fashion.
  I still do not know what the Conservative party's intentions are regarding the poll tax. By the time we vote tonight, I hope that I shall be clear about that. Only one course will resolve the problems in Bootle and elsewhere: the utter and outright rejection and repeal of the poll tax and its replacement by something that takes into account people's ability to pay so that they can be treated with compassion and concern. I believe that that is what the Labour party's alternative to the poll tax proposes.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Robin Squire: It is a particular pleasure and honour to follow the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton), who has just made an excellent maiden speech. The tradition that maiden speeches should not be controversial has undergone change, even during the relatively short time that I have been a Member of Parliament. I do not suppose that any of my right hon. and hon. Friends would have expected the hon. Member for Bootle to be other than forthright in setting out the issue as he sees it, and we appreciate that. I am sure that he will be advised by his colleagues that the next time he speaks he may not be listened to in silence, as happened on this occasion.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House will join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute not just to one predecessor but, sadly, to two within the same year. A most unfortunate series of circumstances hit Bootle. Although few of us got to know the hon. Gentleman's immediate predecessor, I worked for a number of years alongside Allan Roberts on housing issues. Whatever may have been our differences of view, I was never in any doubt about the clear and honest way in which he viewed housing issues. He did his bit to try to improve our understanding and knowledge of them. I welcome the hon. Member for Bootle to the House. We look forward to hearing from him on future occasions.
  I should also welcome, albeit now in his absence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) back to the Treasury Bench. He is perhaps the best qualified among us to deal with the subject. He will probably find that things have changed in the Department of the Environment since he was last there. Green issues overwhelmingly dominate discussions in the Department, subject only to the issue that we are discussing today. He is well qualified, as an evangelical speaker, to be Secretary of State for the Environment.
  If I have any criticism of my right hon. Friend, it is that he was too generous to those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench, taking into account everything that has happened since the 1987 general election. As I said in my intervention, there have been no fewer than 65 changes of position or argument by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go into each of them. but I have the information here. They include a local income tax, a roof tax, a combination of both, a floor tax, a supplement on national income tax and a return to the rates—the one tax

  327
  that, above all, the Opposition were convinced had to be abolished. For a Labour party supporter it has been a grim journey.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was long on introduction and on peroration but there was a predictable absence of anything in between the two. Nevertheless, the Opposition had the cheek to bring this motion before the House today. In their 1988 policy document on local government finance, they say that rateable values are mystifying and
  "out of date, giving rise to all sorts of anomalies."
  Despite that, we know what their policy is. In case that be thought to be a purely Conservative viewpoint, may I quote from the Local Government Chronicle, a well-respected local government paper, which on 12 October said:
  "The end of poll tax would be popular. But its replacement looks expensive and to be as ephemeral."
  The debate, however, provides us with an opportunity to debate the issue at precisely the right time.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley has already set out how open-minded he is. I trust that, after second or third consideration, Labour Members will recognise the advantage of contributing to that open-minded and open-ended discussion. No one party or any one Member of Parliament can claim to be all-knowing in this area. Far too many other alternatives and options have been offered for us to believe in such a thing as perfection.
  I was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment in 1982 when it considered the possible replacement of the domestic rating system. I chaired the sitting that drew up the Select Committee's recommendations, so I bear a heavy responsibility. The Committee said that there was scope for improvement of the domestic rating system, but it rejected wholesale reform. The Committee persuaded the Government of the day to go along with that proposal, but a few years later the Government of the day had other views.
  When the community charge first surfaced in 1986 in a Government Green Paper, I made two central objections to it. They are worth reiterating. The first was that, for about 75 per cent. of the population, the community charge would not be related to ability to pay. Secondly—this has turned out to he just as important—there was no consensus for change. Those two criticisms remain.
  To take up a suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley, I intend to split what I am about to say between what I believe to be important short-term changes and long-term strategic change. I fully accept that we are not talking about the abolition of the community charge during the next two years. That idea has to be nailed straight away lest hon. Members should proceed on a false premise. Nevertheless, some helpful changes could be made that would improve the present system while the possibility of long-term strategic change was discussed, as suggested by my right hon. Friend.
  We must accept that the existing rebate system must move further up the income scale. I know that some of my hon. Friends will put to me the problems that are associated with the poverty trap. I find it difficult to accept that apprentices earning £75 or £80 a week should be expected to pay the full community charge. My right hon. and hon. Friends could quote other cases that damage the operation of the community charge, even in the eyes of those who are its keenest supporters.
  328
  I am also worried about the fact that one-income households are denied the opportunity of a rebate for the non-earning spouse, who is not always the wife. I am open-minded as to what proportion of the community charge should be paid, if it is suggested that full eligibility for rebate ought to be denied. We must, however, offer something if the community charge is to gain wide acceptance, particularly among people with relatively modest incomes. I am also concerned about the elderly who live with their relatives. There is justifiable concern about the impact of the community charge upon them.
  Let me highlight two important matters. The first concerns the existing system and the other relates to the old rating system. It is possible to envisage a long-term solution by means of which a flat-rate charge of £100 or £150 is paid by every adult over the age of 18. With a flat-rate charge of that kind, people may ask whether a rebate system is needed. However, it would take account of what many people have discovered: that there is support for the concept that everyone should pay something. Such a system would recognise that everybody ought to pay something. It also recognises that, although some 60 years ago there was usually one wage earner in a family, there are now often two, three or more wage earners all enjoying local authority services.
  I shall not go into detail about the idea of a property tax, but recent research by the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation and the Institute of Fiscal Studies showed that there is a 90 per cent. link between the value of people's homes and their incomes. I know that there are exceptions and problems such as widows living alone, but there is a considerable correlation. The research said:
  "The old domestic rating system, which included rebates to the poor, was closely related to ability to pay, despite claims to the contrary."
  As colleagues know, the cost of assessing and collecting the tax is much lower—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear some support from the Opposition, but the research went on to show that the
  "administrative and economic costs would be higher under the Labour party, which plans to impose higher rates of property tax on higher income groups."
  I am simply pointing out that it is an approach which means that everybody pays something, while retaining a rebating system for the property tax element.
  I have always thought that a property tax plays an important role in encouraging a more effective use of property and encouraging movement of small families to smaller properties. I see no harm in that. Almost in contradiction to that, I notice that a survey in March this year showed that only 6 per cent. of those surveyed thought that payment for local government services should be restricted to ratepayers alone. I agree with that, and that is why I have put forward my proposal for a two-tier system.
  On structure, there is a growing move across the House towards single-tier local government and a reduction in the number of local authorities. I am looking closely at the suggestion made by several people, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, of a directly elected mayor to run local authorities. A higher profile for a prominent local councillor might reduce the amount of correspondence to hon. Members in the mistaken belief that they are also councillors.
  I have tried to keep my speech short, because many hon. Members want to contribute. However, I must mention consensus. For some reason, my right hon.

  329
  Friend the Secretary of State did not consult me, so I prepared my speech in advance of knowing what he would say. As The Times pointed out, with the present disagreement across the House and within each of the parties, there is great advantage in hon. Members on both sides being prepared to say, "Yes, we could look at something on which we could reach about 90 per cent. agreement."
  There will always be scope for disagreement on the rate of a tax, whether it is income tax or some other tax. However, with a tax of this importance, raising revenue of the size we are talking about, there should not be the sort of divisions that we have seen over the years. In part, that stems from what I said some time ago, which is that the abolition of the original system did not follow broad consensus and nor did the policy adopted to replace it. We can see that more clearly now. I do not want us to repeat that mistake, and I do not think that there is any need to do so. There are sufficient areas of disagreement between the parties over this and a range of other issues to allow for the disagreements to continue but for some consensus to emerge on the intelligent way to fund local government in the 21st century. I do not think that it will be as we are funding it now.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Like the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) on his maiden speech. As has already been said, it was forthright and direct. I have some knowledge of Merseyside, having spent some of my early life there, and I understand his concern about what has happened there and the severe scale of the problems that exist. He demonstrated clear and deep local knowledge and a commitment to ensuring that the issues are brought before the House. I commend the way that he did that, and look forward to hearing from him further.
  I welcome the approach taken at the outset by the Secretary of State. He is right to say that local government finance is of paramount importance. Given that the Government, whether by force or humility, now recognise that the current system is unsatisfactory, it behoves all parties in the House to seize this opportunity in a constructive spirit and to reach a settlement that will last not for five years but for 50. I can say on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that we will be willing to become involved in constructive dialogue and hope that all options will be taken on board. The Secretary of State made it clear than no option was ruled out. We do not believe that, in those circumstances, preconditions for talks are required. The talks have been set out as an open proposition.
  I am concerned that there is a suggestion from both sides of the House that we might return to the rates or some variation on them. Many of us have been through that hoop many times and have heard all the speeches about why rates were unfair. Those who think that they want to stand in front of the British public and defend the reintroduction of the rating system will have a lot of egg on their faces, probably literally, not just metaphorically.
  Also, the suggestion has been mooted in one or two quarters that local government finance should be replaced by a levy on VAT. I hope that that will not be pursued. It
  330
  is not the right connection between local services and local accountability. Also, it would be inflationary and would fall unevenly.
  In the context of our amendment, I shall return to the view that a local income tax has a great deal to commend it. I hope that that option will be given clear, fair and objective analysis by the Government and the Secretary of State. I promise that I will not say it again but, during the leadership contest, the Secretary of State was asked why, if he was in favour of banding the poll tax, he would not acknowledge that the way to achieve it would be to introduce a local income tax as suggested by the Liberal Democrats. His reply was that he was not a Liberal Democrat.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that is not the best reason for rejecting a policy option. It should be considered seriously and in depth. It comes not just from the Liberal Democrats but was a recommendation of the Layfield committee. It works in many other countries, and we will enter into a constructive dialogue about that.
  Mr. John Maxton: It is a myth that the Layfield committee proposed a local income tax. It did nothing of the sort. It was strongly in favour of a property tax. It suggested that, in the longer term, one might replace some of the rate support grant with a local income tax. In other words, Layfield suggested as a long-term measure that one might have dual system of taxation, both property and local income tax.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that the Layfield committee was addressing the issue in the context of the technology available to it at the time. It made it clear that a local income tax was a developing option. Now that income tax is computerised, a local income tax would be simple to collect, but in 1976 it was not. Even so, Layfield pointed out its advantages.
  Mr. John Cartwright: As one of the original members of the Layfield committee, I can confirm that it came out clearly in favour of a local income tax, which it said was
  "the only serious candidate for a new source of local revenue that could give a substantial yield and, at the same time, maintain and enhance accountability."
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Member. The idea of a local income tax has a great deal of authority behind it. I simply ask the Secretary of State to accept that, if he is serious about a review with no options excluded, that option must be considered and not rejected because of its origins.
  Mr. David Ashby: In the new spirit which says that we must consider all options, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the implementation of a local income tax would need to be recovered by units of local government larger than the small district councils or even the county councils that we have at present?
  Mr. Bruce: Given our modern systems of computerised technology, I do not accept that that is necessary. The Secretary of State made it clear that he was considering an overall review of local government. Many of us feel that we could simplify local government, and perhaps the two things could go together. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion may be helpful, but I do not think that it is necessary.

  331
  Let me put on record some of the changes to the poll tax which are urgently needed and which should be considered in the first phase. The poll tax has tipped the balance against rural areas in terms of where the money comes from and where the services are provided. Because it is a flat rate, which does not take account, as rates did, of lower valuations, people in rural areas are paying the same per head as those in urban areas without having access to the same range of services
  All of us who represent rural areas could give examples. One of the more extreme examples, passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), is the community of Ardmore, to which access can by gained only be a two-mile footpath. With the possible exception of education, none of the normal services are accessible. Not even social work support services can easily be provided. A crofting couple who had to pay a rates bill of about £20 a year now have to pay more than £400 a year, even though the local authority is in no position to provide additional services. That anomaly should be addressed.
  Hon. Members have referred to the immediate problem of the crisis in the Gulf. It has been suggested that local authorities should charge only 20 per cent. for those involved in training for service in the Gulf. That would cost local authorities with a high proportion of service men in their areas—Gosport, for example—a substantial amount. I hope that it will be recognised that those local authorities should be fully reimbursed, because such action, taken in the national interest, can fall very unevenly on local authorities.
  The anomaly of second homes is still causing considerable problems. Let me cite an example from my constituency to emphasise the fact that there is a real injustice. More than a year ago, a lady moved to my part of Scotland from Peterborough, where she owned a flat in a sheltered housing complex. She has been unable to sell the flat at any price because of the state of the market, yet Peterborough council is treating the flat as a holiday home, on which she has to pay double poll tax in addition to the poll tax that she is paying to my local authority in Grampian. Peterborough council has offered to enter negotiations with her on the basis that the amount should not be paid until the flat is sold, but she has been in real distress about the level of debt that is accruing. She simply cannot pay.
  One immediate relief for which everyone will be hoping is the abolition of the 20 per cent. requirement. If people's income is so low that they qualify for full social security benefit, it is anomalous to require them to pay. Full reimbursement is a nonsensical bureaucratic arrangement, but if people are not fully reimbursed, their hardship is aggravated further. That is the major step that the Secretary of State could take now to increase the acceptability of the tax—in that income range at least—not just to people on the receiving end but to the local authorities, which are finding it impossible to collect the money. Very often, the cost of collection outweighs the revenue that could be accrued.
  According to the Government, the rates were abolished in favour of the poll tax to ensure a fairer system. I have here an election pamphlet produced by a certain John Major when he was a candidate in Holborn and St. Pancras constituency. It says:
  "The Conservatives believe this"—
  the rating system—
  332
  "is unfair and will abolish domestic rates within a normal parliament. We shall replace them by a more broadly based tax, relating to people's ability to pay."
  The Prime Minister must now realise that the poll tax does not satisfy the criteria that he then identified.
  It is worth reminding the House what happened. We had a rating revaluation in Scotland—something that Governments have not dared to do in England since 1973. The five-year review in Scotland caused such an outcry among Conservative voters in Scotland that the Scottish Office and Scottish Ministers approached the Cabinet and said, "Please give us an alternative." Scottish Ministers who now claim that the poll tax was imposed on them by their Cabinet colleagues will have difficulty in justifying that claim. We are waiting with interest to see how the Secretary of State will fare in the convoluted changes that he now faces.
  When the present Secretary of State for the Environment was asked why he had not opposed or objected to the poll tax in Scotland although he opposed its introduction in England or Wales, he said, "Because I thought that Scotland wanted it." In future, the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister will have to be very careful not to confuse the voice of the Conservative party in Scotland with the voice of the Scottish people. There is little correlation between the two. Had they recognised that in the first place, the difficulty might not have arisen.
  On last year's poll tax, the Scottish local authorities face a shortfall of £142 million, or 14·7 per cent. Allowing for the amount that was budgeted for in respect of non-payment, the shortfall amounts to £98 million, or 11 per cent. We are talking not about this year but about last. This year, the local authorities have collected only 40·8 per cent. of what is due, although they calculated that they would manage to collect 57·6 per cent. by now. The shortfall looks as though it may be worse this year than it was last.
  Let me make a comment in passing about non-payment. The vast majority of cases of non-payment have arisen because people have had difficulty in finding the money. I do not believe that there is a mass non-payment campaign—although some people are trying to claim credit for one. I can testify to the fact that there is considerable anger among those who have paid against those who can pay but have not paid. I do not accept that the "Can pay, won't pay!" campaign has been popular in Scotland. It has been deeply resented in many quarters, and it has not brought down the poll tax. The poll tax has been brought down by the fact that it is difficult to collect and administratively cumbersome.
  The other problem, which I think the Secretary of State addressed, was that the poll tax is, by definition, a flat rate charge. One issue that must be taken on board is the fact that local authorities should have the right of access to funding which has natural buoyancy built into it. That is an important point of principle that needs to be established. The more enthusiastic right-wing members of the Conservative party were attracted to the poll tax simply because it did not have that buoyancy, and they thought that they could screw down the local authorities.
  However, that is not compatible with what the Government are increasingly asking the local authorities to do. The Secretary of State acknowledged that the Government have asked the local authorities to take on more and more responsibility to deliver services locally, and to do so under statutes passed by this House. The

  333
  Environmental Protection Act 1990 is the most recent example. As the Secretary of State again acknowledged, simply keeping pace with inflation in those circumstances leads to excessive increases in poll tax charges. It also puts pressure on the Government, who must at least acknowledge the problem and provide additional grants. Therefore, it is in the Government's interests to allow that a proportion of the income of local authorities—the poll tax accounts for only 20 to 25 per cent.—is buoyant and has a natural relationship to the overall increase in economic activity.
  If the Government squeeze grants and control the business rate in such a way that it does not take account of inflation, and if the local authorities must provide additional services, their only source of flexibility, apart from increased efficiency, is the poll tax. Because it accounts for only 20 to 25 per cent. of their income, a 1 per cent. increase in revenue across the board for the council would require an increase of between 4 and 5 per cent. in the poll tax. That means that the poll tax is inevitably inflationary.
  Furthermore, it does not have the effect that the Government think, because people have a relationship with their local authority and do not believe that it has simply been extravagant. People recognise the difficulties facing many local authorities. That is another factor that is contributing to the breakdown of the poll tax. Even the Government must recognise that denying any buoyancy to the local authorities is not ultimately in anybody's interest.
  The Secretary of State and his predecessors have used extravagant Labour councils as their excuse for justifying their changes, but I can advise them only that the way to deal with the problem is to ensure that local councils are democratically and fairly elected. If proportional representation or some system—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) is laughing. However, if the local authorities were elected in proportion to the votes cast, most of the militant Labour authorities that the hon. Gentleman has used as a stick to justify the poll tax would never have got into power in the first place.
  It is interesting that Conservative Members talk about the supremacy of Parliament and refer to what is, frankly, the humbug of the historic association of this Parliament, but fail to recognise that we have the most antiquated, corrupt and decadent political system in the western world. That is what they are presiding over when they fail to recognise the opportunities of a radical change that would make local authorities genuinely accountable, both financially and in terms of the way in which they are elected.
  In conclusion, the Secretary of State has shown some recognition that this debate is not just about how we finance local authorities; it is about the proper place of local authorities in our society. I welcome that initiative. The right hon. Gentleman is right: that debate should unite all parties in the House. I have not been afraid to state where we differ from the Tory party or the Labour party. We will enter into a constructive debate on this matter as long as it i genuine and open, and as long as the views of the people in our local communities are taken into account, so that they can be assured that, in the future,
  334
  they will have local authorities that they can trust, to which they can relate, which they can hold accountable, and which are financially secure.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker appealed for brief speeches.
  5.23 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who dealt with both the financing and the organisation of local government. I know that many hon. Members of all parties will want to contribute to that debate.
  Let us consider the genesis of the community charge and the reasons why it was introduced. In the beginning, people in certain areas, including London, felt that everybody who was voting should pay at least something towards what they were voting for. There is no morality in voting to spend other people's money. Revolutions were made on the grounds of "no taxation without representation", but we had "representation without taxation." We all remember that—[Interruption.] Obviously, Opposition Members are upset at what I am saying, but that principle is still one of the great strengths of the community charge.
  I am sure that I shall not take the whole House with me at the beginning of my speech although I may do later, but we must remember the loony left-wing councils in London, of which Brent was a classic example. That council should be given to the Victoria and Albert museum to warn people—now that eastern communism has gone—about what we suffered then. People said that something must be done and that, if the rating system contributed to that state of affairs, it must be changed.
  I am one of the first to admit that the community charge has created problems, but everything in this fallen world creates problems. The Labour party never understands that all that we can do is to try to make life tolerable. If we try to make it good, we finish up shooting people. Making life tolerable is a right old triumph in a fallen world.
  The first problem with the community charge is that a flat rate tax becomes intolerable if it is set too high. One can argue about the level, but at some stage it will become too high. At levels of between £400 and £500—it is £470 in Brent—the community charge is already beyond that level.
  The second problem is that of the low-rated properties in the north. I trust that my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Lee) and for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they know about those problems. There may be four small houses to every big house in those areas. The penalty of the community charge on those small houses was never even imagined by the Department of the Environment. Those two things have worked against any popularity that the community charge might have enjoyed.
  However, one must pay tribute to the fact that the Government have put in a lot of money, both for transitional relief and for other purposes. Billions of pounds have been put in over the past two years to try to ease the burdens of many people.
  The question is whether we should look at the community charge to see what we can do with it to make

  335
  it more tolerable to society, given its advantages which I still defend, or whether we go for something else entirely. I have always believed that if one can amend something to make it work, that is better than digging up the plant and starting over again.
  The principle of the community charge is good. I do not believe that anybody with any income at all should vote without paying something towards the services for which they are voting. To do so is political immorality.—[Interruption.] I say that again, and I am surprised that Opposition Members disagree with me. I trusted that I could have taken them with me on that. I repeat that it is political immorality.
  If we changed the system, we would have a new set of losers. Whenever a system is changed, those who gain say, "Thank you very much," and go away and forget all about it, but those who lose remember it to the ballot box. If we change the system again, another set of losers will be queuing up to ask what can be done.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to the fact that the property rating was highly unpopular—so it was not as though we were moving from the garden of Eden, having eaten the wicked apple, and are now seeking to return to the garden of Eden again. Wherever I went in the country—whether to a Conservative party meeting or a public meeting—somebody would stand up and ask, "When are you going to get rid of the rating system?" My right hon. and hon. Friends will have had similar experiences.
  We must cut the level of the community charge and anaesthetise some of the pain. Then we can see where we are——
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fact that the community charge in Brent is 40 per cent. higher than in Barnet underlines the relative efficiency of those two councils, and that we need to improve the efficiency of local councils rather than tinkering with the community charge?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am sure that the burghers of Barnet will welcome that intervention, and that it will increase my hon. Friend's majority by at least 10,000 at the next general election. I shall point out to the burghers of Brent that if they elected a council which was wholly Conservative—as is the case with their Member of Parliament in Brent, North—the glorious image of Barnet would be seen in Brent.
  We must reduce the community charge, and to do so we must take education out of local government expenditure. I want education to be taken out of local government control regardless, because the grant-maintained school system is one of the most successful ways of improving education standards in this country. I trust parents before bureaucrats, which the Labour party never does. We should give responsibility to parents, not inspectors from the Department of Education and Science who led us down and are now being paid to help solve the problems. Parents should be in charge of schools, and I will back their vote.
  I recently visited Claremont school in my constituency, which has become grant-maintained and been totally transformed. There are now queues of parents waiting to send their children there. Unless the Labour party catches up with us on the issue of grant-maintained schools, it
  336
  could lose the next election even more heavily than the previous one. I am a friendly man, and I say that to be helpful to Labour Members.
  Some 42 per cent. of local government expenditure goes on education—38·6 per cent. in Brent and 42·3 per cent. in the whole of the country. Education costs local government £17 billion. We should not take the entire £17 billion away, but £12 billion—exactly the amount of the business rate—which makes the equation neat. That will leave local authorities £5 billion more to spend elsewhere. I shall say later where that sum comes from—it does not come out of undiscovered space. That extra £5 billion would mean that throughout the country the community charge could be reduced, on average, from about £400 to about £250. The pressure would be considerably lessened by a 40 per cent. decrease in the community charge.
  Where can that extra money come from? The winter is with us and I noticed squirrels digging up their first nuts in my garden this morning. The Treasury always has nuts in case something happens. Now that the squirrels are gathering theirs, the Treasury must pick up its nuts. A second alternative would be to borrow the money. We have the lowest borrowing against national income of practically any country in the world.
  The third, long-term option would be to have a series of different taxes. Almost no other country in the world relies on one tax system for local government. On the continent, countries have four or five streams, including hotel and sales taxes——
  Mr. Terry Lewis: What about a property tax?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: There could be a small property tax. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is taking my thinking further—the debate between the two sides of the Chamber has begun.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: If we were to move education to the central Exchequer, due to the fact that it makes such a major contribution to the community charge, which feeds into the retail price index, we would reduce the RPI by 2 per cent., thus reducing the cost of benefits to the Treasury. Therefore, in addition to privatisation and the other means of raising resources mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), it seems that, instead of cutting taxes, we shall be able to cut the community charge.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I did not realise that I was Merlin the magician and could achieve so much. Taking education out of local government spending would, to an extent, solve the community charge problems and would also improve education the length and breadth of the country, so we would get two advantages for the price of one.
  Three other steps should be taken to anaesthetise the pain. A wife at home should never have to pay on her husband's wage, and a husband should not have to pay according to his wife's wage. A wife is the only person who has to pay 100 per cent. when she has no income, which is wrong and totally anti-family.
  Secondly, if a pensioner is put into a community home at local authority expense, no community charge is paid. If a pensioner is kept at home by the family, where he should be, community charge has to be paid. That policy should end—the easiest option would be to abolish the

  337
  community charge for all pensioners, because if we discriminate, we shall find pensioners moving backwards and forwards like yo-yos.
  Thirdly, in large families with more than four or six members, the community charge for the fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh member should be reduced to 50 per cent., 25 per cent., and so on. At present, the community charge in London forces young people out of their families and increases accommodation problems.—[HON. MEMBERS: "We told the Government that."] But Opposition Members have not accepted the first principle, which I still stand by, that nobody should vote until they pay something towards it. Otherwise, we have political immorality.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: No, I shall not give way any more.
  One point which follows from the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon is that there is great indignation in my constituency about Brent not collecting all the community charge. If people in my constituency who have paid have to pay a heavier burden next year because others did not pay this year, there will be uproar. All the community charges due must be collected properly.
  Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall not give way any more. I said that I would not do so, and I like to be a man of my word; otherwise, people will be disappointed.
  Mr. Lewis: I was only trying to help.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: As one Lancastrian to another, I welcome that phrase.
  At present, there is no discount for people who pay the community charge early—certainly not in Harrow. Therefore, why should people bother to pay early when they can put the money in the bank at the present interest rate. A good discount system would encourage people to pay early. At present, people are sent 10 pieces of paper and can pay over 10 months—I do not understand that system because it does not encourage people to pay.
  How many people have avoided payment and how many other people are having to cover for them?
  Mr. Dick Douglas: What about identity cards?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that if we had identity cards, we could find out who had paid. The only way to achieve full payment is through national identity cards—I am glad that I have the hon. Gentleman's approval.
  I welcome what the Secretary of State said about looking at local government functions and their relation, nationally and locally. Unless we entirely separate national finances from local finances, the battle will go on—and I hope that we achieve that in the next two years. The finances are separated in Germany and Scandinavia. All local government expenditure should be raised locally, and national Government expenditure should be raised nationally; otherwise, the resulting continual tension does no good to national or local government.
  338
  In many districts of London, the 1974 local government reorganisation is still highly unpopular. If we got rid of education from the local government remit, we could have smaller boroughs in which people knew their councillors and had a sense of identity, as with bringing back Wembley. Nothing would be more popular in my district than bringing back the previous boroughs that were destroyed and put into massive conglomerations with tower blocks.
  Mr. Lewis: The Conservative party did that.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: We did it, but unlike the Labour party, we say when we have got it wrong. We do not continue over the cliff edge to total destruction. I must not be agitated by Opposition Members, and I draw my sentence and speech to an end.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: I do not agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who would be surprised if I did. The remarkable factor in this debate is the number of different views about how local government should be financed.
  I have not yet decided whether the Secretary of State was setting up a smokescreen or looking for someone to pull chestnuts out of the fire because the Government now concede that they made a monumental cock-up three years ago when they introduced the poll tax. Nothing that can be said will get away from that. To their credit, some Conservative Members acknowledged that the system was fundamentally flawed from the beginning.
  Whatever we do with the poll tax, however we tinker about with it at the edges, whatever is put in or taken out of it, it will still remain flawed. It cannot be anything but a flat rate tax—fundamentally wrong and absolutely hated. Even if poll tax payments are reduced, the tax will still be wrong because of the great inequalities throughout the country. That is why the people have rebelled against it—because of the sheer hypocrisy and disparity involved in it.
  People were told that they would pay for what they got. Then they found out that they did not receive the services anyway. They asked why they should pay for schools when they had no children. These questions were first asked in this House. Payment for local government is and always has been a collective charge within a community for services that people in that community vote for.
  The Secretary of State says that he is looking for a new structure. I have spent 20 years in local government trying to find one. The West Riding county council, one of the best education bodies ever known, has gone; so has South Yorkshire county council, and so have the urban district councils. Since then, we have witnessed the rise of the parishes, but what has the poll tax done for them? It has taken money away from them. The rating system used to bring in money for parish works but that has now disappeared because this is a national tax. The Conservative party, supposedly the protector of parish and town councils, has helped to destroy them.
  People do not see why they should pay extra taxation when others do not, so they think that we should get rid of parish councils. Co-operation and responsibility should be mutual. Local government has not received much

  339
  co-operation in the past nine years; it has experienced imposition by central Government, which is why local government has reacted as it has.
  Any new scheme must take all these elements into account, but above all we must accept that the poll lax is wrong, both for local government and for the people it represents. I think that the Secretary of State has admitted as much; why else would he have said that we should look together for a different system? If he were convinced that the system was right or that it could somehow be altered, he would not have said what he did. He has realised that it is seriously flawed and must be got rid of.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The Secretary of State did not tell us what was wrong with the poll tax. All he said was that it was very unpopular, and he gave its unpopularity as the reason for reviewing it. He should have analysed why it was unpopular. Instead, he offered no ideas or agenda for discussion.
  Mr. McKay: That explains my remark about a smokescreen. Nothing positive seems to have been offered, except for a consensus approach.
  This House got rid of the rating system, which was in some cases unpopular and which included some anomalies. It is true that some people did not like it, but the poll tax has at least made people like the rating system because they could understand it and it was fairer.
  The rating system was a good way of paying for local finance. By and large, the house a person dwelt in showed that persons's wealth. Of course there were exceptions. We all know about the little old lady who paid huge rates for her house while five people next door paid the same or less. Of course, nine times out of ten those little old ladies brought up families who later made a larger contribution to central Government taxation.
  The problems with local government date not from the advent of the poll tax but from 1972, 1973 and 1974, when local government was reorganised. That was when the trouble started.
  Mr. Keith Mans: If, as the hon. Gentleman says, he and his party like the rating system so much, why did they fail again and again when in office to carry out a revaluation of property?
  Mr. McKay: I did say that local government has been in continual flux and has never had the time to settle down while we have been scratching away at it. But since 1979, the Tory Government have compounded its problems by continually reducing central Government's contribution to local government—from 79 per cent. to 33 per cent. Local government reacted in the only way it could and put up the rates.
  When central Government realised what was happening, they started talking about rate capping. They then rate-capped authorities, thereby removing flexibility from the system and making it much worse.
  Mr. Couchman: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that returning to the rating system would just be a large electoral bribe to the 18 million people who made no contribution to local government expenditure before? Would it not be an attempt to entice them to vote in the hope that they could make no contribution to local government in future?
  Mr. McKay: When did we have problems with local government before the Conservatives started messing about with the system? I admit that the trouble started in 1974, following which the Labour Government put into practice what the Conservatives had begun. They should not have done that.
  I believe that people who can pay should pay something towards local government, based on their ability to pay. We could have made the rating system work on that pattern. That is why I was interested to hear the Secretary of State talk about working together, but first we must all determine that the poll tax must go.
  There is nothing wrong with a Secretary of State admitting that the Government have been wrong for three years and deciding to get rid of the poll tax, following which we could search for a new system of local government finance together. I was, however, disappointed to hear the Secretary of State say that the process will take two years. In all my 20 years in local government, I never found different systems that worked. They were either too easy to evade, they cost too much to collect, or they were unfair and unwieldy. The poll tax exhibits all those faults. It places an unbelievable administrative burden on local authorities.
  During October my local authority, which is a small one, received 5,115 phone calls of inquiry and 3,040 letters of inquiry, and sent out 8,784 reminders. In the same period, it dealt with 4,326 summonses, and 20,322 people have yet to make a payment. The housing benefit of 8,108 people has had to be altered and the poll tax has changed 6,198 times in one month. All that demands a great many members of staff, which is why it costs my local authority £3·5 million a year more to collect the poll tax than it did to collect the rates.
  Why should it be said to cost about £800 a year to educate a child in my area, while other authorities receive £1,200 for the same purpose? Why should it cost less in my local authority area to educate children? That is leading to a deterioration of education standards in our area. All those matters must be examined.
  Why should a wife who does not work pay poll tax or why should her husband have to pay it for her? What are they getting out of it? I am sure that my constituents would welcome genuine dialogue on local government finance. We must make up our minds that the poll tax has to go. Conservative Members will never have a better chance to show whether they are for or against the poll tax. I invite them to vote with the Opposition, thereby forcing the Secretary of State to alter the poll tax.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) on his maiden speech. He was elected in difficult circumstances following the sad and sudden death of Mike Carr who, as some of my hon. Friends have said, we hardly got to know. The new Member for Bootle is a member of the Labour party and on this subject, above all, he had to be slightly controversial or his speech would not have been believed by his hon. Friends or by many others. I also congratulate my two right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Scotland who have just taken up their appointments. My right hon.

  341
  Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is on the Front Bench, so I assume that he will deliver the winding-up speech.
  Despite the speech by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) there is no doubt that the old rating system was deeply unpopular and had to go. It was put in place 200 or 300 years ago and it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that it should be brought back. In case some Opposition Members think that there is a chance of convincing the British people that the rating system should be brought back, I will give the House a couple of quotes. Lord McIntosh of Haringey was deposed by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) who assumed the leadership of the GLC when Labour won control there. Lord McIntosh, a leading Labour member in the other place, said that rates were,
  "desperately inadequate as a fair basis for raising revenue for local government."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 1988; Vol. 497, c. 652.]
  Mr. John Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tracey: No, because I am short of time and many hon. Members want to participate in the debate.
  A Labour party official policy statement was contained in a document entitled "Local Services, Local Choices, Local Taxes". That document stated:
  "A system where rateable values are based on a notional annual rate is mystifying to most people. To make matters worse, the values are out of date, giving rise to all sorts of anomalies."
  Mr. John Evans: Perhaps the rating system was unpopular, but can the hon. Gentleman quote any instances in Great Britain where rate collectors were physically assaulted by the public? There have been many instances of poll tax collectors being physically assaulted.
  Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman should look to the people who stir up feelings which bring about such law breaking. No hon. Member can condone such behaviour, and neither rate collectors nor community charge collectors should be attacked by anybody. I totally condemn those Opposition Members who refuse to pay the community charge. I wish that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen would also condemn them because the lack of such condemnation gives credibility to law breakers.
  An even weightier argument against the rates was advanced by the Opposition. In 1980, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), who at that time was not the leader of his party, said:
  "the most unjust of all taxes, local rates, take most from those who can afford least".
  That is a sample of a procession of Opposition Members or senior Members of the Labour party in local government who attacked the old rating system and all that it entailed. That view has been shared for years by many people, especially by old ladies who live on their own next doer to a house with three or four adults, three of whom paid nothing. Such unfairness bred discontent and for many years the Conservative party said that the rating system must be abolished.
  The principle eloquently advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) is that those entitled to vote should pay a share of local government costs. That is the whole basis of the
  342
  community charge and the thinking of the Conservative party. Whatever changes emerge from the review by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I hope that we shall not move from the cardinal principle that every adult who has the vote should pay a share of local government costs. That principle is agreed by everybody.
  In attempting to denigrate that principle, the Labour party has on 65 occasions in the three and a half years since the 1987 general election changed its policy on the system of local government finance. I have the documents which prove that. Every one of the 65 changes has been documented, and the documents show 20 splits between Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen on local government finance. The Opposition know perfectly well that it will not be easy to change the system that we have put in place.
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tracey: No, because it is almost 6 o'clock, from which time hon. Members will be restricted to 10-minute speeches. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I assume that he will have a chance to speak in the debate.
  The Opposition know that it will not be easy to put in place the changes that they glibly talk about. In its 65 different changes of policy over the past three and a half years, the Labour party has failed to address the central problem of drawing up an alternative. The Opposition have not agreed who should pay the tax or on what it should be based. They tried the roof tax which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) proposed because he felt that something was needed before the Labour party confronted the electorate in the local government elections. The roof tax was replaced with a floor tax, which would have entailed taxing properties according to the floor area. That was proposed by a not inconsiderable authority, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), a former environment and housing spokesman for the Labour party.
  More recently, the Opposition came round to the suggestions from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for a tax base which included the valuation that insurance companies place on houses for rebuilding purposes. He first brought that up in March in a television interview with Mr. David Frost in a desperate attempt to put something before the electorate in advance of the local elections in London in May.
  Then some intellectual rigour was brought to the matter by the Leader of the Opposition. When interviewed by The Independent in April, he explained that the Labour party would consider several different tax bases and produce some figures
  "to bung into the computer."
  That is an example of deep thinking from the Labour party.
  In that morass of thoughts and possibilities, the Opposition must decide who should pay their replacement tax. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who for some time spoke for the Opposition on environment matters, said that there was no question of making people pay who are not paying income tax. He made that statement in March on the "Eye Witness" programme on ITV. However, when the hon. Member for Dagenham was asked a similar question three days later in the "Today" programme on the BBC, he said:

  343
  "Well, that's the one issue which we have yet to decide … we will reach a decision very shortly."
  The Labour party cannot decide when it will be possible to introduce the changes. The hon. Member for Dagenham said that it would be at least two years after the Labour party had achieved the—unlikely—prospect of becoming the Government of this country, before they could make the changes. I noticed that, although the hon. Member for Dagenham said that, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it might well take a full two years before any workable changes could be introduced, the hon. Gentleman did not rise to intervene although there were the usual catcalls from the Opposition Benches.
  Once again, there is confusion in the Labour ranks. After the hon. Member for Dagenham spoke about the two-year period, the hon. Member for Copeland said:
  "there's no question about our commitment to abolish the poll tax as soon as we have a Labour Government."
  This whole matter is not so clear as the Opposition would like, in their motion, the British public to think. The Opposition have changed their minds 65 times in the past three and a half years. They still have no definite policy to put before the British public. There have been at least 20 splits on the Opposition Front Bench on the issue. I have the evidence of that and I will gladly provide chapter and verse for each of those splits.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State invited the Opposition to engage in sensible discussions to reach a consensus on this matter. Let us see whether the Opposition can put their words into action.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that speeches should not exceed 10 minutes between now and 8 o'clock.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Dave Nellist: In previous debates, I have compared the former Prime Minister's description of the poll tax as the "flagship" of her third term to the Titanic. Her Titanic met its iceberg in the form of the 28 million people who are worse off under that tax, almost half of whom have refused to pay it. The captain has already gone overboard and the officers are now reshuffling the deckchairs a bit. That will not do them much good.
  Resistance to the poll tax has possibly been the largest campaign of civil disobedience this century. It has involved thousands of meetings, marches and rallies, and it shows no sign of abating. In fact, we are only weeks away from a new season, and that may have given urgency to the Secretary of State's review. While there were deathbed conversions among the leadership contenders last week who recognised that the Conservative party was in terminal crisis unless they did something about the poll tax, the poll tax became the catalyst, the crystal within the saturated solution, because it represented, on top of everything else, the last straw. On top of the sell-offs of gas, water and the electric and on top of mortgage and inflation increases, the poll tax was the last straw for the working people in this country.
  On 14 August, the Council of Mortgage Lenders produced figures for the repossession of homes comparing the first six months of this year with the last six months of last year. They showed that the number of people between
  344
  six months and 12 months behind on their mortgage payments had increased by 32 per cent. and that the number of people more than 12 months behind had increased by 56 per cent. In addition to that debt, millions of people go further into debt by trying to pay the poll tax. In the words of another Government campaign, many of them "just say no".
  Millions of families face not just debt, but winter bills. For three years now, I have said on behalf of, and alongside, my constituents that I would stick it out and not pay the poll tax so long as they did the same. In Coventry, three quarters of adults in two adult households are worse off. A quarter of all households—60,000 people—are more than £450 worse off net a year. That is equivalent to £600 if we take tax and national insurance into account. All that, so that 3 per cent. of the city's population—just 6,000 adults—can be £450 better off.
  I get called a freeloader. The real freeloaders under the poll tax are the Cabinet, including the new Secretary of State for the Environment, who are saving thousands of pounds under the poll tax. The real freeloaders are the top 5 per cent. of the population who have saved so much money through the poll tax at the expense of millions of ordinary families at the bottom of society.
  The hatred for the poll tax has spread into areas where I never thought I would see it. I never thought that, a month ago, I would see a finalist in the national tennis finals put a bit of cardboard before his towel with "No to the poll tax" written on it. Is it not a crime that Andrew Castle was fined £2,400 for that, while Aggasi was fined only half that for spitting at an umpire in the United States. That is an indication of how far through society the hatred of the poll tax extends.
  The Cabinet realised the extent of that hatred. They realised that the inability to collect or enforce the poll tax meant that they had to change it. The Government have had to face all those problems with the poll tax when fewer than one quarter of the councils in England and Wales have yet to go to court to enforce the tax.
  If Lambeth is to enforce the poll tax, it must get it from 73 Mickey Mouses, nine Donald Ducks and eight Adolf Hitlers. A vicar in Lambeth has received four bills—one for himself, one for God the Father, one for God the Son and one for God the Holy Ghost. That may be funny, but the Audit Commission has stated that, in the shire counties, between 1 December last year and 31 August this year—nine months—on average 24 per cent. of the register changed; 30 per cent. changed in the metropolitan areas; 35 per cent. changed in the outer London boroughs and 40 per cent. changed in the inner London boroughs. There have been millions of changes, and that is one reason why the poll tax is unenforceable.
  Only a quarter of the councils have gone to court, but we have seen a huge denial of rights. A harder line is being taken by the courts, just like that which was adopted during the miners' strike. It has been a right of the people since 1831 that those who cannot afford to buy a lawyer can take a friend to court. That was re-established in the Court of Appeal in 1971 in MacKenzie =. MacKenzie. Throughout the country, however, from Coventry, Leicester and Gateshead down to Bournemouth, magistrates are denying working-class people the right to have a friend in court. They are acting on instructions from the Home Office.
  We are told that the poll tax is an individual tax. Why is it that, in Warrington, batches of eight non-payers of the

  345
  poll tax are dealt with by the magistrates collectively? Why is it that, at Lymington in Hampshire, they are dealt with 10 at a time? If an individual refuses to be dealt with as one in a batch, he will be found liable and could be held for contempt of court.
  Conservative Members allege that I am a generalised law breaker, but during my 38 years I have appeared in court on only two occasions, once at Battersea and once at Coventry. Both appearances related to the poll tax. We are told that nothing can go wrong with the system. We are assured that everything is checked and double-checked before summonses are issued or reminders to pay are sent out. Why is it that in Coventry a 17-month-old baby was summonsed? That happened to a 21-month-old baby in Battersea. In Coventry, summonses were sent to several people who were deceased. [Laughter.]
  If that seems funny to Conservative Members, I ask them to put themselves in the position of a recently bereaved family who read in the newspaper that the deceased had been summonsed. That happened only four months ago.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nellist: I shall not give way now.
  Teenagers have been summonsed. Once someone has been through the courts, the bailiffs—mediaeval thugs—are called in. They represent a system which the National Consumer Council, and even the Tory-appointed Law Commission of four years ago, reckon should be abolished. The first family in Coventry to be threatened by the police coming to arrest it, a court appearance and imprisonment was Asian. That happened eight or nine days ago. The husband was in receipt of invalidity benefit and the wife was a diabetic. The two sons were low-paid. Councils throughout the country have been pushed into taking that sort of action by the laws that the Government have introduced.
  In effect, the Tories say, "Don't worry; it will settle down." To use a cricket term, which it is fashionable to adopt these days, we are told that the poll tax will "play itself in". But as Nye Bevan said:
  "Why look in the crystal ball when you can read the book?
  In Scotland, the poll tax has been operated for 21 months. What has happened? At the end of October 1989, the uncollected poll tax amounted to £142 million, or 14·7 per cent. of that due to be collected.
  Are things settling down in Scotland? At the end of October this year, £623 million was uncollected, or 59·2 per cent. of that due to be collected. At the end of the financial year, which was in March, 850,000 Scottish people had paid nothing or were three months in arrears. It appears that 1,208,000 summary warrants have been issued this year by the sheriffs—33 per cent. of the population of Scotland have been summonsed—compared with the 1 per cent. who were summonsed for non-payment of rates before the introduction of the poll tax. That may not have concerned Conservative members, because they have only 10 parliamentary seats in Scotland to defend. They began to wake up, however, when summonses began to be issued in England and Wales,
  346
  especially in the Tory-controlled area of Windsor and Maidenhead, for example, in what is supposed to be the soft south.
  Last Monday, the Government finally gave me the figures for England and Wales. I had spent weeks trying to get them from the Department of the Environment. Incidentally, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office, which each employ about 20 statisticians to deal with local authority finance, do not collect these statistics. In England alone, 4·5 million people have not paid their poll tax. In addition, it appears that 45 boroughs are not included in this list.
  In the past 11 years, 4,329 people were imprisoned for not paying their rates. That was 400 a year. There was one imprisonment each year for every local authority in the country. The local authority in my constituency has issued 26,000 liability orders so far. Where the hell will the Government find prison accommodation for these people? It would have been impossible to do so even before Strangeways got done. The Government will never be able to find the necessary prison accommodation. That is why the Secretary of State for the Environment is running scared and talking about abolition.
  What is happening to services and jobs? No one has mentioned this so far. In Wandsworth, thousands of people will be marching through the streets tonight. The marchers will be workers, parents and others who are concerned about services. Why are they marching? The answer is that poll tax attacks jobs and services. What is Sir Paul Beresford's borough doing? It is closing three of its nine secondary schools and 11 of its 18 social service day nurseries. Twelve of the borough's primary schools are being closed, along with all five of its junior clubs. Half of the half-term play centres are being closed. All the lunch and holiday play centres are being closed. It is privatising 10 old people's homes. School meals provision, cleaning services and ground maintenance are also being privatised. All services are subject to attack. Jobs and services will be lost as a result of the poll tax.
  The Secretary of State's review may find one or two ways in which to ameliorate the effect of the poll tax, but that is all. I welcome the commitment of my party to repeal the poll tax legislation as soon as it forms the next Government. If the Labour party and the trade unions would use their undoubted strength to support the 14 million who have not paid their poll tax, we could get rid of the poll tax well short of the two years that will elapse while the Secretary of State's review takes place, and shorten the Government's life. That is what we shall do.
  6.15 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I have seldom heard a more disgusting speech than that delivered by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who claims to be a democrat. In the coldest terms that I can use, he is a man who was elected to this place to obey the laws that we pass. It seems that he is trying to uphold civil disobedience. Anyone who condones those who break the law deserves the greatest condemnation.
  I have seldom heard a speech that so changed the climate of opinion as that which was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was one of the more brilliant speeches that I have heard during the 31 years that I have been a Member of this place. There is no doubt that it will lead to an attempt to

  347
  bring about unity of thought within the country as we come to consider how we can deal with the problem of local government finance and, if necessary, the structure of local government—it is difficult to separate one from the other—in a way that will prove satisfactory to the House generally for the next 20, 30 or more years.
  I do not intend to attack the Labour party as some of my hon. Friends have done so brilliantly. If we wish to establish a climate in which we can begin to enjoy some co-operation, let us stop attacking one another. We shall do somewhat better if we co-operate instead of attacking. If we are genuine in our desire to see something that is good and lasting for all the people, let us see what we can do together.
  One of the difficulties is that the Labour party thought that suddenly it had the Government over a barrel with the poll tax. Instead, it is we who have the Labour party over a barrel. One of the features of the community charge that has, I think, been accepted by everyone is that it is right and proper that everyone in the community should make some contribution to the services that he or site is receiving. The Government published as the likely level of community charge for east Devon the figure of £245 plus the parish precept. In fact, Devon county council had to introduce a community charge of £345.
  Mr. Dewar: It must be a Labour council.
  Sir Peter Emery: It is a Conservative council. A couple had to pay £690, and if they had an elderly relative with them, for example, the charge was £1,035. In my constituency, 35 per cent. of the electorate are retired My constituents were faced with a charge that they neither accepted nor could afford. Many retired people moved to areas in which there was low-rated property. They expected to be able to live comfortably in those areas. They found themselves suddenly having to pay a community charge which they never expected and could ill afford. There was unfairness.
  One difficulty is that the accountability factor is not working because there is a three-year period between local government elections. It is no good suggesting that an authority can be accountable for what it spends in one year if it is not subject to re-election for another three years. We have to deal with that problem.
  Another unfairness that has come to light is the position of those living in rural areas where there are next to no services. Previously their properties would have had a low rating. Now they are having to pay the same community charge as people living in towns, where a considerable number of services are provided.
  I am immensely pleased that the Government are willing to undertake an overall review of the approach to the financing of local government. Anyone with a reasonable approach must know that to make any massive changes will require a period of consultation and then a parliamentary year to deal with the necessary legislation—[Interruption.] Opposition Members should not crow. If they were ever to be in government, which they will not be, they would also need a year to deal with the legislation necessary to replace the poll tax with their preferred system. The time scale is common to both parties.
  A number of people find it difficult to pay the poll tax, and they will find it even more difficult next year, even
  348
  though the estimated increase will be only about £40 or £50. The Government should consider providing some relief for those people.
  Let us compare the provision of such relief with the repayment of national debt. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, announced that £3 billion had been set aside for repayment of the national debt this year. Britain has made two such repayments during the past two years, totalling £14 billion. I welcome that, and it is a major step in the right direction. However, if I had to choose whether, for the 12 months hence, to use that £3 billion for national debt repayment or to prevent an increase in local government expenditure but to reduce the burden of the charge on the lower paid and others unable to pay it, I should choose the latter. That would be the sort of caring attitude that I believe our new Prime Minister wishes to embody in the structure of his Government.
  There should be some provision for relief for the ordinary community charge payer while the review and any necessary legislation are undertaken. I hope that any new system will have the agreement of all parties. The Liberal Democrats appear willing—although they have now left the Chamber—[Interruption.] I fight the Liberal Democrats in my constituency, where the Labour party would lose its deposit. A spirit should be engendered to enable us to introduce a structure that will last for a long time. That is what most hon. Members want, and I am sure that it is what the country wants.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: The problem facing the Government was clearly summed up by Rita Hale—who is known to many hon. Members as head of local government matters at the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—in a statement in The Daily Telegraph on 30 November. She was asked what the Government could do about the poll tax, and she said:
  "I think that the answer comes down to whether the community charge is saveable. I suspect that it is not … To carry on with the community charge you have to put so much money into the system that it becomes questionable whether it is worth doing so to get the yield."
  That is a clear statement of the obvious.
  The more the Government try to reduce the impact of the charge by extending rebates, through transitional relief, and so on, the more expensive it becomes and the bigger the bureaucracy that is built. We all know that it is an expensive bureaucracy—which, in many local authorities, is already creaking under the strain. Every time help is given to one group to make life a little easier for them, there is another group next in line who become extremely aggrieved that they have been left out. The more the Government go down that road, the deeper they will be sucked into a morass from which they will never dig themselves out.
  Those who argue that banding the poll tax is a solution really do not have the answer to the problem. There are many practical difficulties in trying to band poll tax into broad bands of income. It would involve local authorities knowing a great deal about the tax affairs of their poll tax payers. More seriously, the whole concept of broad bands involves the application of a poverty trap. When people cross over the threshold into the first band of poll tax liability, they will be worse off despite an increase in

  349
  income. There are already far too many examples of that in the social security system. It is not a sensible solution to the problems of the poll tax.
  Some Conservative Members have suggested that there should be a switch of responsibility for some services from local taxation to national taxation. They think that that would be a painless solution to the problem. National taxation might be fairer than the poll tax, but the services still have to be paid for. Those of us who cut our teeth in local government would be apprehensive about further examples of local authorities administering services over which they had no financial control. That would be an unpleasant and unaccountable position for local authorities.
  I have heard some people arguing that it would be quite simple to transfer responsibility for education from local to central Government, and that all schools could be administered by the Department of Education and Science. That would mean an extraordinary level of central Government interference and a centralisation of services which many of us would not regard as acceptable. Again, it would involve an expensive central Government bureaucracy.
  The most important reason why the Government simply cannot continue with the poll tax is the public's reaction to it. However carefully and expensively the Government try to dress it up in fancy new clothes, the basic injustices of the system show through. The country has made it clear that such an unfair and unjust system is not acceptable. Even some of those who have gained by the introduction of the poll tax say that it is unacceptable, so it is obvious that the system cannot continue for any length of time.
  What are the alternatives? There is a limited range of options, none of which is overwhelmingly appealing. Tory Members yearning for a painless way of paying for local services are in for a sad shock. The search for some generally acceptable way to pay for local services is rather like the search for the philosopher's stone—it is doomed to failure. I was one of the original members of the Layfield committee charged by the late Tony Crosland with trying to find a solution to the problem of replacing the rating system. That experience convinced me that there is no easily acceptable solution. Every system we can think of has some flaws. Every scheme we put forward will upset somebody. In effect, we are looking for the least worst solution.
  That boils down to a choice between a rating system and a local income tax. The only way in which the rating system can appear in any way attractive is by comparison with the extraordinary and unpleasant experience of the poll tax. We cannot go back to the rating system. It does not share out burdens fairly and it results in a substantial number of people with incomes not contributing to a local taxation base. To make local rates income related, the local council needs to know a lot about the financial position of its citizens and a complex system of rebates has to be built which, again, is expensive and difficult to administer.
  No one who has ever tried to explain the concept of notional rental value as the basis for rateable values would want to return to that. I accept that capital values are much easier to understand and to explain, but they are also
  350
  far more volatile and problems of revaluation will result. Capital values can go up but, as we have seen in recent years, they can also go down.
  Last week, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) argued for some system under which a property is revalued on a capital basis only when someone moves. That would create the marvellous situation where two people lived side by side in identical properties, one paying a different set of rates from the other because one had moved recently and the other had not. That illustrates yet again how fraught with problems a return to the rating system would be.
  A local income tax system is the only sensible and fair way of paying for local services, and the Layfield committee identified it as the only serious candidate for a new source of local revenue which would improve local government accountability. It is worth mentioning in passing that the Layfield committee examined every possible sort of local government finance that one could think of, but it did not spend 30 seconds looking at the poll tax because something so nonsensical was never on the agenda.
  There are problems with a local income tax. There are difficulties with its administration. It is much easier with large local authorities than small ones. That is why I was glad that the Secretary of State held out the prospect that the review would not look simply at local government finance but at local government structure as well. We have suffered under the piecemeal reorganisations since the war because we have looked at finance in isolation from structure and at structure in isolation from finance, when the two should go hand in hand.
  I recognise that some people will be concerned about the risks of a local income tax giving local authorities the ability to levy excessive levels of taxation or to undermine the position of central Government in terms of economic management through the taxation system. That could be safeguarded by a system of fair voting in local government. Proportional representation in local government would provide a substantial safeguard. If we cannot have that, let us at the very least have a system in which some councillors retire every year with annual elections rather than the four-yearly all-out elections which London suffers.
  I endorse what the Secretary of State said about the kernel of the problem being the relationship between local and central Government. Layfield also asked that question. First, said the Layfield committee, we must make up our minds about what sort of local government we want—whether we want it to be the agent and creature of central Government or to be an independent organisation reflecting local views. I come down firmly in favour of the principle of local self-government. I therefore come out strongly in favour of local income tax as the best way of breathing new life into the local government system.
  6.32 pm
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) on joining us in the House. Having been a social worker in his part of the world, I know the problems he faces, and I know, too, the great efforts that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made to help to solve them. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the

  351
  Secretary of State on his welcome return to the Dispatch Box and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on his translation.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment knows well that the majority of people, including my constituents, consider it fair that everyone should make some contribution to the services that they demand and use. But for those who have the misfortune to live under the heel of the profligate Labour-controlled Lancashire county council the burden is simply too onerous.
  My right hon. Friend has promised that he will at last look at the structure of local government at the same time as its financing, as the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said. There is no doubt that the burden would certainly be considerably lightened if the major towns and cities, such as Blackburn, Lancaster, Preston and Burnley, were to be removed from the county and became all-purpose authorities like the old county boroughs, each carrying the can for its own spending decisions and not for those of the county.
  The burden would be lightened still further if more schools were to cast off the wasteful bureaucracy of the Lancashire education authority and go for direct funding, as two of my schools have wisely done to the great benefit of pupils and staff alike. But, even with such measures, some unfairnesses would remain, and high on the list of those would be the position of mobile home dwellers, on whose behalf I have frequently written to my right hon. Friend's predecessor.
  I have a large number of mobile homes in my area—614 to be precise. Many of them are occupied by retired couples who have lived prudently all their lives and saved for independence in their retirement. Many have sold their previous homes and moved to low-rated mobile homes to keep down their expenses only to be faced with an excessive county charge and a district charge on top.
  Those people do not think that they should be charged the full community charge because they do not require or receive full services. As one of my constituents put it, "We pay for the roads, the lighting, the cleaning and general maintenance of our site, covering quite a large area, in our site rent, as well as in the community charge." That does not seem fair to them and it does not seem fair to me. Even if something is done to reduce the county council's extortionate demands, something should be done to help mobile home owners in any new system that we may devise.
  As my right hon. Friend knows, we regard the all ages social index as being weighted unfairly against Lancaster and in favour of higher-spending, less-prudent local authorities, such as Blackburn, which spends 55 per cent. per head more than Lancaster and yet has a £20 lower community charge because of the weighting of that index. We hope that that will be remedied in any new proposal that may be introduced.
  I hope, too, that proper allowance will be made for the older low-rated property referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), of which we have more than 10,000. Transitional relief helps little, because Lancaster spends wildly above the Government's target and the charge payers pay the penalty for the county's profligacy. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give those people more reliefs now, whatever the new system may eventually be.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: It will be apparent to the country tonight that the Tory party is in the biggest mess of its own creation that anyone has ever seen. Scotland has had the poll tax for a considerable time and many people are in deep trouble because of the unthinking, uncaring way in which it has been implemented by the Government in Scotland.
  I welcome the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has come out from the wilderness, but it looks as if he has returned to the Tory jungle. In the speeches of Tory Members tonight, there is no evidence of any compassion or warmth. If the Secretary of State wishes genuinely to review the poll tax, it is clear that he will be in among the animals of the Tory party, and I do not think that he will come out unscathed.
  I understand that the Secretary of State is paying his staffs poll tax. Perhaps he was frightened that some would not pay it and would end up in court. Instead of abolishing the poll tax, the Secretary of State may say, "It is unfair and unjust, which is why I pay the poll tax for my staff. I wish that every other employer in the country would do the same, and then the Government could look after the desperate people who cannot afford to pay."
  The Secretary of State is supposedly against the poll tax, yet he voted for its introduction in Scotland. I hope that he will listen to the people of Scotland, who have said for years that it should be chucked in the bin. The Secretary of State for Scotland knows very well the problems that the poll tax has created, not only for ordinary men and women but for those on low incomes, invalids, pensioners, and students. It has created problems also for the registration officers, with so many people looking for work moving in and out of districts. Given the Tory party's recent public squabble, I do not know how the Westminster registration officer will manage, because he will need to establish who spent how much time at Chequers and Downing street. The Government have created so many problems for registration officers that they must be going barmy.
  We witnessed tonight the ranting and raving of the Secretary of State for the Environment, yet the poll tax was introduced by the Tories, and it is they who should fix it. They should completely abolish it. The Secretary of State huffed and puffed tonight, but what did he tell us? Conservative Members may smile, but I will be smiling when Labour achieves victory at the next general election. The Secretary of State said that he will review the poll tax to see what can be done, and will take on board all the opinions that have been expressed—but that it will take more than two years to abolish it. I call that a miserable situation for some of my constituents.
  Perhaps this will get rid of some of the Tory smiles. One of my constituents is unable to pay the poll tax through no fault of her own. Her husband got into difficulty and was bailed out, and when the police tried to arrest him they discovered that he had not paid any poll tax. I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland about that case, but he can offer no help. Neither can any assistance be given by the local authority, so that that woman is left to pay. How can one get blood out of a stone? How can one get blood out of a woman who is trying to bring up a family on her own? The poll tax makes no allowance for such women, and nor do the Government. If anyone wishes to challenge me, I am happy to produce every document that

  353
  I have received from the Secretary of State about that case. I do not hear any laughing and joking from Conservative Members now.
  Another case concerns a war hero who had half his brain blown away and who is looked after by his caring and adoring wife. He is deemed eligible to pay 20 per cent. poll tax. I think that it is a sick tax on heroes—on people who have sacrificed everything for their country. I have also sent the Secretary of State the letters that I have received from that man's wife in which she makes a plea for a sympathetic hearing of her case by the Government. The Government have shown no sympathy. The pillage continues. The Government are still trying to drain the energies and the pockets of people who desperately need help and support—among them, the elderly, invalids and students.
  The Government claim that it is a simple matter to seek poll tax relief, but one is presented with form after form after form. One needs to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand and complete the paperwork involved, particularly if one is elderly, infirm, or feeling slightly below par. Welfare rights advisers, the staff of unemployment information centres and citizens advice bureaux spend hour after hour trying to sort out the Government's bureaucratic bungling. Yes, Minister—it goes on and on and on, and it is time to bring it to an end.
  The Government produced one of the most complicated tax collection systems ever devised. It is a disgrace, and it is not what the people of this country want. Clearly the British people want a property tax based on ability to pay, and on the particular needs of the people about whom I have spoken. It should take into account the circumstances of the mentally handicapped, the less able, and the unemployed. There should be 100 per cent. rebate in such cases. I am here to defend those people—not just the rich or the very wealthy, such as the man who lives in a castle. I must represent also the man living in a tenement or, worse still, the children living in the cardboard cities that the Government created as a consequence of the poll tax.
  I am delighted that a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), agrees with me that there should be a property-based tax in place of the poll tax. I hope that when the Secretary of State for Scotland replies tonight he will extend some hope to the millions of people who, for many reasons, are unable to pay the poll tax. It may be because of the huge escalation in their rent or their electricity, food or heating bills. The Government have clearly shown that they are interested only in the welfare of the people at the top of society and in ensuring that they can hang on to their millions. I told the Secretary of State the other night that he ought to hang his head in shame. Tonight the right hon. Gentleman has a chance to hold it up high, by joining us in the Lobby to support the abolition of the poll tax.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: We should be grateful to Labour for tabling tonight's motion, because it provides the Government with an opportunity to emphasise that there will be a fundamental review from which no option will be excluded. I warmly welcome that, as does the whole country. The debate has also produced another lamentable
  354
  performance from members of Labour's Front and Back Benches. The more such opportunities they provide, the more we shall be grateful.
  Neither the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) nor Labour Back Benchers referred in any way, shape or form to Labour's own policy document, in which it professes to have so much pride. I do not blame them for failing to mention it, because, in the unlikely event of Labour ever being in a position to implement its provisions, the problems that accompanies our attempts to reform local government taxation will be as nothing by comparison to what they would face. Any attempt to return to the old rating system, as Labour proposes, would be akin to a kamikaze mission.
  The previous Government's experience with the rating system and with the Scottish revaluation of the rating system should have made anyone understand, without any shadow of a doubt, that that system was bad and unfair and provided no democratic accountability. Frankly, I am sorry that it took us so long to get rid of it.
  My message is simple. The rates were an appalling system of taxation. I argued for many years that we should abolish it as soon as we possibly could. One of the strong arguments against the system was that it provided no democratic accountability, as there were about 12 million ratepayers compared to 35 million voters. However, that was only part of the problem.
  Mr. George J. Buckley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Moate: No.
  A property tax is alien to the concept of fairness. One of the arguments in favour of the community charge is that it would provide better accountability because 35 million people would, in theory, be paying the tax.
  Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Moate: No, I shall not.
  If the tax had been set at a low level, it is just possible that it might have gained acceptance. I do not believe that any practical system of local government taxation can raise a significant amount of revenue, and that is why I welcome this fundamental review. I fail to understand why, in all the debates on this subject over the years, in every twist and turn that we have made to make the system more fair or more workable, we have never faced up to that fundamental problem. Given our circumstances—the geographical nature of the country and the density of the population—there is no workable and acceptable system of local government taxation.
  In support of that proposition, I urge my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the fundamentals, and I remind the House of the figures. All the turmoil which we and the Opposition Front Bench have plunged ourselves into, is due to a form of taxation—[Interruption.] Let me make this point clear. It is due to a form of taxation which raises only about 6 per cent. of all Government revenue—with about 100 per cent. of the pain. Total revenue raised in this country is about £200 billion. At present, after rebates and relief, net community charge amounts to £11·4 billion. Why do we torture ourselves in this way to raise a relatively small part of total taxation? Compare it with the amount raised in tobacco taxes, which is £5 billion, value

  355
  added tax, which raises £30 billion, fuel tax, which raises £9 billion, national insurance receipts of £33 billion and income tax, which is about £55 billion.
  That point is important. If one asks the man in the street how he would like to pay for Government services, including local government—through the community charge, a property tax, the rates or on a pay-as-you-earn and pay-as-you-spend basis—I have no doubt that the vast majority would say that they wanted to pay as they earned, and as they spent. [Interruption.] I am advocating that we should do it, and I am on the record as saying exactly the same thing many years ago. None of the forms of taxation that hon. Members seem to be crying out for seem to be workable or acceptable. If we are genuinely looking for a system of taxation which is to work into the 21st century, and be accepted, I urge that we consider the fundamental principle of whether to transfer the tax on to central taxation and work on the principle of a central Government grant to local authorities.
  Of course, many will argue that that would undermine local government, but I do not believe that local government would be destroyed by it. It would still be accountable to the electorate for the manner in which it spent the money.
  Mr. Buckley: How can the hon. Gentleman make such a contribution to the debate? He has ruled out all the options. The Minister said that all options were open. Now the hon. Gentleman has suggested a central levy of taxation, which will be distributed to local government on an agency basis. If the Minister is going to have direct control of local government finances, where is the accountability?
  Mr. Moate: I am glad that all the options are open. However, I am urging that we consider the option of transferring all revenue-raising power to central Government—[interruption] I hope that Opposition Members will listen to my point of view, because I think that they will get themselves into just as big a tangle as every other Government have done for the past 20 or 30 years.
  As regards accountability, we already accept that 75 per cent. of revenue from taxation is raised centrally, and passed out by way of Government grants. In every proposition, whether increasing the range of exemptions, which is put forward by the Opposition, or by transfer ring teachers' salaries to central Government, we reduce the total net benefit which comes from local taxation revenue. Must there not come a time when total net yield becomes so low that it undermines the argument about accountability? I suggest that we have virtually reached that point.
  More and more, when I talk to local councillors, I find that they would be more than ready to accept an increase in grants, and to do away with this nonsense and farce of local government taxation. We are virtually at that point. Services which were previously administered by councils are moving out of the political arena. In some constituencies, such as my own, housing is now entirely controlled by housing associations. Many functions which were previously political are no longer political. Is that not another argument—that the more we struggle to raise local government revenue, the more trouble we shall get and the more irrelevant it will be?
  356
  My message is simple. We are torturing ourselves over an illusion. We are seeking to raise a small amount of tax locally and we are creating systems that are painfully unjust to a vast number of people. There is only one way to arrange for everyone to make a contribution to the services that they enjoy—a mixture of pay-as-you-earn and pay-as-you-spend. I urge my right hon. Friends properly to consider and analyse that simple proposition.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. John Evans: As a Merseyside Member of Parliament, I join other hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) on an excellent maiden speech, and I hope that he will give us the benefit of his experience of the manifest and many problems of Merseyside on many occasions.
  In a very thin speech, the Secretary of State said that his review of the poll tax would cover a period of two years. That has more to do with the Tory party timetable and prospects for the general election than with anything else, and I view it with some scepticism.
  The Secretary of State does not require two years to correct the disgraceful unfairness of his Department's standard spending assessments. I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment—free from the threat of the prime ministerial handbagging, which accompanied his predecessors' every move—will listen carefully to my argument about standard spending assessments.
  St. Helens was capped, despite the evidence that the spending assessments, rather than the council's decisions, had caused the problem. The political overtones of that capping are obvious. Even though St. Helens had the second lowest rate on Merseyside, before the poll tax, it was capped. The obscenity was that other Tory council budgets, set after poll tax, were wildly above their spending assessments, yet they were not capped.
  St. Helens council is committed to providing decent, basic services, especially for the elderly, good education services and help for the needy. Indeed, most urban councils have a higher expenditure burden because of the non-statutory services needed to help redress disadvantage. That needs to be understood if the Secretary of State does re-examine the SSAs. The greater the spread of social problems, the higher will be the cost of council services.
  The point that I want to drive home to the new Secretary of State is that the level of poll tax in St. Helens has little to do with the council's efficiency, and everything to do with the size of Government grant. The poll tax level rests on the foundation stone of the spending assessment—of decisions made by the Secretary of State. He decides the amount of assistance that every council in the country should receive to provide its services.
  The original argument—that poll tax would increase the accountability of councillors—has long since evaporated. Councillors' fortunes are now largely controlled by central Government decisions on spending. Let me give an example. It might be thought that a child at risk of abuse was in need of the same help regardless of where it lived, but that is not how the Government see it. Tory Westminster council receives twice as much central Government money for children at risk as Labour St. Helens. No London weighting can account for such a disparity. In this instance, higher grants mean a smaller burden for poll tax payers.

  357
  When Westminster's spending assessments are compared with those of St. Helens, the result looks positively corrupt. If the Minister consults, for instance, the Macmillan guide to retirement, he will see that the average rates bill per head in St. Helens was less than half that in Westminster—£208, compared with £501. Now, St. Helens' poll tax is twice Westminster's. The poll tax spending assessments carry more than a whiff of political favour.
  Unemployment, which was taken into account in the old rate support grant, is not now considered a factor in the spending assessments. If it were still included, St. Helens would receive a much higher grant; but, for political reasons, it was dropped by previous Secretaries of State.
  Unemployment creates poverty, and poverty creates children in need. Unemployment increases the demands on education, because low achievement goes hand in hand with unemployment. Unemployment creates extra needs across the range of services, from advice shops to libraries. Unemployment is running at about 10 per cent. in my constituency. Why, then, have the Government ignored such a vital factor?
  We can see what sort of record Tory councils are busy establishing. They receive massive SSA handouts to cover basic needs, which immediately reduce the poll tax bill in authorities that the Tories regard as "flagships". Then, to drive the poll tax down further, they look for what they call "efficiencies". What are these "efficiencies"? Let me tell the Minister: they are the non-statutory services which have always been designed to improve the quality of life for the less affluent and the poor.
  Wandsworth is closing down day centres for the elderly. Tory authorities across the country fail to provide decent nursery education. Meals-on-wheels services are slashed. Schools' resources are cut, not for educational reasons but to drive down the poll tax. And who benefits? Of course, those on the margins of poverty pay a slightly lower poll tax; but, if those same poorer people need legal advice, they cannot obtain it if, as in Wandsworth, the law centres are being closed. If they have to work and cannot afford private care for an aging relative, they are in a bind, because help centres have been closed. The fact is that the affluent benefit most from the poll tax.
  There is one shining example of the real motivation of Tory poll tax cutters. The new leader of Hillingdon council, Tory Andrew Boff, supported one increase in expenditure while cutting anything else that looked remotely social. He raised councillors' expenses by 70 per cent. while cuts were being made in care for the elderly.
  The spending assessments tabled by the former Secretary of State made everyone associated with local government in St. Helens despair. Most Cabinet Ministers, including the present Secretary of State, send or have sent their children to private schools. If we had a voucher system for education, tied to the unit cost of the state secondary education demanded of St. Helens, and a Government rule that no parent could supplement that amount by more than 10 per cent. of its value—the capping rule—Tory Cabinet Ministers would not be able to find a private school in this country for their children.
  Tory Ministers pride themselves on paying attention to careful spending. The bald facts speak for themselves: if
  358
  the Government's SSAs were sufficient to provide quality education, they would not spend their money on sending their own children to private schools. I want the same treatment for children in St. Helens whose parents could not afford to send them to private schools even if they wanted to. But that is not good enough for this Tory Cabinet. Its members spend thousands each year in school fees, and then tell my council that, if it spends half that amount per child in its schools, its budgets will be capped. That is an absolute disgrace.
  My constituents—whose average income is somewhat smaller than those of Tory Cabinet Ministers—do not have the choice. The cruel irony is that the children in my area need the investment far more that those who are already privileged. I believe that this is known as "equal opportunity". But the position is even worse than that. The spending assessment per secondary pupil for St. Helens is £1,433; in neighbouring Liverpool, it is £1,717. That means that every school with 1,000 pupils is better funded by no less than £284,000 a year in Liverpool than in St. Helens, yet participation levels in further education and examination grades in no way justify such wide differentials.
  In St. Helens last year, every poll tax payer had to contribute £8 per head to pay the debts of the Mersey tunnels, which my constituents do not use. In other words, the margins on extra permissible spending were already diminished by nearly 2 per cent. for a service that the people do not use. I fail to see why authorities that already benefit from tourism should receive additional special grants while the Government refuse to dislocate the costs of the tunnels from St. Helens' poll tax.
  Any Minister who walks around my constituency will see that it does not begin to compare with the affluence of Wandsworth or Westminster, let alone that of the ranks of Tory authorities elsewhere in the south-east; yet if my authority received as much SSA as Wandsworth—which used it to set a poll tax amounting to a mere £148—it could have given everyone in St. Helens a substantial cheque.
  St. Helens has been praised by visiting Ministers, the CBI, local business men and, most of all, the voters who re-elected the council last May. It has played a central role in helping to cement an economic partnership between industry and the community. It is a hard-working council, which acts for and is accountable to the community. The most recent spending assessments, however, did nothing to build on that effort; indeed, they jeopardised it.
  I call on the new Secretary of State to abolish what the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), called
  "a grave error of judgment"—
  the poll tax. Before doing so, however, he has the chance to prove his mettle by restructuring the SSAs, especially those relating to education and social services, and reintroducing unemployment as a factor in grant support. If he fails to do that, we shall know that his leadership promises, and the speech that he made today, were simply empty rhetoric.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. John Lee: The first mistake in this sad and sorry saga was the original commitment to abolish the domestic rates. That commitment should not have been made until we had agreed that there was a specific, demonstrably better alternative.

  359
  My own view has always been that it would have been relatively easy for us to adjust the old-style rating system to deal with its unfairnesses—perhaps using a multiplier to take account of the numbers in a household, or some form of earnings multiplier, together with, possibly, a national uniform charge payable by non-ratepayers so that everyone would make a contribution. That would have proved incomparably easier and cheaper than the quagmire in which we find ourselves now: a policy that, as has already been said today, has—sadly—moved money from the have-nots to the haves.
  The reality is that there was no expert independent support in the country for the community charge, and no one now claims any credit for it. Its godfathers have gone for good. This wretched policy was driven through the House—our parliamentary party was clubbed and conned—and was carted around the country by a succession of Ministers, with limited conviction and even more limited success.
  Of course, once the Government realised the full horror of what they had unleashed, they tried to make amends. Exemptions, transitional relief, safety nets, area protection, rebates, capping—we dug the hole deeper and deeper. It is true that some measure of accountability arose and that charge levels were hotly debated, but the public—except in areas of gross excesses by certain Labour authorities—became totally confused. In my Pendle constituency, where there is a Liberal local authority, a Labour Lancashire county council and a Conservative national Government, everyone throws grenades at each other. It is well known that a local authority such as Pendle, an historically low-rated area, has suffered greatly from the charge. Indeed, the "Pendle factor" is now an acknowledged term in any poll tax debate.
  Let me give the House a few facts that demonstrate our problem. Pendle has 17,000 terraced properties where the average rateable value was £60 and where the average rates payable amounted to £166. Our first year community charge of £299 meant that 75 per cent. of my constituents were worse off and that 90 per cent. of two-person households were worse off. The average increase for a three-person household was no less than 423 per cent. In a thrifty, predominantly low-earning community with a high ethnic factor, the scale of hardship and ensuing bitterness can be appreciated.
  Approximately 30 per cent. of charge payers—19,000 people—receive some form of community charge benefit. There have been no fewer than 46,000 separate movements in community charge benefits locally. Moreover, 23 additional staff are needed to administer the poll tax and benefits. The cost of collection amounts to £11·82 per charge payer—twice that for rates. By 30 November, 8 per cent.—or 5,000 people—had paid nothing. Only 57 per cent. of the total collection had been received after seven months, compared with 78 per cent. for rates at the same period. The resulting revenue loss means that each Pendle charge payer will have to find £21 next year.
  What is to be done? My local authority would like the safety net to be phased out over 10 years rather than four, with transitional relief based on actual rather than notional expenditure. My 371 parliamentary colleagues seem to have 371 pet schemes to improve the community charge. I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his ministerial colleagues well as they take soundings.
  360
  For myself, if we are just trying to ameliorate the worst effects of the community charge in the short term, I would favour a simple discount formula, with the head of household paying 100 per cent. of the charge, the second person in the household paying perhaps 50 per cent. of the charge, with the third and any additional occupiers paying 25 per cent. of the charge. If that formula could be afforded, it would substantially ease the compounding effect of the charge on many households.
  I am now of the view, however, that there is a limit to the amount of propping up and repair work that can be done. In our next manifesto I believe that we must commit ourselves to total repeal and start again. A change of Prime Minister has given us that opportunity. We must look again at the structure of local government financing. There must not be another occasion in history when an admiral has been destroyed by his own flagship.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: When the poll tax was first proposed, we were told that one of its objectives was to abolish the inequities of the rating system. Another objective was local accountability. No Opposition Member would disagree that there were inequities and anomalies under the old domestic rating system and that it would be good to abolish those inequities and anomalies. That is precisely what the next Labour Government intend to do, as we have heard today and in recent weeks. However, as we know to our cost, the Tory Government abolished the rating system and replaced it with the poll tax which, in terms of inequity and anomaly, leaves the domestic rating system standing. All the problems and suffering of which the Tory Government were warned have come to pass. Only now, when the Tory Government realise that they too will be held accountable by the electorate, have they decided to embark on a damage limitation exercise.
  What has been the Government's answer to the problem? They have decided to ask the Labour party to help them out. If a group of bandits were to set fire to my home and stand back laughing as it burned, I could not be expected to be grateful to them if they helped to douse the fire when the wind changed and the flames turned on them. That is the position of the Tory party over the poll tax. The Government have inflicted great suffering on millions of people. They imposed it in the full knowledge of what they were doing and of the damage that it would cause. They therefore cannot expect to be forgiven because they now see that they have created a danger for themselves and want to save their own skin. The goings-on of the last two weeks have been part of that process.
  On Second Reading of the 1987 Bill, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) warned of the potential damage that the poll tax would do and predicted that it would be dubbed a Tory tax, but he was concerned not so much about its effects on people as about its effect on the Tory party. The new Prime Minister cannot escape his responsibility, either. He supported the poll tax throughout by voting for it, arguing its merits and deriding those who opposed it. The Government know that the change of face at the top will not resolve their problems. They will therefore step up the propaganda and promise policy changes at some future date—jam tomorrow, as it was described by one of the Secretary of State's own Ministers.

  361
  The Government will first engage, however, in their now common strategy of trying to shift the blame on to local councillors. The former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), fired the first shot in the latest round on 30 November. On Radio 4, he said:
  "Local government expenditure has been surging over recent years."
  That statement was supported on Monday of this week by the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities when he, too, referred to
  "enormous increases in local authority spending".—[Official Report, 3 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 42.]
  Today, the Secretary of State has made similar allegations.
  The facts are completely contrary to what these "honourable" gentlemen proclaim. If we look at table 2.2 of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's finance and general statistics for 1989–90, what do we see? At constant prices, local authority expenditure between 1979–80 and 1987–88 increased by an average of only 1·5 per cent. per year, or a total of 15 per cent. over the period, whereas central Government expenditure over the same period, using the same basis, increased by 22 per cent. Who, therefore, are the overspenders?
  What is true is that there has been a huge increase in local taxes—first the rates and now the poll tax—but people might ask, how can that be if expenditure has not increased significantly? The answer is that, in 1979, about 63 per cent. of local government expenditure was met by Government grants; now, it is less than 50 per cent. For the same expenditure, therefore, local payers—business and domestic—now have to find over 50 per cent. of the bill, as opposed to only 37 per cent. 10 years ago.
  For proof of what I say, I need turn to no less an authority than the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), who was one of the principal lieutenants of the new Secretary of State for the Environment during the race for the Tory leadership two weeks ago. When asked in a television interview how his candidate would deal with the problem of the poll tax, he said:
  "We will shift the burden of local expenditure from local to central Government. It has all been going the other way over recent years."
  I think that I quote the hon. Gentleman accurately. How right he was when he said that it has all been going the other way over recent years. What he did not say was that it was his man who was one of the principal architects of the process. That is why bills have increased while services have been cut. That is why poll tax bills are so much higher than they should be, or need to be.
  The Tory party has tried to create the illusion of being the party of tax cuts, when in fact it has been the party of tax increases. While it is true that income tax has been cut, as the hon. Member for East Lindsey rightly observed, the burden of tax was not removed but shifted on to local government and the poll tax payer. The Tory party now hopes that it can fool the voters into believing that the poll tax was something invented by "`er indoors" and has nothing to do with the new regime. The Tory party would need an entire flock of sheep before it could get anywhere near to pulling the wool over the eyes of my constituents, not because they can quote chapter and verse of expenditure statistics but because they are living at the
  362
  sharp end of the cuts in services and the effects on their quality of life. They know the real results of poll tax and poll tax capping.
  They certainly know a lot better than the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) who on Monday said that councils bleat about cuts which never occur. Perhaps the Minister should take his head out of the sand and stop talking through his poll tax cap. Is he not aware of the massive cut in housing provision over the past 10 years? In 1979, Newcastle upon Tyne built 1,300 houses for its people. As a result of deliberate Tory Government policy, last year it built just four bungalows, despite the fact that the need is as great as if not greater than, in 1979.
  Would the Minister care to visit the old lady I went to see last Monday? She has just lost her home help because the council was forced to decide who needed a home help the most. That is as a result of budget cuts over the past three years and cuts of 86 staff, resulting in 500 pensioners losing the help that they rely on. The lady I visited is almost deaf, she is 80 years old and is scarcely able to walk. She can just about flick a duster if she holds it in a certain way in hands crippled with arthritis. She has been declared not as frail as others, who have therefore taken a higher priority.
  Does the Minister understand that that is the sort of decision that local councillors and their officers have to take day by day under this Government? If he does not, the people at the sharp end certainly do. They know who is to blame. Because of poll tax capping, the screw will be tightened further next year. In Newcastle, six old people's homes are threatened with closure. Home help services will be cut yet again, and charges may be imposed. Meals on wheels may be axed and services to the needy and the voluntary sector, supported by the council, such as Newcastle law centre, the centre for the unemployed and many others, are in danger of losing their funding and closing down. Are those the benefits of capping to which the Minister referred on Monday and which he said should be passed on to the poll tax payer?
  Even at this stage on their road to Damascus, the Tories fail to realise that people are not stupid. I recently met the people of Scotswood to discuss the ever-increasing chaos and disturbance caused by mindless hooligans driving recklessly through housing estates in stolen cars—a practice that recently resulted in the tragic death of a small baby. They were only too painfully aware of the effect on their quality of life of 11 years of Tory Government and of how the council has its hands tied behind its back. They are crying out not for cuts but for help.
  However, the Government's poll tax policies were firmed up on Monday under the new Prime Minister and the Secretary of State and, even if the people were to say to the council, "Look, put a couple of pounds on the poll tax and spend the money on providing a decent environment for our families," it could not do it. The wishes of the people, even if they voted for the council at the local election, will be ignored. They will be ignored not by the council but by the Government, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. So much for local accountability.
  No doubt the Minister will tell us again, as he did on Monday, that the Government are putting £3 billion extra into local government next year. However, that money will not help increase or improve education, social services,

  363
  housing or any other service, because councils' expenditure levels are still determined by the Government. That £3 billion is to keep down the level of the poll tax and thereby the level of hostility against the Government. That £3 billion is not for the services or the people but for the Tory party.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine: I was one of the Conservative Members who voted against the community charge on Second and Third Reading. I did so because, although I acknowledged that there were unfairnesses in the old domestic rating system which needed to be put right, I feared that the community charge would simply replace the old unfairnesses with new and more serious ones. I am very much afraid that my fears have been proved right—[Interruption.] Before Opposition Members become too over-confident, I must remind them that by no means all the unfairnesses of the community charge are the fault of the community charge itself. Many of them stem from high-spending Labour councils.
  My constituency of Ipswich is an example of that. At £440, we have the 20th highest community charge in the country. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to hear that we have a Labour-controlled borough council. It is true that the greater part of the community charge is the responsibility of the Conservative-controlled county council, but that is because it is has to meet the large spending elements of education and the social services. The real key is the contrast as regards standard spending assessments. Conservative-controlled Suffolk county council exceeded its standard spending assessment by 9 per cent. while Labour-controlled Ipswich borough council exceeded its standard spending assessment by a staggering and disgraceful 97 per cent.
  It sickens me when Labour councils which indulge in such over-spending then weep salt tears over the plight of community charge payers who have difficulty meeting their bills. It sickens me nearly as much as the kind of speech—rant is probably a better word—that we heard from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), putting forward the views of the "can't pay, won't pay" school. That is totally contemptible. I t is contemptible, too, for other Opposition Members to indicate agreement with the hon. Gentleman's views. Those who do that must face the consequence that because they are not paying, their less well-to-do constituents will have to pay more. Someone has to stump up the difference, and it is the ordinary community charge payer who does so—[Interruption.] I can tell Opposition Members who are cheering that many community charge payers who are highly critical of the Government for the community charge are also intensely indignant at those who do not meet their community charge commitments.
  For all that, and for all my criticisms of the Opposition and Labour-controlled councils, there are unfairnesses stemming from the operation of the community charge which need to he put right. That is why I welcome the Government's commitment to a thorough, constructive and fundamental review of the kind that we have been promised. I welcome the fact that heading the Department of the Environment as Secretary of State we have one of the initial mainline opponents of the community charge, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Mr. Young) as Minister of State, who also
  364
  honourably opposed the community charge at the outset. The fact that they are both in the Department of the Environment and charged with carrying out the review gives me much greater confidence that there will be an effective review. I know that that feeling is shared by many of my constituents.
  There are certain points that I should like to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to take into account as they carry out their review. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State enunciate the principle that everyone should contribute something. That principle is right and commands a wide measure of cross-party support. There must also be better accountability. Accountability was put forward as the great merit of the community charge. It may work where there is a unitary authority, but it comes under strain where there are two local authorities. Where in a constituency such as mine there are two local authorities of different political persuasions, it breaks down altogether.
  Conservative-controlled Suffolk county council and Labour-controlled Ipswich borough council could not agree what proportion of the community charge each was responsible for, and accountability broke down completely. I sought expert advice and was told that what was needed was a "standard disaggregation formula". When I asked the Department of the Environment what that was, I was told that no such formula was on offer. We need to establish better accountability.
  The third principle is that the new system must be seen to be fair. In my view, that involves linking the tax more effectively to people's ability to pay and ending the unfair anomaly whereby, if a wife gives up employment to stay at home and look after the children, she and her husband have to pay two community charges out of one income. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is learning."] I am not learning—I realised that from the start, and that is why I voted against it. Such unfairnesses cause real hardship and they must be fairly and squarely put right in the review.
  Finally, it is most important that, in deciding how to raise money for local government finance, my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment should give great weight to administrative efficiency—to the principles of cheapness and the certainty of collection. That will not only save money and thus help to reduce everyone's contribution to local government finance; it will be good in itself. It is easy to call for administrative efficiency and agree on the need for it, but it is devilishly difficult to achieve it. Nevertheless, it is most important that those charged with the review should keep it in mind as their principal aim.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall not try to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine). As he is a pretty fair hon. Member, however, I hope to explain to him why I have taken a stand and perhaps to convince him that there is a certain efficacy in not paying.
  The Secretary of State tried to take the heat out of the debate by promising a long review and trying to lure hon. Members on both sides of the House into his deliberations. Perhaps the Minister of State, who is on the Front Bench, will ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is to reply to the debate, to answer this question: what did the Secretary of State for the Environment mean by a "stable and just basis"? May we have an explanation of that? The

  365
  Secretary of State for the Environment will have to spell that out before any of us enters into discussions to try to assist him.
  It is all very well for Conservative Members to repent now and tell us how wrong the poll tax is. It is a matter of shameful record that in Scotland we have had it since 1989. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friends in the Scottish National party calls on the House to congratulate
  "the people of Scotland in maintaining principled resistance to the poll tax".
  The heat may have been taken out of the debate, but I can tell the House that the heat is still on in Scotland. Lest there should be any doubt about that, I refer the Minister of State to the various meetings that Ministers have had with the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities. The poll tax in Scotland is collapsing and the process will not wait for a two-year review. Once it gets out that Ministers intend not to ameliorate the poll tax but to abolish it in all but name, it will collapse apace. [Interruption.]Do I get injury time for this, I wonder?
  In 1987, the people of Scotland rejected the tax through the ballot box. The poll tax became a priority subject for Labour's 50 Scottish Members. A statement of policy at the 1988 party conference in Perth said:
  "many individuals, understanding the consequences of their action, will chose to accept the civil penalty involved in non-payment. The Labour Party does not rule out a non-payment campaign."
  In a further statement, made in September 1988, the Labour party said:
  "Labour does not believe that a campaign of non-payment … can be considered as a way to defeat the tax."
  We were told that the only way to defeat the tax was to elect a Labour Government. But the statement recognised:
  "many individuals view this tax to be so abhorrent, its introduction to be so vindictive that they may make their own personal stand by not paying it … We recognise their right to do so."
  "But," said the Labour party, "for God's sake, don't tell anyone. Don't have a mass campaign. Sit at home and do not let on." That is the posture of the Labour party.
  It is against the background of those statements that we must set the position of the Leader of the Opposition, who made his views plain in January 1988, telling people that to disobey the law would be "futile illegality". The right hon. Gentleman expressed his views in ringing tones. I told the right hon. Gentleman that I intended to refer to him, so I make no apology for my remarks. [Interruption.] It would have been better to have the organ grinder rather than the monkey, in the form of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
  What has happened in Scotland? So many people have disobeyed the law that its legitimacy has been called into question. Of 3·7 million poll tax payers, 1,200,000 have been issued with summary warrants—700,000 of them sheriff officer warrants. Have we had 1,200,000 instances of futile illegality? Some of those involved can pay but will not pay as a matter of principle. The vast majority cannot pay. Is that futile illegality?
  The Labour party promised to set up mechanisms to ensure that everything possible was done to protect the poorer sections of the population. What it did not say was that those mechanisms would include making poll tax deductions from income support—59,000 applications to obtain £1·85 a week from single people and 2·90 from married couples and 59,000 expressions of a forced
  366
  illegality visited on the poorer sections of the population. In his remarks last week, the Leader of the Opposition offered them sympathy. Will his sympathy cards be wrapped up inside sheriff warrants sent out by Labour regional councils? [Laughter.]The hon. Member for Garscadden may find that humorous; I do not think it is humorous. I have had warrants sent to my home under a system administered by a Labour council. I have had sheriff officers breaking down my door, terrorising my disabled daughter.
  Mr. Dewar: Oh.
  Mr. Douglas: Yes, in the house. The hon. Gentleman should get up. Get up, then I will give way.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman should have thought about it.
  Mr. Douglas: Of course I thought about it. The hon. Gentleman said that it would never happen to me but it did, and the warrant was declared void. Get up now.
  Mr. Dewar: I have not risen to my feet on the hon. Gentleman's instruction.
  If the process was so traumatic, why did not the hon. Gentleman think about the position in which he was placing his family in the first place?
  Mr. Douglas: I did that. The door was broken down illegally. What will the hon. Gentleman say, as a lawyer, if somebody goes to him in those circumstances? Will he tell that person to obey the law?—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is not a lawyer."] He is a lawyer. I apologise to the Chair. The poll tax is a farce. The warrant was declared void, but the regional council is appealing, as it may be entitled to do. That is what happened on the basis of one warrant. What a farce.
  The Labour banners that I stood up for and under were those with the badges of John MacLean, Jimmy Maxton, Lansbury and Hardie. I was brought up on that heritage on Clydeside. My earliest memories are of standing beside——
  Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman will be giving us Ramsay MacDonald next.
  Mr. Douglas: No; it is Ramsay MacKinnock.
  When I was about five, I stood beside neighbours when their doors were broken down by fire axes and their furniture dragged out. Those memories burn deep within me. However, that tradition of resistance cannot be seen in the current Labour party, with the exception of a few hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), if I can embarrass him by so applauding him. That tradition is no longer there, because it would not suit the Mandelson image of respectability. It would not get those in the Labour party a shot at the limousines.
  In Scotland, the tradition of John MacLean is married to a more ancient tradition that goes back to the 14th century. I make no apologies for quoting the Declaration of Arbroath, which stated:
  "For it is not glory, it is not riches, neither is it honour, but it is Liberty alone that we fight and contend for, which NO honest man will lose but with his life".
  If other people had thought about liberty and freedom rather than being party hacks and marching through Lobbies, we would not be having this debate. If more

  367
  people had put liberty and freedom first, as did members of the Scottish National party and, to their credit, some Labour supporters, we would not be having this debate today, because we would not have the poll tax.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I do not think that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), for whom I have a high regard, would regard me as Lobby fodder on this issue. I did not support the introduction of the poll tax or the community charge in Scotland; nor have I voted for it on any occasion since. However, much as I respect the hon. Gentleman's principles, on this occasion I believe that they are misplaced. There is a heavy duty on all hon. Members to obey the law whether we like it or not.
  I was greatly encouraged by the remarkable speech this afternoon of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was one of the most remarkable speeches that we have heard in the Chamber for a long time. It addressed the fundamental issues of local government—the importance of not divorcing financing from structures—and it put forward some positive proposals, to which I shall return later.
  As someone who has been a long-standing and continuous opponent of this charge or tax, I should like to say that of course it will take time to have a thorough review. All hon. Members must be realistic; we must not delude those who look to us from outside, who are following the debate with great interest and concern. However, certain categories of people can and should be helped immediately. I should like to make a plea, through my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) who is in his place on the Treasury Bench, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look at certain categories.
  I have in mind couples who are living in terraced houses. There are not many in my constituency, but there are in the constituencies of my hon. Friends, and in the west midlands generally. Those low-rated properties are often occupied by couples who have been frugal and prudent but who do not have the necessary qualifications for a rebate. Nevertheless, their rates charge of £200 or £300 has been translated into a community charge of £700 or £800. A gentleman came to see me not so long ago and asked, "What shall I give up, my holiday or my motor car? " We should not put people of that sort into that position. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give them his earnest consideration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred to mobile homes. I, too, have many constituents living in mobile homes, which are strangely named because most of them are far from mobile. Many of them are beautiful, with lovely gardens, and are tended with great care. They are "homes" in every sense of that word. It is wrong that the people living in them should be taxed in the same way as I am taxed. The flat rate has always been my fundamental objection to the charge.
  I also hope that something can be done about students. Although the fact that they pay 20 per cent. means that they have an 80 per cent. rebate, nevertheless, if they are coping with a loan and other things and are dependent upon their parents, that 20 per cent. can be a substantial charge.
  368
  I hope that something can also be done to assist non-earning spouses—most, but not all, of whom are wives. Those categories of people can and should be helped immediately. They can be helped in the very short term, and I hope they will be.
  I have always felt that there is merit in a property-based tax because it bears some relationship to ability to pay. On several occasions in the 1970s, I introduced a private Member's Bill on rating reform. I even had my right hon. Friends the Members for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) as my co-sponsors on one occasion. The aim of that particular Bill was to keep the rating base but to make each adult wage earner pay something. That is still possibly the best solution.
  I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it plain that he has ruled out nothing because that is the only way to have a fundamental review. Great credit accrues to any Government who are prepared to say, "Yes, we have listened, and yes, we have realised." I have enormous respect for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his courage in saying that so quickly after assuming the highest office, for bringing into the Cabinet my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who is a man of infinite experience and wisdom in these matters, and for saying to him, "Please deal with this."
  I have one suggestion for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He talked this afternoon about bringing hon. Members of all parties into the discussion. That is a sound idea. After all, if we are going to alter the structure of local government finance, this time we want to alter it for a generation or two, not for just a few years. If we can have a basis of consensus on the structure—not necessarily on the levels, because there will, of course, be many arguments about that and about the detail—that will be very much for the better, and local government will be properly served.
  Therefore, I suggest that we do something that we have not done very often in the past and that we set up a Special Select Committee to deal with this subject. We should not simply refer the matter to the Select Committee on the Environment, admirable though it is. A Special Select Committee should be set up, consisting of hon. Members of known experience and expertise in this area, of whom there are many in all parties. They should be asked to look at this matter and to report back to the House.
  I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend should not do other things simultaneously—of course he should, and doubtless he will. He will consult those who serve in local government and take opinions from all over the realm, because he is a man who really listens. That is absolutely right and proper. However, I believe that hon. Members have a particular role to play. I hope very much that the sort of Committee to which I have referred could be given serious consideration and the remit that I have outlined.
  One of the best things about the House—I have now been a Member for 20 years—is that Select Committees quickly push aside partisan considerations and look at the merits of an issue. I found that when I served on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. We produced very good reports in the 1979 Parliament, which were almost always unanimous. Hon. Members put aside their party differences to look at the issues and discuss them on

  369
  their merits. This issue is so important that it deserves the setting up of a Special Select Committee, and I hope that that suggestion will be passed to my right hon. Friend.
  We all bear a share of the responsibility for the mess we are in—and there is a mess. We do not have a satisfactory system, but, as my hon. Friends have rightly pointed out, we would not be in that position if it were not for the profligate spending of many authorities, most of which—I should say, all of which—are Labour-controlled.
  I should like to end, not on a partisan note, but on one on which I hope we shall all agree.
  Mr. Tony Favell: My hon. Friend has just said to Opposition Members that the problem has been with us a long time and they tried to say that it had not. But we are now in the 25th anniversary year of Anthony Crosland's great speech to the effect that "the party's over". He was an honoured member of the Labour party, who said that local government had had their own way for years. Some one in nine of the working population of this country are employed by town halls and have not been accountable for years. Now, for the first time, they are accountable, and whatever happens as a result of the review, they must remain accountable.
  Mr. Cormack: I am sure we would all agree that accountability is important, but we have not got it right yet.
  We have a chance to look at the system again—we have a new Prime Minister and Secretary of State, both of whom have pledged that they will get it right and said that it is sensible to consult widely. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made some specific appeals and suggestions this afternoon. I have suggested how one of the problems might be tackled—[Interruption.] It would be helpful if Opposition Members did not engage in a slanging match with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell).
  We are on the eve of a major and beneficial change and I am delighted to pledge my total support to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Richard Caborn: I do not deny the sincerity of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and his constructive response to the Secretary of State, but I advise him that, as I was walking out of the Chamber, I overheard one of his hon. Friends saying, "That's good—it's better than setting up a royal commission; it will see us through the next general election." There seem to be different views on and responses to the Secretary of State's offer.
  Many of this afternoon's contributions have involved the effect of the poll tax on individuals, but I shall concentrate on the destruction of a city by the poll tax. I was concerned when I heard the Secretary of State mention the period of two years, because some cities in this country cannot last two years. The city from which I come, Sheffield, will have to face horrendous problems in the next two financial years. The anomalies of the poll tax calculation affect the city of Sheffield.
  I was interested to hear the Secretary of State's remarks about the regeneration of our great cities. It is true that many of those cities were devastated in the early 1980s.
  370
  Sheffield did not escape: it suffered 50,000 job losses in the steel and engineering industry. The knock-on effect created an almost unmanageable position.
  Mr. Favell: Like Firth Brown's?
  Mr. Caborn: Yes, I was the convenor of shop stewards at Firth Brown. When I left in 1979, there were 8,000 people in that sector of the industry; there are now 2,000.
  We all came together in Sheffield in the mid-1980s—the chamber of commerce, the trade unions, the universities and polytechnics. We started to look at the restructuring and regeneration of that great city, and we considered the diversification of the industrial and economic base. Part of the regeneration package was to change the institutions, upgrade the city's skills, develop its infrastructure and ensure technology transfer within the city, with the science and technology parks. Those developments occurred in the private and public sectors, and now they are all at risk because the standard spending assessment under the poll tax has devastated the city.
  The second aspect of the city of Sheffield that militates against an objective standard spending assessment is its boundaries. I represent Sheffield, Central, the 10th poorest constituency in the United Kingdom. One of the five other constituencies in Sheffield has the highest level of academic qualifications per head of population anywhere in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is a city in which some parts are poor and others are affluent. When the figures are averaged out, they do not look too bad, but the inner-city problems in Sheffield are as acute as in any other major city in the United Kingdom. Sheffield's demographic composition militates against an objective standard spending assessment.
  If there were 7 per cent. inflation under the 1991 level of spending, in 1991–92 the city council would require £410 million compared with the maximum budget we could get under the new poll tax arrangement of £354 million—the figure permitted under the Government's poll tax capping criteria. The anticipated level of reserves for 1991–92 to bridge that gap is £20 million—and that would be scraping the bottom of the barrel. That leaves us with a deficit—I hope that the civil servants are listening, because the figures have already been presented once—of £36 million on the year 1991–92. When the figure is rolled on to the year 1992–93, it is compounded and there is a £60 million deficit, because of the narrow base on which the SSA is calculated and the historical factor.
  In 1980, Sheffield was entering the recession. Calculated on the census of 1981, the SSA does not reflect the social problems related to the restructuring of Sheffield. It seems ridiculous that the overall growth allowed for Sheffield is 9 per cent., whereas Westminster can have 35·1 per cent. growth and Wandsworth can have 23 per cent. growth, when they do not have Sheffield's social problems.
  There are many individual cases in Sheffield, as in other cities. This afternoon, the Secretary of State referred to restructuring and regeneration, of which education was a major component. The national average for education under the SSA is 9·7 per cent., but Sheffield's SSA is 5·6 per cent. Some £6 million has been taken off the Sheffield figure because we cannot reduce the capacity in the schools and reorganise the system to reflect the changes in pupil numbers as fast as the Government want us to. That has

  371
  been criticised by the Audit Commission, which said that the Department of Education and Science were asking for the impossible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) referred to the additional educational needs index. How can Sheffield be granted £400 less per secondary pupil than that calculated for Manchester when they are similar cities? The formula for calculating SSAs for education is based on outdated, narrowly based information, and the multiplying factor involved compounds the errors of the calculation. In Sheffield, when we distribute that expenditure evenly with the local management of schools, we find that those who suffer live in the inner-city districts—that pattern is repeated throughout the education service.
  The other sector that is crucial to the regeneration of any major city is other district services which are part of the build-up for the SSAs and the poll tax. We have been told about a great partnership throughout the country, but on average, authorities have received a 4 per cent. increase in funds for economic regeneration and planning and for the environment. Sheffield has received a 9 per cent. cut, which will have a major long-term effect on the regeneration of the city.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North went into great detail about social services; I shall give only two statistics—[Interruption.]These are serious matters; we should forget protocol when there is poverty around. Sheffield can spend £2,864 for each child at risk in 1991–92. How is it that the comparable figure in Liverpool is £3,813 and in Manchester £3,811? Where is the parity in that? We were told that the poll tax would bring about equalisation, but a child at risk in Sheffield is worth £1,000 less than one in Manchester or Liverpool. I am not attacking those cities; I am merely asking for a reasonable deal for Sheffield—the more so in the light of the Secretary of State's remarks about so-called regeneration.
  We do not need to wait two years to make a real change in the poll tax. The submissions by Opposition Members should be implemented immediately to mitigate the worst circumstances. As a final suggestion, I propose reexamining credit approvals and European funds, which could have a major effect on the north and on the more deprived areas of the United Kingdom.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I welcome the new Ministers in the Scottish Office on the Front Bench, but I hope that they will forgive me if I extend a special welcome to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). I well remember the time the three of us went into the Ayes Lobby together to support the so-called Mates amendment. We did not win the vote that night——
  Mr. Cormack: But we won the argument.
  Mr. Riddick: That is right. But the key point about the appointment of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Department of the Environment is that it shows that the political will now exists in the Government to make the necessary changes to the community charge.
  I welcome the link described by the Secretary of State between the review of local government finance and the review of local government structure. We need to examine the arrangements under which local services are provided.
  372
  Perhaps a certain proportion of councillors should have to stand for election every year, and we should form unitary authorities whenever possible. On a local note, I hope that Kirkles council can be split in two to create a Huddersfield metropolitan district council and a Dewsbury district council.
  For any tax to work properly, it must enjoy a measure of public acceptance. One does not need to be a great political sage to recognise that the poll tax does not have the necessary public acceptability. There are two reasons for that. First, the community charge is perceived as unfair because it is flat rate. Secondly, the levels of charge set by local authorities are too high. The first factor is exacerbated by the second.
  The Government face three tasks. First, in the short term, we must ensure that there is proper protection for the thousands, if not millions, of ordinary English men a nd women whose poll tax bills far exceed what they paid in rates. Many of them live in terraced houses whose rateable values were low. Many of them live on comparatively modest incomes but are disqualified from claiming rebate because they have been prudent and saved. Many of them are pensioners whom we have a special responsibility to protect—and many of them live in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South made a similar point and I hope that the Government will give it serious thought.
  The transitional relief scheme is the best-suited vehicle to provide short-term protection, but it needs reexamination so that it is no longer linked to standard spending assessments and councils' actual spending. What matters is the level of protection that the Government decide that people need, and which should then be provided.
  Secondly, we need to devise a system of local government finance which is sustainable in the long term and will enjoy public acceptance. I agree with the Secretary of State that the one principle of the community charge which is now widely accepted is that everyone should make some contribution to the provision of local government services. We need to tackle the high level of charge being paid by everyone regardless of ability to pay. A flat-rate poll tax would be acceptable if it were £100 or perhaps a maximum of £200. That could be achieved if we stripped out expenditure on education, the police or the fire service—or perhaps all three—from local government spending, although I realise that the cost to the Exchequer would be high.
  The sensible approach would be a combination of increased Government support with relating the community charge to people's ability to pay. I know that some of my colleagues have expressed reservations about banding the charge, but it is the most sensible way forward and could be achieved without increasing bureaucracy too much.
  On 15 May, I made a speech in an Adjournment debate on this very subject. I put forward a concrete proposal as to how we could band the community charge. Time is short, so I will not go into all the details of how my system would work—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but I ask my hon. Friends to read my Adjournment debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "We will."] There seems to be a large measure of assent to that proposition.
  I know that some of my hon. Friends would complain that we would create a new poverty trap, since a slight increase in income would take a person from one band to

  373
  the next. That would be a problem, but it pales into insignificance when compared with the current problems of the poll tax and with the different sort of poverty trap that a return to the rates would create. For instance, people living in houses with high rateable values might enjoy only modest incomes. My mind is no more closed than that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I am receptive to any sensible ideas on the subject.
  The Government's final task is to ensure that whatever system is finally chosen it is not undermined or abused by Labour local authorities, which have unquestionably used the new system of local government finance to jack up their spending and have then blamed the increase on the new system. Had the rating system still been in use this year, for instance, Labour-controlled Kirklees council would have needed to increase the rates by 35 per cent. to generate the same amount of money as it raised through the community charge this year. Similarly, two months ago the council was talking about a poll tax for next year of £311—an increase of 8 per cent. However, as soon as the capping criteria were announced by the former Secretary of State and, by a quirk of the system, Kirklees could increase its poll tax by significantly more than it had originally thought, the Labour council said that next year's poll tax would be £352—a massive 22 per cent. increase.
  I urge the Secretary of State to look again at the charge-capping criteria so that Kirklees, at least, cannot get away with that. The behaviour of Labour councils in hiking the poll tax up to whatever level they think they can get away with is cynical and immoral, and it shows that socialists do not give a damn about the effect that their decisions will have on local people. I hope that my constituents will remember that when the leader of Kirklees council offers himself for election against me in Colne Valley at the next general election.
  Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend will double his majority.
  Mr. Riddick: I hope that I will more than double my majority.
  In view of the contemptuous way in which Labour councillors have abused the current system, the Government would be entirely justified in acting firmly to keep council spending down over the next few years until the new system of finance is properly bedded in.
  After three years of arguing for changes in the community charge system, I am delighted to see that the Government now clearly have the political will to do something to rectify matters and to ensure that the Labour party does not reap the political benefits for which it had hoped. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has proved that the Labour party has nothing serious to offer. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will deliver a system that is workable, fair and acceptable to the British people.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Terry Lewis: I had intended to scratch my name from the list of speakers in this debate due to my sore throat and bad cold, but having listened to the Secretary of State trying to make bricks without straw I have been tempted to throw my cap into the ring. The new Prime Minister has handed the Secretary of State a
  374
  poisoned chalice, and it was somewhat disingenuous of the Secretary of State to try to pass it on to the Opposition. We certainly do not intend to pick it up.
  Mr. Couchman: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Opposition's tunnel vision is such that they will not pick up an offer from the Secretary of State to discuss the relationship between central and local government? If that is so, it is quite extraordinary.
  Mr. Lewis: It was extraordinary for me to give way for such an intervention—I should have had more sense. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will tell him why I do not want to take that chance.
  We had an amazing offer of dialogue from the new Secretary of State. At the time of the leadership crisis in the Conservative party, it was a toss-up between whether it would be men in grey suits or people in white coats who came to No. 10. However, it was the men in brown trousers from the Tory marginals who persuaded the Government to make today's statement about the poll tax.
  The Secretary of State's offer of a partnership with local government was also amazing. I came to the House from local government, and I have watched aghast for the past 11 years while the Government hammered local government into the ground. Local government has suffered an erosion of powers that I would never have envisaged. More than 60 Acts of Parliament have restricted the ability of local government to deliver services for which people have voted and paid. The Secretary of State had the cheek to talk about improving the local government finance, but we have also heard claptrap from Conservative Members about profligate Labour councils.
  Mr. Riddick: It is true.
  Mr. Lewis: It is not true. I represent two local authorities, Wigan and Salford. From time to time, both are visited by Ministers who laud the councils' partnership deals with Marsham street and the Treasury. This week a Minister visited Wigan and praised it for its partnership deals. Salford quays and Wigan pier have had a procession of Ministers visiting, talking about the wonderful partnerships being entered into and saying how marvellous it is that the councils are embracing the private sector as the Government asked them to do.
  There is talk about pragmatic councillors, but the reality is that this year Salford has to find another £8 million worth of cuts, which will hurt the badly off. Some 11 years ago 62 per cent. of local government finance was provided by the Government. The Government have reduced that to about 34 per cent. Starting the process had nothing to do with it. We are talking about cash in the till, and that is down to 34 per cent. A sensible Government would have realised what they were doing and would not have continued the process. They would have realised that greater support was needed. Partnerships are a little too late for some of the people whom I represent.
  There has been a madcap rush to cut housing investment. In 11 years, it has been cut by 83 per cent. in Salford and 78 per cent. in Wigan. That shows on the council estates, where houses were sold on the promise that money would be available to improve the remaining rented houses. Time and again, the Government have eroded that promise. That is another reality which faces local government in trying to look after ordinary people.

  375
  I shall now explain why I think that the Secretary of State for the Environment is offering us a poisoned chalice. I sent a letter to the right hon. Gentleman when he became the first stalking horse in the leadership campaign, and I sent the same letter to the right hon. Member who is now Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who was also a contender. I congratulated them on having the scales fall from their eyes and finding that the poll tax was indeed a bad tax which militated against ordinary people. I made five points in the letter, and said that if they were serious about changes and accepted that it was a bad tax which had damaged poor people, they would accept those five precepts.
  I probably paid my poll tax quicker than I ever paid my rates because I knew that money would be slow in coming to the local authorities, although not because people were protesting by not paying, as such people are few. The greater proportion of those who have not paid the poll tax cannot pay it because they do not have the means to pay even the 20 per cent. None of the three right hon. Members replied to my letter—not that I expected them to do so although, as usual, I was trying to be helpful.
  Mr. Dewar: They are refusing consultation.
  Mr. Lewis: That is right—they always refuse to consult.
  I said in my letter that any retrospective changes had to address the problems of non-payment for those without the means to pay. The second point asked them to take steps, exceptionally, to ensure that the franchise is restored with immediate effect to those who are unable to pay and who have sought avoidance by voter non-registration. The Government have also given the vote to 1 million people in South Africa, but that is beside the point.
  I also argued that those who genuinely could not pay should be compensated for incurring court or bailiff costs. If it is a bad tax now, it was a bad tax when it was introduced and it has been a bad tax while it has been in operation.
  I called for the removal of the stigma of having court judgments against people who do not have the means to pay the tax. In particular, I was thinking of the elderly. Many elderly people in my constituency have been driven into debt for the first time in their lives by this cruel legislation.
  I also called for the non-collection element of poll tax bills to be funded from central sources for 1988–89 in Scotland, and for the rest of the United Kingdom this year. The Government must recognise that those precepts should be accepted because people have been hurt badly as a result of the madcap introduction of the poll tax.
  It ill behoves Conservative Members to say that it will be two years before a fundamental review can reach a conclusion. The poll tax legislation was introduced on the back of an envelope at the speed of light. It even caught Conservative Back Benchers on the hop. The poll tax is another of the former Prime Minister's prejudices to be translated into legislation, and it will require an extra payment from Conservative Members.
  If Conservative Members doubt how many people are suffering, have suffered and will continue to suffer through the imposition of the poll tax, let me do a commercial for a document entitled, "The Impact of Poll Tax", which was produced by Church Action on Poverty. The report shows the depths into which poor people have been driven as a
  376
  result of the imposition of the poll tax, and that organisation would be happy to assist in the Government's proposed dialogue.
  I have given the reasons why I suspect that the new Secretary of State is offering an olive branch which is in fact a poisoned chalice. The Government must solve their own problems. If Conservative Members reflect carefully, they will realise that it is those who have most to lose electorally who are making the most noise now. We should not be blinded by that. We have said from the start that the tax is bad and that it militates against the poorest. We would never have introduced it and we should not be expected to pull the Government out of trouble now.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) and to question again his extraordinary rejection of the most sensible offer made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for wide-ranging talks and consideration and review of the relationship between local and central Government. I regret that so much enmity between local and central Government has built up over the years partly through the actions of some irresponsible councils and partly as a result of a lack of trust, perhaps on central Government's part, of the motives of local government.
  It is particularly important that the review and attempt to rebuild the bridges should come at this time for the care in the community policy in which I take a considerable interest as a former chairman of a health authority and of a social services committee. I welcome my right hon. Friend's promise of wide-ranging talks and to rebuild the relationship.
  The Opposition's motion was moved by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in what must have been the most threadbare speech from the Opposition Front Bench to which we have been treated for a very long time.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was the most threadbare speech since the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition only a few days ago?
  Mr. Couchman: I would not like to be a judge in that competition.
  Labour's 65th policy on local government finance——
  Mr. Harry Barnes: That sounds like the brief of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey).
  Mr. Couchman: I do not have a brief and I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman one. I do not have a copy of the brief belonging to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey).
  Labour's 65th policy on local government finance could also be referred to as Labour's big bribe. Under a reversion to the rates as they were in 1989, some 18 million people would be relieved of the necessity to pay towards local government finance. That was the great weakness of the rates as a way of funding local government. No doubt there will be some enticement to those 18 million people who may be tempted to vote for Labour at the next general election in the hope that they will not have to contribute to local government.
  However, I understand that that policy is linked to some ill-defined form of ability to pay. I spoke to an

  377
  Opposition friend of mine in the Corridor and he suggested that that meant a local income tax. I thought about that, because we have already talked about such a tax. When the community charge replaced rates, it was estimated that, if we had opted for a local income tax in the boroughs of Camden and Islington people would have had to pay up to £6,000 a year. I do not fancy making a tax return to the Inland Revenue, but to have to make one to the town hall, of which there are 400, is even less appealing.
  If registration for the community charge was difficult, getting people to make an income tax return to the town hall would be impossible. No doubt those who were not householders and did not fill in their local income tax return would pay nothing. Avoidance would become genetic among non-householders who did not want to pay their contribution to local government finance.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the misconception that the Labour party is in favour of a local income tax. Our policy is simple: we will go back to the rates.
  Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman has revealed far more than the hon. Member for Dagenham was prepared to reveal in his threadbare offering earlier. If there is a return to the rates, 18 million people will be enticed to vote Labour because they will want to pay nothing towards local government finance. That is one of the shoddiest bribes to be offered by the Labour party in a long time. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). I am sure that not only Hansard but the press will have recorded his comments and his promise.
  Let us pursue the responsible view that has apparently been offered from the Opposition Front Bench that there will be some form of local income tax. Who will collect it? I am a small employer. Do not look to me to collect the tax. People who work for me do not necessarily live where I run my business. I do not want to collect for their boroughs. The situation would be impossible, and I suspect that the local income tax would be rejected very quickly as it was rejected by Layfield.
  The greatest weakness of the community charge is its collectability. As an employer in the hotel and catering trade, I know how uncollectable it is. My staff come and go. If they register, they forget to deregister. They certainly never get bills because they move on so quickly. I have some sneaking sympathy, therefore, with the Opposition for having decided that they would revert to the rating system. Rates were easily collectable, but the great weakness of the system was the unfairness with which it treated people who lived in like accommodation and who had unlike incomes. We have all heard of the little old lady living in one half of a pair of semi-detached houses who paid the same rates as the four wage earners who lived next door. That is a problem that would have to be overcome. That would be possible by reverting to domestic rates and introducing a capitation factor, an idea that we rejected out of hand, and too easily.
  We could revert rapidly to the rating system, and perhaps more quickly than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was prepared to accept, by using the 1989 rating bills and introducing a capitation factor that was based on either the electoral roll or the community
  378
  charge register. I personally favour a hybrid rating scheme. It would be easier to collect than the poll tax and responsibility for paying it would lie with the householder, who would have to pay whatever capitation formula was introduced. Such a scheme could be introduced quickly and simply. I suspect that the necessary legislation would not be complicated.
  If we are not to see a wholesale reform of the community charge, or even a return to the rating system as a method of raising local government finance, one of the greatest unfairnesses of the present system is the imposition of a standard community charge at double the personal rate when someone dies. The double imposition falls upon his or her beneficiaries for whatever time it takes to sell the property.
  With the present stagnant property market, I have had to deal with an especially difficult constituency matter. One of my constituents is having to pay a bill of nearly £500 for a small unoccupied flat in Thanet because the local financial and central services director has taken the view which is set out in a letter, part of which I shall quote:
  "On reading the letter from your local MP … I am surprised at his comment that, and I quote, 'the Government certainly never intended that any Council should levy a standard community charge of twice the personal community charge in these circumstances.' If that is the case then why I wonder was legislation not amended on its passage through Parliament. Surely the Members of Parliament are not that unaware that they did not expect Charging Authorities to exercise their discretionary powers to the maximum allowed to the benefit of local chargepayers as a whole."
  That is one of the most disgraceful things that I have ever read in a letter written by a local government officer. If local government officers have advised their councils to impose a double personal charge as a standard charge where someone has died and the property has yet to be sold, I must look to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to put that right post haste.
  We must get out of the trap of a flat rate charge. I have expressed my thoughts, and I am sure that others will offer theirs, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. With the distillation of those thoughts, I hope that he will be able to offer us a sensible way forward. I also hope that the Opposition will accept his offer of all-party talks on how we should rebuild the relationship between central Government and local government.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: There has been only one speech of substance by a Conservative Member this evening, and that was the one delivered by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee). It is a pity that his speech was not the speech of the Secretary of State for the Environment. If it had been, it would have opened up possibilities for the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman has talked about. The hon. Gentleman said that a property tax would be a better form of taxation than the poll tax and he suggested that it should be linked and related to the ability to pay. That would mean that the Labour party's rebate scheme would be attached to the property tax that it proposes.
  The hon. Gentleman has advocated the agenda that the Labour party has put forward. He had some ideas on how to handle the short-term emergency problem with which we would be confronted before we abolished the poll tax.

  379
  I do not think that what he suggested would necessarily work smoothly, but at least he offered ideas that could be discussed and considered.
  Apart from the hon. Member for Pendle, Conservative Members have either defended the poll tax, subject to minor adjustments, or have talked in vague and woolly terms about a review and everything being open for discussion. They have repeated the language of the Secretary of State.
  The Secretary of State said that he wanted talks. If so, why did he attack the very people with whom he would have them? He is supposed to want talks with the representatives of local government, but his language was the traditional approach of those who supported the introduction of the poll tax all along. He spoke of profligate authorities and claimed that high poll tax charges were the fault of the Labour-controlled local authorities rather than the grant system and the standard spending assessment that the Government have implemented. His language was distorted. He attacked also the Opposition, and not only because of the furore that arose in the Chamber. The attack had been prepared and was in his speech. He said that he was seeking negotiations and then he attacked the very people with whom he wished to negotiate. It was rather like the Americans saying that they wanted to enter into negotiations with Saddam Hussein and claiming that they could force him into accepting negotiations.
  The Government have a majority of 100 Members in this place, and there should be discussions and negotiations among Conservative Members before any all-party talks take place. The Government should come forward with ideas. They cannot merely say, "Everything is open and we shall discuss everything." They must say, "These are our ideas. These are the thoughts that we shall throw into the talks. We might be willing to adjust them or alter them, and we may even accept fundamental reform."
  How many ideas did the Secretary of State present this afternoon? The answer is none. It seems that he wishes to talk again about the poll tax or to introduce what the Evening Standard describes as a new poll tax because of the problems that have arisen with the public. It seems that the poll tax must be reconsidered, because it has proved to be unpopular. The right hon. Gentleman did not say why he thought that it has proved unpopular and why there are problems with it. He did not suggest why the public have reacted so strongly against it. He seemed to be saying that the opinion polls show that the public are strongly opposed to it, that all the signs are that the public are against it and that we had better reconsider it. What sort of position is that when it comes to negotiations?
  What are the basic problems with the poll tax? The major defect is the one that was raised by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). He said that there should be no representation without taxation. That is what is wrong with the poll tax. The notion of accountability that accompanies the poll tax is wrong. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said that everyone should contribute something towards local services if he or she is to be entitled to a vote.
  The very concept that led Conservatives to go forward with the poll tax is the thing that is wrong with it. It means that the entitlement to vote is based upon taxation, and that is not the way to run a democratic society. People should have a birthright to exercise the franchise, and only at a later stage should it be decided what people should
  380
  pay. The franchise would never have been advanced on the basis of poll tax. In the 19th century, the franchise was based on a property qualification, and only certain people were entitled to it.
  Some people are being excluded. Records show that there is a shortfall of 600,000 on the electoral registers for England, Scotland and Wales. That has not happened in Northern Ireland. What is the difference between Northern Ireland and England, Scotland and Wales? It is that Northern Ireland does not have the poll tax, and its franchise is therefore in a much healthier state. That should worry all hon. Members.
  During Question Time, the hon. Member for Colne Valley suggested that the franchise should be taken away from those who did not pay their poll tax. He should be ashamed of making such a suggestion in the House. We are all beneficiaries of the democratic process.
  Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman come clean and tell us the real reason why he opposes the poll tax? He gave an explanation in some rag called "Seven Days" in August 1988. He wrote:
  "People paying a high poll tax—especially in inner city areas—will feel punished by having a Labour council. People will then ask: why should I pay so much money so that the council can help drug addicts and fund lesbian and gay activities? … Long term, I am doubtful that what is left of local government can remain a useful site for our electoral struggle."
  Why does not the hon. Gentleman tell us the real reason why he opposes the poll tax? It is because he knows that the party is over.
  Mr. Barnes: If councillors do not want to levy over-high levels of poll tax, they have to cut services. If they want to provide services, they have to charge astronomical levels of poll tax. That is not a choice that Parliament should place upon local councillors, because it is no choice. Whichever they choose, it hammers local people. It is a fix and a fiddle. The hon. Member for Colne Valley must show me the article that he quoted, because I do not recognise it. Perhaps he is not aware of who I am. However, it may be that, having studied it closely, I would not find too much with which to disagree.
  The main problem with the poll tax is not just that it is a tax per head, but that it has consequences for electoral registers and polling. Another problem is that its level has been pushed up and up by Government actions to cut rate support grant in recent years. It would have been bad enough if there had just been a standard, low-level poll tax to be paid by most people, but it is even worse than that, because Government actions have foisted high levels upon us.
  My reason for not paying my poll tax relates to the point that I made about electoral registration. I was elected by the people of my constituency, and a large number of them have been forced off the register. Indeed, 8·5 per cent. of the electorate even in Finchley have disappeared from the register during the past two years. That has led to a distorted electorate. It would have been bad enough if those who have been forced off the registers had been chosen at random, across the political spectrum, but the reality is even worse—people from specific sets of political views are being hammered. They have the most to fear from the continuation of the poll tax, because they have been forced off the franchise and therefore have no opportunity to vote for changes.

  381
  I intend to argue in the courts that the Government have undermined the operation of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and that, de facto, many, many people are being excluded from the franchise. The law must recognise that as undermining the Act. It is disgraceful that a modern-day Government should introduce a measure that undermines the Act. It is the worse form of taxation ever introduced into any western democratic system. That is why people are rebelling against it. No other Government in western Europe or in the developing democracies of eastern Europe—or, indeed, anywhere else in the world—would introduce a poll tax.
  The only way forward is to state clearly that the poll tax will be abolished. We do not want a new poll tax, a graduated poll tax, or a poll tax with changes here and there. We want an entirely different system, and the easiest way to achieve that is to revert to the rating system. We need to move quickly, and that would allow us to do so. A review that goes on and on, with people discussing different ideas, will only make matters worse. The poll tax must be abolished, and if the Secretary of State can offer some ideas about that, we might then begin a dialogue. Members of the Conservative party, which has a vast majority, should get together and find an alternative to the poll tax.
  8.46 pm
  Dr. Keith Hampson: I welcome the return of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Front Bench. I know how much he believes in what he called the integrated approach—the structure of local government, the relationship between it and central Government, the relationship of both with the community, together with the financing of local government. Unless we consider all as a whole, we will continue to make grave errors.
  I wish to deal with three issues. The first is the aspect of fairness mentioned by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). My right hon. Friend has stressed many times that he places great weight on the public's perception of a lack of fairness in the community charge. I wrote an article in The Times almost three years ago and received a lot of flak about it. I calculated that well under 20 per cent. of the electorate in my constituency would benefit by more than £50. That calculation was based on a Government poll tax figure of £178 per person. Therein lies one of the problems. Leeds ended up with a poll tax of £345 per person—and, under the current Labour council, we are heading for £400 or more. It does the Government no good to pitch expectations at one level if the reality turns out to be very different. It simply heightens the sense of injustice.
  I accept that there is an attractive principle in the poll tax, which is that it is a tax per head: everybody makes some contribution to the cost of local government. Huge costs were involved in creating the registers and if the system is to continue to be used, one suggestion is to apply it in broad bands related to income. I do not envisage any real difficulties, except that a poverty trap would be created at the bottom of the banding. It would not be a problem at the top because doubling the rate for someone moving into the top tax band, which might mean paying an additional £200 a year, would not really be a
  382
  disincentive. But to move from a 20 per cent. rate to a full rate in a rough and ready banding system—there could not be too many bands or it would be a local income tax—would create disincentives. Therefore, there are some difficulties.
  I never accepted that passing information from the Inland Revenue to local councils was a problem in principle. The poor have to give every bit of information about their earnings in order to claim benefit. But better would be a system of self-assessment whereby people ticked a box saying whether they were a top taxpayer or paid no tax. There could be an ad hoc checking of that system, but, by and large, if such a system were adopted, people could be trusted.
  An alternative would be to keep the poll tax and relate it broadly—I stress broadly—to property. No revaluation imposes a huge cost and, despite all the best efforts of the experts, it is always pretty rough and ready. People are aggrieved by differentials. They do not see why properties in the same street should have different rateable values. Any revaluation system can be perfect, so why not accept a rough and ready system of broad bands?
  In Leeds there are essentially five bands. In band A there would be odd houses such as Harewood house, with rateable values under the old system of more than £2,000. In band B, would be the housing in the suburbs with rateable values of between £400 and £1,000. The next two bands could contain the largest number of properties, those with rateable values under £400 and under £200—band D—and lastly there would be a band containing the smaller older properties, of which there are many in Leeds with rateable values of less than £50.
  The average rateable value under the old system in Leeds, was £150, so most people would fall into band D. Any subsequent revaluation could be done by a local authority altering the bands, when judged necessary. Each authority could make its own judgment. People would well understand why in one part of a town people were in band B, whereas elsewhere they came in bands D and E. The bands would affect the rate at which one paid the poll tax. That would give a certain perception of fairness.
  Whether we move to a property-based system or simply retain a per capita system, the burden falling on individuals at local authority level is too high. When, more than 10 years ago, I was in the Department of the Environment and we looked at all the options, it was obvious to me that, if we were to reform the rating system, the scale of local authority expenditure had to be reduced.
  The dominant expenditure falling on local authorities is education. I have always argued that, as education is a national investment, and as there are national standards which it is critical should be provided for our people, central Government should finance education directly and not assume that the whims, prejudices and philosophies of local councils will be the same as those of the Government. Clearly, often they are not. It was only last year that Leeds accepted the technical and vocational education initiative, one of the most important vocational developments. It was almost the last education authority in the land to do so, simply because, for some reason, it thought that it was the tainted priority of a Conservative Government requiring tainted Conservative money.
  Let me refer to the excellent pedigree of the scheme put forward by Lord Joseph, as he now is, in 1982 for a 75 per cent. central grant earmarked for education. We could go beyond the first stage—of allowing local authorities to

  383
  disburse it—reinforcing the current direction of Government policy, which is that schools should themselves have a greater say over their budgets and what they want to do. In other words, we are talking not just of the relationship between central and local government but about the relationship generally of services to the community.
  The cost of schools could be funded directly using the formula that has been established under the local management of schools. The governors and head of a school could then decide how much to spend on teachers as against equipment. Instead of all teachers' salaries being paid from the centre, there would be more devolution of negotiations on teachers' pay and how many teachers should be employed.
  The Government's intention of the grant maintained status of schools was, according to the circular, to
  "leave the balance of support for education between national and local tax payers unchanged."
  In other words, although we try to encourage schools to opt out from the local authority system, the local authority still pays. That point is often overlooked. The money is recouped from the local education authorities. That is a wasteful procedure anyway and it does not redirect costs from the local authority to the centre. It lifts no burden from the community charge payer. If we were to move to direct payment from the Treasury to the schools so that the schools, governors and parents could assess priorities themselves, existing policies would be reinforced and that would have important consequences.
  An education block grant covering all education in the region of just under 3p would fall on income tax. I do not know where the local government correspondent of The Times got his figure of 10p from. However, it could be done in phases and involve no tax increase. At the same time, we could do something with the police block grant, which is currently 51 per cent. The Metropolitan police grant has just been increased to 52 per cent. There are powers in the police Acts to enable the Secretary of State to change the amount of grant. The police could immediately go up to 75 per cent., which would save another £billion to the benefit of the community charge. I would not include the fire service. That is a local, not a national, service. However, police and education are national services which could be moved towards a 75 or 80 per cent. block grant, thereby lifting enough of the community charge to halve it.
  A package of different approaches could be put together which would have the effect of lowering the burden on charge payers and it could be phased in. There is no reason to hesitate. It would be possible to use existing powers under the education support grant system, because, with effect from last April, there is no ceiling to the amount that can be channelled directly from the Department of Education and Science to education. One could start the process of transferring education costs to the centre, together with police costs, before next April. If one wanted to do something about the fairness of charges, the old rateable values are still in existence because the water authorities use them. So one could equally do something about broad property banding before next April.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State urgently to consider how to move forward in a number of directions, not just as part of the long-term restructuring
  384
  of local government, including provision for elected mayors, of which I approve, but so that a new system can be implemented before next year.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: There will be great disappointment among my constituents tonight, because they were looking forward to hearing the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) say that he intended to scrap the poll tax. That is the action that the right hon. Gentleman implied that he would take when he stood for the leadership of the Conservative party. One has the feeling that he was given the post that he now holds as a form of punishment.
  Seventy-nine per cent. of my constituents are worse off with the poll tax than under the old rating system, which accounts for my advocacy of a return to the old arrangement. It is not only the Secretary of State for the Environment who does not appear to have a clue about what he should do; the same is true of Tory Members in general. I suspect that there are no members of the No Turning Back group in their places.
  Mr. John Marshall: Who says?
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is wrong again.
  Mr. Martlew: If Government Members do not turn back, they will be heading for political oblivion—[Interruption.] If any member of the No Turning Back group wants me to give way, I shall be happy to do so.
  Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is not worth it.
  Mr. Martlew: Immediately the new Prime Minister took office, I wrote to him suggesting that he put a Bill before the House to repeal the community charge—to give it the Conservative title, but really the poll tax, to give its true name—and to reintroduce the old rating system from 1 April 1991. The House would ensure that such legislation had a speedy passage through Parliament. There would be no objections to it from Labour Members, and I am sure that Conservative Members too would agree to it, knowing that the Government had made a mistake.
  Instead, we are told that the poll tax might be reformed after the next general election. I warn the electorate not to believe the Conservatives. If they are re-elected, the poll tax would have a very low priority, and it could be towards the end of another Conservative term of office before they decided to change the system. The Prime Minister has kept silent, and the Secretary of State for the Environment asked Labour to help him out of a mess. It reminds me of the old Laurel and Hardy phrase, "This is another fine mess you've gotten us into." We are expected to help out the Conservatives and to save their political skins.
  We want a return to the old rating system and a fairer rebate scheme. Conservative Members have long denigrated the old rating system, but problems with it a only when a Conservative Government decided to reduce rate support grant. The electorate saw rates shooting up but services reducing. That happened because the Tories cut rate support grant and gave the money back in the form of personal tax cuts. It is a myth that people who did not pay rates contributed nothing to local government services. Anyone who pays income tax pays for local government services, and the Government know that to be true. The Tories wanted to be seen to be

  385
  reducing income tax, but blamed local authorities for rate increases. They did that even to the extent of criticising Tory-controlled councils. That did not bother Conservative Members of Parliament.
  People live in the houses that they can afford because of the tax incentives that they enjoy—in the form of the £30,000 mortgage interest relief limit, and the absence of capital gains tax when they sell their properties. However, we must take account also of the little old lady who lives in a house that she cannot afford to run. There are also many people who calculated that they could afford a particular level of mortgage and rates but who now find that they can afford neither because of high interest rates and the poll tax respectively.
  The House should pass a Bill before 1 April 1991 that gets rid of the poll tax and re-establishes the old rating system.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Philip Oppenheim: I have detected a certain amount of gloating among Opposition Members over the possibility that the Government might have to change their policy, but I do not think that the Opposition have any right to gloat. How can they criticise us for supposedly not listening and them blame us when we listen and propose to make changes? I am also not sure what right the Opposition have to criticise us for possibly changing policy when they have gone through a series of dizzying and sickening policy gyrations of their own in the past few years. Two years ago they were telling us that nuclear weapons were immoral and evil, yet a nuclear deterrent is now part of their policy. They should remember that fact before they start to criticise us for changing our policies.
  Ralph Waldo Emerson said:
  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
  There is no shame in the Government making changes, or developing their policies. The difference between us and the Opposition is that we remain true to our basic principles, but are prepared to change when necessary, compared with the Opposition who are ready to throw off all their most heartfelt principles in an opportunistic attempt to win power—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but they know that virtually every policy on which they fought the general elections of 1983 and 1987 is now in the rubbish bin.
  I accept that the Government made some mistakes in implementing the community charge, allowing irresponsible and profligate local authorities to increase their spending massively in the hope that the blame would rest with the Government. The first mistake we made was that the safety net blurred the distinction between careful and profligate local authorities. The second mistake was to introduce the community charge in the year after the county council elections. Everyone knows that local authorities keep their spending low in county council election year, and spend up with a vengeance the year after, and that is exactly what they did this year—with the result that the community charge was far higher than it needed to be.
  The Government should have frozen spending increases by local authorities in the first year of the community charge to no more than the rate of inflation. In
  386
  that way, the community charge would have been introduced at a rate of more like £250, which would have been far more acceptable to the majority of people, bearing in mind that it is the level of the charge, rather than the principle, which is disliked by many people.
  Whatever mistakes the Government have made, poor coverage by the media compounded the problems. For months at the beginning of the year there was no coverage of waste and profligacy by many Labour councils. My hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) know that I could go into great detail about profligate expenditure by Derbyshire county council—how it wastes millions of pounds on a bloated publicity department, the huge sums of money that it spent on a millionaires' playground in the Soviet Union, and how it increased staff, especially office staff, by more than any other county council.
  I could go into detail about the report issued today by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which gives a damning indictment of bureaucracy and waste by the Derbyshire county council police committee. I could go into detail, but if I ran through all the wasteful spending by Derbyshire county council, I should overrun my time and I do not want to do that.
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose——
  Mr. Oppenheim: No. Normally I would give way to the hon. Gentleman, as it is always a pleasure to hear what he has to say, but he has spoken already in the debate and he knows that we only have a short time.
  Nothing epitomises waste in local government so much as the sterile and ludicrous debates about the contracting out of services. It is daft that we should debate contracting out. Local government should contract out services when private contractors would do the job best, and should keep services in house when an in-house team can do the work best. Labour local authorities do not accept that—they have to keep everything in house, regardless of value for money and performance.
  It is interesting to note that, in France, even socialist and communist local councils accept the principle of contracting out, yet in England, Derbyshire county council rejected one low tender because it arrived in an envelope of the wrong colour. Keeping in with its NUPE paymasters is far more important to that council than providing good services at a reasonable cost.
  Too many local councils in recent years have lost sight of the basic fact that they are there to provide reasonable services at a good cost. Instead, they concentrate on empire building and playing politics, and their profligacy has been cheered on in a disgraceful and irresponsible way by Opposition Members. Whatever system is implemented over the next few years, whichever party is in government, they will have to face the fact that local government cannot continue to increase its spending as it has done without causing grave economic problems to the country.
  And I remind Opposition Members that, when they were last in power, they faced the problems of high local government spending. It was their Prime Minister who said that the "party had to end", and their Government who ended the principle of a standard automatic percentage of local government spending coming from central Government.

  387
  Whatever the problems caused by the high spending of local government, I accept that the present Administration have made some mistakes in their implementation of the community charge arrangements. I believe that, over the summer, our former Prime Minister was badly advised and did not realise the extent of the damage done by the botched introduction of the community charge. It is ironic that some of her most loyal supporters were guilty of giving her that bad advice.
  That does not mean, however, that the Opposition have anything to be smug about. Labour's policy of returning to the rating system shows the bankruptcy of its thinking. Labour is content to criticise the Government without being in the least constructive itself. Having produced review after review, the party has come up with little more than a return to the rates—which would mean a return to the days when half of the electorate was able to vote without having to bear any of the burden of local authority spending.
  We now need to consider the possibility of increasing rebates to help the most needy. I believe that the rebate system is the best way of targeting any help. There is no doubt that the poor need more protection from the profligate spending of Labour authorities such as Derbyshire county council.
  If, in future. it is decided to change the system., the principle that everyone should contribute could probably be incorporated in a capital-values property tax. That could involve one-person households having to pay on only half the capital value of their homes, with households consisting of more than two people paying an extra 25 percent. for each extra adult. Everyone would have to pay a minimum of 25 per cent. of the average charge. I also consider it crucial for us to increase the accountability of local government by moving to a system of unitary authorities through the abolition of county councils.
  Whatever happens, however, the principle of everyone having to make a contribution must be retained. If one good thing has come out of the community charge, it is the now wide acceptance of that principle. We should remember De Tocqueville's warning in "Democracy in America":
  "Countries where lawmaking falls exclusively to the lot of the poor cannot hope for much economy in public expenditure; expenses will always be considerable, either because taxes cannot touch those who vote for them or because they are assessed in a way to prevent that."
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton)—as many others have done—on a very dignified and effective maiden speech. He spoke with a good deal of feeling, and some justifiable anger, about the impact of the poll tax on the area that he represents. I know that he will prove an extremely worthy and welcome representative of that area.
  One recent event—the arrival of a new Secretary of State for Scotland—will probably have slightly more of an impact on my life than it will on those of some other hon. Members, but it is none the less not without interest. I note that the new Secretary of State for Scotland has been quoted in the press as speaking about compassion and idealism, not ideology. At one point, he referred to dialogue, not discord. I expected to see photographs of him standing on the steps of St. Andrews house, ready
  388
  with a handy quotation from St. Francis of Assisi. His good intentions are to be welcomed, but one of the crucial tests against which his intentions will be judged is what emerges from the great poll tax debate within Government.
  We live in heady and stirring times. In every corner of Westminster, Tories can be seen gathering to declare their dislike of the poll tax. On every side, the cry, familiar to all Scots, is heard: "It wasna' me." Up to now, the Scottish Office has shown no sign of conscience or remorse. A wealth of proposals have been put forward, some defined. Half-promises have been made. Policy formation depends on myths and prophecy. Shell-shocked Back Benchers have returned from the battlefronts of the by-elections desperate to see the back of the poll tax.
  I give credit to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for his attempted coup. He himself, unfortunately, died in the rubble, but for all that it was a brave attempt, and it opened the floodgates. I listened with considerable interest to his speech. At one moment, he spoke, for reasons that were not clear to me, about the greatest moments in British history. I do not believe that the present shambles in the Conservative party is likely to be seen in that light. There was, however, little hard news in his speech, so the odd phrase helped.
  Briefly stated, the newsline was that there is to be a thorough, constructive and fundamental review of the poll tax, although no one is clear exactly what that means. Then we had a very speculative offer—one so ill defined and vague as to have attracted the attention of the Office of Fair Trading if it had been made in the world of commerce. It was what the right hon. Gentleman was pleased to call "constructive dialogue".
  In an intervention, I tried to tempt the right hon. Gentleman to say a little more about it, but I had remarkably little success. I hope that we shall hear more about it from the Secretary of State for Scotland. We know that a working party has been formed. I am not sure whether the constructive dialogue is to be within the working party. It was suggested that Opposition parties should join it, although I guess that that will not happen. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the constructive dialogue is more likely to be in the form of inter-party talks, but the composition, the standing of the inter-party talks in terms of policy formation, the framework within which they will be held and the agenda were left remarkably vague. I was not impressed.
  I am not anything like so battle-scarred a veteran as the right hon. Gentleman in the ways of this House—and certainly not so battle-scarred in the ways of government—but my brief experience leads me to believe that, if any serious attempt is made to set up a dialogue across the party divide, feelers are put out and private discussions take place in advance. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not resent it when I say that, when such offers are made in that way, as a sort of political while rabbit out of a hat, I doubt the sincerity of the offer and of the man who makes the offer. It is so ill structured and so lacking in shape and form that the right hon. Gentleman might just as usefully have proposed putting a suggestions box outside Tory party headquarters.
  Despite all the other issues that were included in his Tory party leadership manifesto by the right hon. Member for Henley—almost everything, but not the kitchen sink—the one thing that was not included was the suggestion that we should proceed with poll tax reform by

  389
  consensus, with decision making being taken, at least in part, by Opposition parties. I suspect that it was not included in his manifesto because it did not occur to him at the time. If the right hon. Gentleman had made such a suggestion, it would have been greeted with ridicule and dismay by those who voted for him.
  We listened today to a Minister bereft of ideas. Like the Prime Minister, he does know what to do about the poll tax. We must remember that the Prime Minister is on record as saying that no one else does, either. Having decided that he does not know what to do about the poll tax, the Secretary of State for the Environment has concluded that the best thing to do is to ask someone else to supply a few ideas.
  We are delighted to do that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have a well-defined document already on offer. (Interruption.]I listened to many Conservative Members say that they do not like the specifics or that they do not like the theory or practicalities of it. However, they cannot say that it cannot be debated or discussed if they insist on attacking it so violently. It is there and it is a suggestion.
  It is a good deal more specific than what we had from the Secretary of State today. He suggested that there were some ideas in the middle ground, some of which might be introduced quickly and some of which might not. One outstanding feature of his speech was that he did not give a single clue about what any one of those suggestions might be. It was a vacant and empty performance, full of style but with no content.
  I am not satisfied. If the Secretary of State is prepared to work out an agenda and have as a starting point the fact that the poll tax will not survive the review, we may be in business and we may be able to consider what he is saying. However, I have no intention of advising my hon. Friends to accept what is no more than a political pig in a poke, a presentational device of little worth and little real value, and presented with little sincerity.
  I want to ask about the Scottish Office's position, because the Secretary of State for Scotland is with us. I know a good deal about the Scottish Office's record. No one would doubt the determined loyalty of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is now in charge of the poll tax in the Scottish Office. He has been, over the years, an unashamed signatory of No Turning Back tracts.
  No one would doubt the loyalty to the poll tax of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who will keep the lost leader's cause alive long after she has gone. The hon. Member for Stirling will be pleased to know that I do not normally look upon him with a romantic eye, but in this matter he is likely to be the last of the political Jacobites, drinking toasts to his departed heroine when she is but a footnote in the history books.
  The Secretary of State is of more interest. He is not a man given to the flashing phrase. In fact, he is not a phrase maker at all. However, on the poll tax he is a proven cold warrior. He has defended the indefensible at every turn. He has been the man put up to deny that any problem exists or that any radical rethinking is necessary. He never flinches from the task. If a hard heart is to be shown, whether it is to students, the disabled or those suffering from Alzheimer's disease, the Secretary of State is there to
  390
  do his duty. If the evident chaos of the system has to be denied, he is there to enunciate the Government's point of view. He has told us many times that his system is "working well" and is a "remarkable success story". Even he must feel a little embarrassed about his position at this moment.
  On 17 November, when the present Secretary of State for the Environment was in Scotland threatening death and destruction to the poll tax, the present Secretary of State for Scotland was blaming the local authorities, proclaiming, "Not a penny more," and talking of "minor changes" and a system that was
  "in essence here to stay."
  If that is an example of the flexibility of the Scottish Office in the present crisis, the Secretary of State for Scotland will understand why I and my hon. Friends are sceptical about the offer produced unexpectedly today by his colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland's record is not one to warm the cockles of the heart as Christmas approaches. Before we go any further, we should have from the Government some respectable effort, not perhaps in detail but at least in outline, to define their position. No attempt has been made today by Front-Bench Members. There have been honest attempts by some Back-Bench Members who have different views, but it is totally unsatisfactory that we have had nothing from the Government Front Bench.
  Does the Secretary of State for Scotland want a fundamental review? Is he prepared to consider total abolition, or is the review simply a cosmetic cover that will allow the faults of the poll tax somehow to survive, despite their unpopularity? Would the Secretary of State for Scotland switch education spending from local government to the Exchequer? Perhaps, like me, he is rather doubtful about that.
  From the campaign speeches of the Secretary of State for the Environment, it looks as though—to use a metaphor from earlier in the debate—he has discovered the philosopher's stone. I am extremely interested in the fiscal conjuring trick that would allow that massive switch to the Exchequer with no increase in income tax and an increase in public expenditure. It is a remarkable triumph of hope over experience. I hate to think of the sarcasm and contempt that the right hon. Gentleman would have heaped on our heads had we produced a fiscal formula of that kind. At least we know one thing: the Secretary of State for the Environment will never again be able to attack us for our spending plans, given his own fraudulent prospectus.
  The right hon.Member for Brent, North (Sir. R. Boyson)—who I always find an endearing figure in his own quaint way—had a solution. He likened the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a squirrel. and I see his point; the right hon. Gentleman does look a little like a squirrel. He suggested that the squirrel should bring out its nuts. A good deal of that went on on the Conservative Benches during the debate.
  The strength of the argument for the switch was diminished by the article in The Times of 10 May, in which the Secretary of State contradicted himself and undermined his argument so thoroughly. That was not the only expression of doubt. In April 1988, a splendid speech by the Secretary of State appeared in Hansard. I should not have known about it had it not been kindly brought to my attention by the hon. Member for Stirling, who wrote

  391
  about it to his constituency chairman—a tactic with which the Secretary of State may be familiar. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman received a reply.
  The hon. Gentleman recorded the remarkable statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment in April 1988, in which he completely demolished the idea, which he was then advocating in the public prints, of a switch of education expenditure. To his surprised constituency chairman, the hon. Gentleman belaboured the Secretary of State and explained that that was why he would certainly not vote for him. As far as one can gather, the general drift of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was that the right hon. Gentleman was an intellectual shambles, although I do not want to pry further into that private grief.
  We want to know a bit more about the options. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us whether he is in favour of a referendum every time a council's spending exceeds a certain limit. Perhaps he will tell us whether he is in favour of banding, which he has condemned so strongly in the past, or whether he is even prepared to consider it.
  One fact that emerges from the confusion in this debate is that the Labour party alone has a coherent defined policy.[Laughter.] Conservative Members may disagree with it, but it is there. Let us look at some of the other parties—for example, the Scottish National party, which is also in an embarrassing position. I accept entirely that many of the nationalists feel very strongly and passionately about the effectiveness of the non-payment campaign and espouse it most sincerely. They must be dismayed by the fact that their leader, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has said publicly in the prints that the banding of the poll tax would be equivalent to the abolition of the poll tax and that the SNP would then call off its campaign of resistance.
  Let me quote from The Guardian of 28 November:
  "Yesterday Alex Salmond, the new SNP leader, climbed on the back of the Heseltine-Major-Hurd poll tax review"—
  that must have been extremely uncomfortable for him—
  "to argue that, once the charge is banded 'it ceases to be the poll tax'. The SNP, therefore, would end its rebellion when amended legislation was tabled."
  I put it kindly to the hon. Gentleman, because I do not want a major debate, that there is now some doubt, at least, about his party's stance.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman did not have the pleasure of being at the conference that I attended, which was reported by The Guardian. What was under discussion was under what terms the Scottish National party would reduce its level of opposition to the poll tax to the same level as that of the Labour party. The answer is, when the tax reflects ability to pay and when the poorest sections of the community are properly and immediately protected. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) should be familiar with that formulation, because I used it on a radio programme to which the hon. Gentleman also contributed, and his reply was that the formulation was "obvious".
  Mr. Dewar: This debate will run and run.
  I had the advantage of listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas') who genuinely made the point that the only effective way of opposing the poll tax was his road of non-payment. However, we are now told that, if there is amending
  392
  legislation, of some sort as yet undefined, the SNP will abandon non-payment and will reduce the level of its opposition. That will have a ring of insincerity to most people in Scotland. I have a lot of sympathy with the leader of the SNP, who has a problem, but he is in this position because he knows that non-payment has lost credibility and is increasingly unpopular with the vast majority of Scots.
  I want to make it clear that, for Labour, the only acceptable answer to this discredited tax is its abolition. We are the true radicals in this matter. On coming to government, the Labour party will act immediately to abolish the 20 per cent. rule, and will introduce a property-based assessment that is linked to the ability to pay. We are not going to hang around, and I shall tell Conservative Members why. One of the many disappointing features of the Secretary of State's speech was that, on the basis of accountability, he came close to ruling out any relief for the poorest members of our community.
  I genuinely do not understand the Conservative party's position on this matter. If the Government argue, as I understand they do, that a tax which raises about 50 per cent. of the revenue of local government has to be paid if people are to qualify for the vote, the logic is that anyone who is below the threshold for income tax should lose the vote as well. However, Governments of both persuasions rightly say that raising the tax threshold is an important social objective, because it helps the poorest in our society. If that is right for income tax, it is right for the poll tax as well.
  Mr. Nellist: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Douglas: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) should give way.
  Mr. Dewar: Well, I cannot imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) would disagree with what I have just said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give him a chance."] Let me make it clear——
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Nellist rose——
  Mr. Dewar: No, my hon. Friend is not assisting. I have only three or four minutes, and I intend to try to make a point of some importance.
  Helping the very poorest is particularly important in my constituency, and in Scotland generally. The problems of the collection of local government finance have been appallingly exacerbated by the introduction of the poll tax. In Strathclyde, 877 staff—an increase of 145 per cent.—have had to be brought into post. That is a disgrace.
  Another frightening statistic is that 800,000 people in Scotland depend on income support, and 22 per cent. of all children in Scotland under the age of 16 live in families that depend on income support. There is no grace in income support. There is no room for gracious living. The whole crux of the social argument against the poll tax is that the burden has shifted on to those people—it falls on the people who can least afford to pay it. It is for that reason that I deplore and regret the fact that the Secretary

  393
  of State appeared to shut the door on the immediate help that could be achieved by the abolition of the 20 per cent. rule.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment gave us a rash of ideas which were often incompatible. He frequently contradicted himself as he went along. We have had nothing at all from the Secretary of State for Scotland. Clearly, it is important that we should hear something tonight explaining his position. I want to be sure that we are in possession of at least some outline of the Government's plans in Scotland.
  I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland will try to attack our proposals. I am not afraid of that—he is entitled to do so. However, one person who has not been present during today's debates, but who is in people's minds, is the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). He could have endorsed Labour's plans when he argued in Cabinet and repeated last week in his lecture:
  "Taxes on property are cheap to collect and difficult to avoid. They have a clear local base. They bear a rough-and-ready relationship to ability to pay."
  I hope he will not think me presumptuous when I say that that could have been me defending the Labour party's plans.
  The right hon. Member for Blaby also said that his property-based scheme
  "would have acted as a dampener on the great house price boom that was to make the conduct of economic policy so difficult."
  No one is better equipped than the right hon. Gentleman to talk about how difficult the conduct of economic policy became under this Government. He said, in terms that might have echoed it, that which, during his campaign at least, the Secretary of State for the Environment said. The right hon. Member for Blaby warned the Cabinet that the scheme was
  "completely unworkable and politically catastrophic".
  Those terms have been borne out by the facts, and the Secretary of State for Scotland should bear them in mind when he comes to reply. He may yet have to eat his words and, before long, explain his conversion to a scheme based on a property assessment, while the Minister of State, Scottish Office, sings extracts from "Fiddler on the Roof".
  The poll tax must go because it is esentially unjust. It has reinforced inequality and divided communities. The administrative nightmare and the bitterness have justified in full measure the charges laid against the tax from the beginning of the Scottish debate. I remember with some pain the cutting contempt with which some of my colleagues were treated by Scottish Office Ministers during our arguments in Committee. Now, the Tory party, horrified by the electoral damage the tax has done, has abandoned the Prime Minister and is searching in blind panic for any way out.
  The case against the poll tax was put strongly in 1987 by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he said:
  "All of these resentments"
  against the poll tax
  "will build on a platform of crude regression which seeks to make equal in the eyes of the tax collector the rich and the poor, the slum dweller and the landed aristocrat, the elderly pensioners living on their limited savings and the most successful of today's entrepreneurs."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1141.]
  394
  I cannot think of a more concise, eloquent and effective demolition job of the essential principles of the poll tax. I hope that I can give the right hon. Gentleman the credit for thinking that he is consistent in his moral attitudes and beliefs, and that what happens at the end of the review will measure up to that devastating indictment of an unjust tax, which should never have been put on the statute book.
  I warn the Scottish Office that the electorate in Scotland will expect such a root and branch attack on the principles of the tax. The people expect abolition and nothing less. They will not accept compromise that merely repackages the unacceptable in a vain effort to save political face.
  9.38 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) on his maiden speech. His predecessor, Mike Carr, was here a tragically short time, but during that time he showed a commitment to the welfare of his constituents that will long be remembered. I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his knowledge of Bootle and on the commitment that he has shown to its people and problems. He is welcome in the House, and we look forward to hearing more from him in future.
  I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for his welcome to me. Thereafter, however, his speech degenerated into his usual fast-talking and frenetic exposition which on this occasion, I suspect, betrayed the air of a man who knows that his party has only just saved its skin in two by-elections—[Interruption.] Nevertheless, we welcome the new hon. Members for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), and we shall have an opportunity to welcome them more fully on another occasion.
  I shall come shortly to suggestions by Opposition Members in this debate, but from my hon. Friends came a number of positive and well-argued proposals. I have taken careful note of the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and others.
  When calling for change in varying degrees, however, it is important to keep in our minds a fact which sometimes escapes the Opposition—that local government must be paid for. There is no magic formula to wish the problem away. The review that we are undertaking under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of. State for the Environment will be detailed and thorough. Some changes may be feasible in the short term—any major change would take some time—but local government must continue to be paid for while we carry out the review and while any changes, major or minor, are considered and possibly introduced. Local services must continue to be provided, and local authorities must fulfil their statutory duty to collect what is due to them.
  Mr. Favell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position and wish him all the best. Parties on both sides of the House have long sought to make local government accountable. Tony Crosland tried to do that 25 years ago, and this Government have tried it too. Are not 2,934,000 people employed by local government—one in nine of the working population? Whatever else the community charge has done, it has at long last made those people accountable to the people who paid for theirservices—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this is a brief intervention.
  Mr. Favell: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that local government will continue to be accountable, whatever happens under the review?
  Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend touches on an important principle, to which I shall come shortly.
  Mr. Graham rose——
  Mr. Lang: I hope that the irresponsible hon. Members who abuse their status as hon. Members by urging non-payment or by indulging in it themselves will abandon their disgraceful posture, which so damages the interests of the most vulnerable members of society who might follow their example. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) about that. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is in that category, and he asked me about the state of collection in Scotland. His reprehensible campaign and that of his hon. Friends has failed there. When registration was taking place, a number of Opposition Members began a non-registration campaign—a "stop it" campaign. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said that
  "it would develop into Scotland's biggest campaign movement since the second world war."
  But registration succeeded among 99 per cent. of the population.
  As for payment, which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) said was collapsing in Scotland, he might like to know that more than 90 per cent. of budgeted revenue from the community charge is now being collected. As that accounts for only one fifth of total expenditure by local authorities, that means that 98 per cent. of their revenue is available to them, and any local authority which cannot adapt its spending programmes to account for a shortfall of 1 or 2 per cent. should not be running a local authority.
  Mr. Douglas: If things are so good, why are they so bad? Why the review?
  Mr. Lang: We are looking at the structure of the tax and at objections to it, and at propositions which have been put to us as to how it can be further improved——
  Mr. Graham rose——
  Mr. Nellist rose——
  Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said earlier in the debate that there could be no quick fix or easy solution. We are determined to find the best and fairest way forward to ensure that the system is fair and seen to be fair by the whole electorate.
  Mr. Dewar: This is an important matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that the committee will consider whether any change is feasible and whether to look at the structure of the tax. In that context, he appears to be ruling out radical change or abolition. Is that correct?
  Mr. Lang: No, the hon. Gentleman must have misheard me—we rule nothing in and we rule nothing out. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hear a phrase that has been used before in the debate.
  Mr. Lang: I said that some changes might be feasible in the short term and that some might take longer. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Official Report tomorrow he will see that that is what I said.
  In our enthusiasm to achieve our objective, we must not lose sight of the strength of the underlying principles that are already embodied in the community charge. In that context, I am entirely at one with my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Mr. Favell), for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). The principle that everyone should pay is widely acknowledged as a fundamental part of a healthy democratic system. The community should be involved in the affairs of its council not only by electing its members but by having to bear some responsibility for the decisions taken by those members, and contributing towards the cost is an important principle.
  The community charge is a broad-based system of taxation. There is now a transparent relationship between the spending decisions of local authorities and community charge levels. There is also greater local accountability which, over time, will strengthen the cause of local democracy.
  Mr. Nellist: The right hon. Gentleman talks about accountability. I should like to ask the question that one of my hon. Friends tried to ask. The Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends spoke of everyone having to pay something towards local services or they would lose the right to vote. Can he explain why those same Tory Members voted for the Government to spend £425,000 to extend the vote to 18,000 South African and Spanish residents who have paid nothing towards local services for 20 years? They pay nothing, so why should they have a vote?
  Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is relevant to a review of the functioning of the community charge, he is welcome to make a submission to me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and those who will be considering the matter, but his recommendation would carry more authority if he would pay his own community charge and thus for his share of local services.
  The review will be fundamental. It proposes no options. I guarantee to the House that we shall not lightly throw away the ground that has been gained in recent years in establishing the principle that I have outlined. We shall seek to build on the greater accountability and fairness that have already been won. Any change in the current arrangements will be introduced only if and when it is seen to be fair and workable. The search for improvement is natural and sensible, and it is consistent with our record. Anyone who considers what has happened in the past couple of years will see a whole raft of changes to the community charge to refine the system and make it more acceptable.
  Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the non-payment campaign by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has come to a rather ignominious end because that excellent organisation the Freedom Association has paid the hon. Gentleman's poll tax in Lambeth for him? It is somewhat hypocritical of the

  397
  hon. Gentleman to continue to urge others not to pay the poll tax when he knows perfectly well that he is now safe from the law.
  Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend's intervention is a remarkable revelation and puts the hon. Gentleman's smiling face in a clearer perspective.
  Plainly, there is a need for a more wide-ranging review than we have had hitherto.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be only one hon. Member on his feet at a time. If the Secretary of State does not give way, other hon. Members must resume their seats.
  Mr. Canavan rose——
  Mr. Graham rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just the point. The Secretary of State is not giving way.
  Mr. Lang: I would be more inclined to give way to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) if he could stand up and tell me that he has paid his contribution, but I know that he has not.
  Mr. Canavan rose——
  Mr. Lang: We have heard some sensible suggestions for change today. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) suggested that accountability might be strengthened by moving from a system of elections every three years to a system that created greater accountability on a year-by-year basis. We shall certainly consider that.
  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to refer to an hon. Member without giving way to him?
  Mr. Speaker: That often happens. The point that I want to make to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is that, if the Secretary of State does not give way to him, although I suppose that he may, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Lang: Many sensible and interesting suggestions were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North and by the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). They suggested ways in which the community charge benefits system might be changed. I can assure them that we will look carefully at those suggestions as we will at the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) about the possibility of a special Select Committee.
  I want to consider what the Labour party has to offer. Where does the Labour party stand? We are interested in the Opposition's suggestions. Let us begin with the Leader of the Opposition. We know that he is against rates, because he said so. He described them as the most unjust of taxes. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that rates were
  "an irrational, inefficient, highly resented form of taxation. If a thing does not make sense—and the rating system makes no sense whatsoever, the right thing to do is to abolish it once and for all."
  398
  Fine—we know where we are, or do we? Today, the hon. Member for Dagenham, brandishing a pamphlet entitled "Fair Rates" with all the profoundity of someone who supports sunny weather, said that the basis of local government finance must be the rating system. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that two years ago as well.
  Where does that leave the Leader of the Opposition? A month after the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook had said that, Lord McIntosh, the Labour local government spokesman in another place said that rates
  "are desperately inadequate as a fair basis for raising revenue for local government."—[Official Report, House of Lords,23 May 1988; Vol. 497, c. 652.]
  Then the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that he wanted a local income tax:
  "I have been an advocate of this as an addition to—not a replacement for—the rating system for a long time."
  Where does that leave the Leader of the Opposition? His private office announced in April last year that he wanted "a period of reflection", according to The Independent. By July, the reflection had concluded and he said:
  "we are sophisticating the policy."
  Mr. Dewar: I am just trying to define the terms of the debate. Is it the Secretary of State's understanding that the working party of which he is a distinguished member has turned its back on and ruled out any form of property-based assessment?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has not listened to what we have been saying. We have ruled nothing in and we have ruled nothing out. However, I can understand why he does not want to hear more about the "sophistication" of policy promised by the Labour party. What does this new sophistication of domestic rates involve? Is it sophisticated to have a system under which less than half the adult population makes any contribution? Is it sophisticated to have a method of payment for local services based solely on the bricks and mortar in which one happens to live? Is it sophisticated to have a system that disregards the capacity of individuals to pay and that ignores the ability to pay of millions of adult wage earners who are not householders? Is it sophisticated to have a system that demands from a single parent in one house the same amount as from four or five working adults in the house next door?
  We know more about sophistication in Scotland because the policy there has gone one step further. The Opposition have promised domestic rates to start with and then, by courtesy of the Scottish Assembly—in itself no more than a tax-raising body—a roof tax.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lang: No; the hon. Gentleman was not present for most of the debate.
  Scotland is to be the guinea pig for this so-called sophisticated instrument, which will be based on capital values. If a house in Aberdeen, for example, varies in price, its owner's contribution to local services will vary accordingly. It will be in accord with the spot price of oil in Rotterdam. We shall have the turbulence of revaluations. They would not bear on every house, as the Labour party has said, but on one house in each area. The Labour party would pick what it has called a beacon.

  399
  In my mind, a beacon is something to which one sets fire to deliver a message. The Labour party means by a beacon that we would pay rates based not on our own house but on someone else's in the same area. If that someone else had a garage, double glazing, central heating or a granny flat, it would be tough on those who did not have those facilities in their houses. They would have to pay more because someone had more than they.
  Mr. Maxton: I have listened to the Secretary of State with considerable interest. I remember reading a headline in this week's Scotland on Sunday. It read: "Heseltine Prefers a Return to the Rating System". If the Secretary of State for the Environment proposes a return to the rating system, what will the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do, bearing in mind that they have been such loyal defenders of the poll tax?
  Mr. Lang: As I told the representatives of the Scottish press on Monday, they should not believe everything they write in the newspapers.
  Consider the problems of a widow under the Labour party's roof tax. One spouse dies, the house is too large for the remaining spouse, but all the furniture is there so he or she remains in it, despite the fall in income. Under the community charge, the system is benign because the cost of local services halves, but under the roof tax the charge will continue accelerating while income declines. f the widow cannot pay, under the Labour party's proposal the local authority, year by year and piece by piece, would start to take over ownership of her house. It would be, "Don't worry, love, we shall get it when you're dead." It is "live now, pay later." It is "pay as you die."
  Consider the accumulating anxiety and distress of an elderly widow as, year by year, the security of her house is stripped away from her. Contemplate her mounting terror when, alone and aging—just when life's problems should be receding—she sees herself running out of credit and wonders how it will all end. That is the Labour party's sophisticated plan for Scotland's funding of local government. That is the obscenity that it would foist on the people of Scotland, which would be not the guinea pig but the sacrificial lamb.
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman's rather intemperate attack sounds rather like one that could be mounted against the rent-to-mortgage scheme of which he is so proud. In the few minutes that remain before the debate must end, will he answer some of the positive questions that the Opposition have asked about the structure of the proposed consultation and the agenda, so that we can understand what is being offered to us?
  Mr. Lang: It seems that we have made progress during the debate. At the beginning of it, Opposition Members threw up their hands in horror. They wanted nothing to do with the offer of consultation and discussion that was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. They want now to know what is on the agenda. That is progress. They have had their opportunity to put forward what they regard as being relevant and suitable. If they put forward all the proposals for local authority funding that they have developed over the past few years, we shall have to spend a long time ploughing through them.
  The truth is that Labour is not interested in the taxpayer or in individuals generally. It is interested only in
  400
  taxes. It does not want taxation to be fair but only to be easy. As a new Labour Government built up their raft of new and higher taxes to pay for their usual extravagant programme—the rake's progress of high spend, high taxes and high inflation—the ability to pay, which we would regard as important, would become no more than a sick joke.
  A new Labour Government would impoverish us, just as their predecessors did. Those in the Labour party are tax maniacs. A former leader of the Labour party, Hugh Gaitskell, said that he would fight, fight and fight again to save the party he loved. Now, it wants to do is tax, tax and tax again to destroy the country we love.
  It will be a thorough review, it will be a constructive review, it will be a fundamental review. It will put the interests of the charge payers first. It will seek justice, fairness and good local government. We shall persevere with it until that is what we achieve.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:-
  The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 311.

  Division No. 20]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cousins, Jim

  Adams, Mrs. Katherine

  Cox, Tom

  Allen, Graham

  Crowther, Stan

  Alton, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Anderson, Donald

  Cummings, John

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barron, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  Battle, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Beckett, Margaret

  Doran, Frank

  Beggs, Roy

  Douglas, Dick

  Beith, A. J.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bell, Stuart

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bellotti, David

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eadie, Alexander

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

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Benton, Joseph

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fatchett, Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Boateng, Paul

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boyes, Roland

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

  Bradley, Keith

  Fisher, Mark

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Buckley, George J.

  Foster, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Fraser, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  George, Bruce

  Cartwright, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clay, Bob

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clelland, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gould, Bryan

  Cohen, Harry

  Graham, Thomas

  Coleman, Donald

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Corbett, Robin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

  401

  Hardy, Peter

  Nellist, Dave

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Brien, William

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  O'Hara, Edward

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Henderson, Doug

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hinchliffe, David

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Parry, Robert

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Patchett, Terry

  Home Robertson, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prescott, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howells, Geraint

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Radice, Giles

  Hoyle, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Richardson, Jo

  Illsley, Eric

  Robertson, George

  Ingram, Adam

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Janner, Greville

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Rooney, Terence

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Kilfedder, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Salmond, Alex

  Lamond, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Leighton, Ron

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Short, Clare

  Lewis, Terry

  Sillars, Jim

  Litherland, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  McAllion, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Snape, Peter

  McCartney, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McGrady, Eddie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Stott, Roger

  McKelvey, William

  Strang, Gavin

  McLeish, Henry

  Straw, Jack

  Maclennan, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  McWilliam, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Madden, Max

  Trimble, David

  Maginnis, Ken

  Turner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Vaz, Keith

  Marek, Dr John

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wallace, James

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Walley, Joan

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Martlew, Eric

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Maxton, John

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Meacher, Michael

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Meale, Alan

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Michael, Alun

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wilson, Brian

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Winnick, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Worthington, Tony

  Morley, Elliot

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mullin, Chris

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Murphy, Paul

  402

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Evennett, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fallon, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Favell, Tony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Allason, Rupert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Amess, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Amos, Alan

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forth, Eric

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Ashby, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Freeman, Roger

  Atkins, Robert

  French, Douglas

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fry, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gardiner, George

  Batiste, Spencer

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gill, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Benyon, W.

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gorst, John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gregory, Conal

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grist, Ian

  Bowis, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Grylls, Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hague, William

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

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

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hannam, John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hardy, Peter

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

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

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butler, Chris

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayward, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (WolV' NE)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Chope, Christopher

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

  Hill, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Critchley, Julian

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Janman, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Devlin, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Durant, Tony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Eggar, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  403

  Knowles, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lang, Ian

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Latham, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rost, Peter

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shersby, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Madel, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mans, Keith

  Squire, Robin

  Maples, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sumberg, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mellor, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mills, lain

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thorne, Neil

  Moate, Roger

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tracey, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Trippier, David

  Mudd, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Neale, Gerrard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Bill (T'slde North)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Norris, Steve

  Waller, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Whitney, Ray

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pawsey, James

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wilkinson, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wilshire, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Portillo, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Price, Sir David

  Wood, Timothy

  Raffan, Keith

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Yeo, Tim

  Rathbone, Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Redwood, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Riddick, Graham

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Question accordingly negatived
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to standing Order No.30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 310,Noes 232.

  Division No. 21]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dover, Den

  Alexander, Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Amess, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Amos, Alan

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evennett, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Fallon, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Favell, Tony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkins, Robert

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baldry, Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forth, Eric

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bellingham, Henry

  Franks, Cecil

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  French, Douglas

  Benyon, W.

  Fry, Peter

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gale, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, George

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Boswell, Tim

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gorst, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gregory, Conal

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

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Grist, Ian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Ground, Patrick

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hague, William

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butler, Chris

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hannam, John

  Carrington, Matthew

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

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayes, Jerry

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

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayward, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hind, Kenneth

  Couchman, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Cran, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dicks, Terry

  Irvine, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Irving, Sir Charles

  405

  Jack, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jackson, Robert

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Janman, Tim

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jessel, Toby

  Portillo, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Price, Sir David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Key, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Redwood, John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Riddick, Graham

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knowles, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knox, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Lang, Ian

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Ryder, Richard

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shersby, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Sims, Roger

  Maclean, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Squire, Robin

  Mans, Keith

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maples, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Marlow, Tony

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sumberg, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mellor, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mills, lain

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thorne, Neil

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moate, Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trippier, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Trotter, Neville

  Mudd, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walden, George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Wcester)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Warren, Kenneth

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Watts, John

  Page, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Paice, James

  Whitney, Ray

  Patnick, Irvine

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wilkinson, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wilshire, David

  406

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Yeo, Tim

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Flynn, Paul

  Adams, Mrs. Katherine

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Alton, David

  Foster, Derek

  Anderson, Donald

  Fraser, John

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fyfe, Maria

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Galbraith, Sam

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Galloway, George

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  George, Bruce

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Battle, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Beckett, Margaret

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Beggs, Roy

  Gould, Bryan

  Bell, Stuart

  Graham, Thomas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

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

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Benton, Joseph

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hardy, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boateng, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Boyes, Roland

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Bradley, Keith

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Caborn, Richard

  Home Robertson, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howells, Geraint

  Cartwright, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Illsley, Eric

  Coleman, Donald

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Janner, Greville

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cousins, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cox, Tom

  Kilfedder, James

  Crowther, Stan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cryer, Bob

  Lamond, James

  Cummings, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leighton, Ron

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Darling, Alistair

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Doran, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McCartney, Ian

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McFall, John

  Eadie, Alexander

  McGrady, Eddie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McKelvey, William

  Fatchett, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Faulds, Andrew

  Maclennan, Robert

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McMaster, Gordon

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Madden, Max

  407

  Maginnis, Ken

  Parry, Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Patchett, Terry

  Marek, Dr John

  Pendry, Tom

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Prescott, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Martlew, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Maxton, John

  Radice, Giles

  Meacher, Michael

  Randall, Stuart

  Meale, Alan

  Redmond, Martin

  Michael, Alun

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Reid, Dr John

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Richardson, Jo

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Robertson, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Rogers, Allan

  Morley, Elliot

  Rooker, Jeff

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Rooney, Terence

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Rowlands, Ted

  Murphy, Paul

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Nellist, Dave

  Sheerman, Barry

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  O'Brien, William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Short, Clare

  O'Neill, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

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

  408

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Snape, Peter

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Soley, Clive

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Stott, Roger

  Wilson, Brian

  Strang, Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Straw, Jack

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Trimble, David

  Turner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Walley, Joan

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Prime Minister and the Government for their decision to undertake a careful and fundamental review of the community charge; and deplores the fact that despite several unsatisfactory attempts, the Labour Party has failed to come forward with any clear or workable proposals of its own.

  Local Health Councils (Scotland)
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Local Health Councils) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 2230), dated 7th November 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th November, be annulled.
  A recent article in The Scotsman wondered why there was no public outcry at the fact that local health councils were allegedly under threat. It is fair to say that letters received by hon. Members on behalf of local health councils have been sent only from members of the councils or their secretaries. That illustrates part of the problem. Local health councils have a low public profile and are seen, quite wrongly, by a large proportion of the public as having no useful role to play in the national health service. Clearly, something needs to be done about their role and functions.
  No one is more aware of the problem than the local health councils themselves. That is why for a number of years they have been asking to have their structure and function reviewed. Rather belatedly, the Scottish Office agreed to that, and a review was carried out by Arthur Young Management Consultancy. Unfortunately, it was an unsatisfactory and perfunctory review, which recommended the abolition of local health councils and their replacement by directors of consumer affairs.
  Local health councils were clearly under threat, so I met the Association of Scottish Local Health Councils. We discussed the problem and found that the association's view was similar to mine. Therefore, in May 1989 we agreed that I should put some proposals to the Minister. We agreed that the status quo was not acceptable and that 44 councils were too many. We accepted that there should be a reduction and streamlining in the number of councils with the aim of one council per board.
  As well as in Orkney and Shetland, there are already single councils in the Borders, in Dumfries and Galloway and more recently, as a result of an amalgamation, there is now a single council in Ayrshire and Arran.
  Mr. David Marshall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Galbraith: I will just finish this point.
  We also agreed that there should be flexibility in the number of councils. Although the aim was to be one per board, for reasons of geography, as in the highlands, or large population, as in Glasgow, there would need to be some flexibility and some boards would have more than one council, but with the ultimate aim of one per board. We also wanted representation from each of the amalgamated areas to be guaranteed in the new councils.
  Mr. David Marshall: Perhaps I was rather hasty in my intervention. My hon. Friend has clarified part of the point that I wanted to make in relation to the number of health councils in the Greater Glasgow health board area. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful to reduce the number of health councils from five to just one, and to reduce the number of people actively participating in the councils from more than 130 to only 15, who will be hand picked by the health board? Is that not outrageous?
  Mr. Galbraith: I was about to deal with the problem of Glasgow. When the Minister and I met, we agreed that for areas of large population such as Glasgow, one health council would be unsuitable.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: If that is what the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and the Association of Scottish Local Health Councils agreed, I suggest that that body was not properly representing all the local health councils in Scotland. For example, Argyll and Bute strongly opposes abolition. There is no way in which a local health council operating from Paisley or Dumbarton can properly represent a unique area such as Argyll and Bute.
  Mr. Galbraith: Part of the problem facing local health councils is that they can never speak with one voice. That is one of the reasons for reducing their number. That was agreed with representatives of the Association of Scottish Local Health Councils and, as I have said, I have received no representations from members of the public.
  Mrs. Michie: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the letters that I have received are not from local health councils, but from members of the public and community councils all over my constituency.
  Mr. Galbraith: I have had no such letters, but I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comment.
  As I have said, that was the position agreed with the local health councils and their umbrella body. Taking into account geography and population, there are good reasons for having only one health council per board. Is it really necessary, for example, for five separate councils to scrutinise the board's minutes and go through the Scottish Home and Health Department's circulars? I think not.
  Most important of all, more than one council means more than one view, and the views expressed are often diametrically opposed. Boards can either ignore the councils' opinion on the basis that they cannot agree, which is often the case, or accept the one that suits them best and use it against other councils. We should therefore be thinking in terms of one council per board.
  As a by-product of the reduction in numbers, resources would be freed. All staff could be re-employed and, rather than duplicate the work, could develop and expand their talents. Money would also be available for better accommodation and better sites. Rather than health councils being hidden away in obscure health board premises, they could be housed in shop-front premises in large thoroughfares, where they could be seen by the public and readily available to them.
  In May 1989, with the agreement and support of the Association of Scottish Local Health Councils, I had a meeting with the Minister at which I proposed such streamlining. I also put forward proposals for beefing up councils, with shop-front premises and more staff. In addition, I suggested that councils should be consulted earlier by boards in the preparation of their strategy plans. As a result of that meeting, the future of local health councils, which had been under threat, was assured.
  The Minister will remember that, at his request, I then submitted my full package to him in writing. The Association of Scottish Local Health Councils was given a copy and it was pleased with the position. It seemed that

  411
  we were all agreed. I was therefore somewhat surprised when the Minister tried to impose single councils even in the highlands and in Glasgow.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: And in Grampian.
  Mr. Galbraith: And in other areas, for reasons of geography. Although we had no formal agreement. I felt that the Minister had gone back on our understanding that there would be flexibility and that there would certainly be more than one council in the areas that I have mentioned.
  I was pleased when the Minister retreated from that position in his response to his hon. Friends on 17 October and made it clear that schemes for more than one council would be considered on their merits, with population figures and geography being taken into account. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that there will be flexibility in the number of councils, based on geography and population. Surely the Greater Glasgow health board, dealing with a population of about 2 million, needs more than the one council proposed by the board. Will the Minister reject that proposal and ask the board to think again?
  Will the Minister also consider the question of premises? It is difficult for the public to contact their local health council when it is lost up a stair in some run-down, far-off hospital. Will the hon. Gentleman ask boards to site their council premises, if not in shop-front premises, at least in a busy thoroughfare where the public can see them and gain easy access to them?
  Will the Minister also use the resources freed by the reduction in the number of councils to ensure better staffing of councils, including better secretarial services? If councils are to fulfil their functions properly, they cannot continue with one paid official and limited secretarial services.
  Mr. Gavin Strang: Does my lion. Friend agree that it is vital that the staff should be wholly controlled by the council rather than their appointment being dependent on the board? I also put it to my hon. Friend that there is tremendous concern about the proposals in Lothian. I am sure that he intends that, whatever scheme is proceeded with, it should demonstrably have the support of the local communities rather than being cobbled up between the health councils and the boards.
  Mr. Galbraith: It is important that any scheme should have the support of the local community and not just the support of the local health councils. Does the Minister accept that, if the health boards are to be seen to be independent, it will be necessary for them to appoint their own staff? It is bad enough that members of health councils are appointed by health boards, but when the officials who do much of the up-front work are also appointed by the boards, any semblance of independence disappears.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: In his review of the way in which health councils are to be constituted, has the hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the fact that local authorities are no longer permitted to nominate members to health councils? Is that not a defect in the proposals which justifies criticism of the Government?
  Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that any group should necessarily have a right to place members on a local health
  412
  council, but nor should anyone be excluded from health councils. However, if a local authority proposes a member for a health board, the board should have good reasons if it turns down the request.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I should be interested to learn how the hon. Gentleman believes that members of the health councils should be appointed or elected. He has made it clear that he does not believe that the local authorities should be involved in the process, so presumably he is also ruling out the district trades councils. How are people to arrive on those organisations?
  Mr. Galbraith: My view is that anyone should be able to nominate members for health councils and that no group should be excluded. That is the current position.
  Mrs. Ewing: How are the members to be selected?
  Mr. Galbraith: By the health board, as is the current position—unless the hon. Lady has a different proposition, in which case I should be interested to hear it.
  Mr. Alex Sahnond: The hon. Gentleman is making the Minister's speech.
  Mr. Galbraith: I am not, but that is the current position.
  The Minister has proposed that the councils should have a membership of 15, but I ask him to think again. Now that there are to be fewer councils, with more work, it seems appropriate to increase the number of members serving on them. To deal with the increased workload, why not allow councils to form sub-committees to which they could co-opt members, which would enable them to have area committees to deal with the specific areas that they look after? That is the system that the Minister is proposing for the health boards. If it is good enough for the health boards, it is surely good enough for the local health councils.
  Finally, will the Minister have an early meeting with representatives from the Association of Scottish Local Health Councils? When he discusses this matter with them, he will find that there are a number of areas of agreement and that their views and his own are not so far apart as he might think. It would be nice if at least one change in the NHS could be brought about by consensus and co-operation rather than the usual confrontation.
  10.41 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) appeared almost to have been briefed by the Scottish Office. I agree with many of his points, which is how it should be. In a matter of this kind, it is good that there should be agreement between the parties.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Has the Minister been briefed by the Scottish Office?
  Mr. Forsyth: I have, indeed, and I shall try to speak to the brief, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.
  Local health councils have existed in Scotland since 1975. Since that time there have been significant changes in how the health service is administered, but the councils' role has largely gone unchanged, despite the abolition in the mid-1980s of the district tier of administration on which many of the councils were based and despite the fact that the original departmental guidance setting up the

  413
  councils envisaged a review after two or three years. That review was not carried out until the Association of Scottish Local Health Councils came to see me in 1988.
  In preparing for this debate, I called for the note of my meeting at that time with the association. Hon. Members will be interested to know that this recorded that the chairman was anxious to see in Scotland a strong independent voice speaking for the consumer and that he was concerned that local health councils were struggling to fulfil their original role and often chose the easy route of highlighting bad news and inefficiencies. I mean no disrespect to the individuals who sit on the councils, many of whom devote a great deal of time and effort to the task, but I suspect that most would associate themselves with that criticism.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: No.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady may disagree, but that was the view of the chairman of the Association of Scottish Local Health Councils, who represents the health councils. As the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden has said, the 1988 review was carried out by the consultants Arthur Young. It confirmed the general disquiet about the role and performance of councils. It concluded that councils were having only a relatively low impact on decisions of health boards and recommended their abolition. I did not accept that because it seemed too radical a solution. In line with the comments made by the hon. Gentleman, we felt that there was a case for looking at councils and their structure and finding a more explicit role for them.
  Mr. David Marshall: Does the Minister accept that not all the health councils are members of the Association of Scottish Local Health Councils? If what he has just said is the opinion of that association, I am surprised if it has any health councils in its membership because the sentiments he expressed were not those of many Opposition Members.
  Mr. Forsyth: They were broadly representative of the view among health councils then. That was certainly what the independent councils established. Everybody knows that the health councils have not played the role anticipated for them in the 1974 legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who was responsible for piloting the legislation through the House, has expressed doubts about the role and functions of the health councils following the introduction of the legislation. The promise made then to carry out a review was not kept, and the councils were left on the sidelines, and they felt that.
  It was the only meeting I can recall in the Scottish Office at which an organisation's representatives have asked us to abolish them or give the organisation a proper role. We decided to go for the latter course. Clearly, health councils have a role to play. They are ideally placed to offer local comment on proposals for health services in their districts and, by undertaking visits to hospitals and units, can help to ensure that services are kept up to scratch. They also provide a useful source of advice to patients with complaints about the service that they receive. However, all of that has to be seen to operate in an environment in which the health boards' role is changing.
  Mr. Jim Sillars: The Minister emphasised the local aspect of local health councils. He cannot by any stretch of the imagination describe the city of Glasgow as one locality. Does he not accept that one of the reasons for anxiety in the city of Glasgow is that the Greater Glasgow health board is made up of people who do not come from the major districts for which hospitals have to provide? It contains no one from Easterhouse, Castlemilk or Govan. If he is to reduce the number of boards from 130 to 13, he will effectively cut out the vast majority of the citizens from any critical contact they have with the health service.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the health councils' role is not to be representational in a geographic sense, but to represent the patients' interests. To do that effectively, the health council must be composed of able people, properly resourced and backed up in an organisation that can talk to the health board on equal terms. The Greater Glasgow health board is substantial and, in order for patients to be effectively represented, we need a strong, properly resourced, health council. That is why the strategy has been to encourage the boards to put forward proposals that look towards single health councils rather than a proliferation.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have been attacked for seeking to weaken health councils. If we really wanted to do so and to make them ineffective, we would have proposed a proliferation of health councils that were not properly serviced or resourced, which would have taken us back to the original position after the 1974 legislation.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Minister said that he believes that health councils should be properly resourced. I agree with that as a general proposition. Does he agree that one of the most important resources for a health council to enable it to carry out its functions is that of information? Why do not the regulations provide that health councils should be able to exact information from hospital trusts and not simply from the national health service and local health boards?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely unfair because the regulations provide a basis for the health councils to obtain information from the boards. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that NHS trusts, which he opposes and of which we as yet have no examples in Scotland—but we will have——
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: No.
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Member does not think that there will be any NHS trusts, it is odd that his colleague asked that question. The hon. Gentleman will know that NHS trusts will operate under contract to the board, and any information about the provision of service will be provided by the board, and the board will be responsible for the standard of service. There is no contradiction in that.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall, but for the last time.
  Dr. Godman: That is kind of the Minister. In this new era of flexibility in ministerial decision making, may I ask

  415
  the hon. Gentleman to reconsider what appears to be his proposed option for a single health council for the Argyll and Clyde health board area? That board has asked for two councils on the basis of representations made by its four local health councils.
  Mr. Forsyth: There seems to be some confusion about this. The regulations show that it is up to the health boards to put forward schemes. I have not seen the scheme to be put forward by Argyll and Clyde. The Government have taken the view that single health councils, properly resourced and serviced, are the way forward for representing effectively the wishes of the patients. However, it is open to boards to put forward schemes. Grampian health board, for instance, has put forward a scheme for one health council for the whole of Grampian region. Other boards may put forward other schemes, and they will be considered solely on their merits. I cannot anticipate what decisions will be taken before I have seen the schemes.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I have said that I have given way for the last time.
  Increasingly we shall look to the boards to determine the health needs of those in their areas and to purchase—whether from their own units or NHS trusts—services commensurate with that need. In drawing up their strategies and monitoring the services provided, they will be looking for constructive advice from health councils. A multitude of councils, as at present, thinly resourced and largely unco-ordinated in their efforts is not the best way of providing that advice—in fact, quite the reverse. What we need are strong councils capable of talking to boards on a one-to-one basis.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that he could not pre-judge any proposals that health boards might make to him on the constitution of the health councils in their areas. Earlier this year he issued a circular in which he instructed health boards to ensure that they submitted schemes for only one health council in each health board's area. Does he now accept that that circular was in that respect ultra vires in relation to the principal legislation and in relation to the terms of regulation 3?
  Mr. Forsyth: I have replied to the hon. and learned Gentleman's letters and answered the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). The hon. and learned Gentleman understands the position perfectly well. The boards can put forward schemes that we will consider on their merits. The Government's view is that representation of the interests of the patients and making the consumers' voice heard in the health service are best served by single councils, properly resourced.
  This is not only the Government's view. A number of boards have favoured this course. For example, Orkney and Shetland and Borders——
  Mr. Wallace: Orkney and Shetland have a health board each.
  Mr. Forsyth: Indeed. Orkney and Shetland and Borders, all represented by Liberal Members of Parliament, have always had a single council. Until 1980, Dumfries and Galloway had four councils, but at the
  416
  suggestion of the councils the number was reduced to one. Last year a similar step was taken in Ayrshire and Arran, which previously had two councils.
  On this matter I am happy to acknowledge that wisdom is not confined to Members on the Government side of the House. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden has given his blessing to the principle of one council per board area, although he reserved his position in respect of Glasgow and Highland when he came to see me.
  The Association of Scottish Local Health Councils is also on record as favouring single councils. A resolution at its 1989 annual general meeting, passed by 24 votes to three with two abstentions, supported the proposals for
  "A body at health board level, properly resourced and staffed independent of the Health Board and required to manage and deploy it resources at local level across the Health Board area in accordance with the NHS principles of equity and access".
  The association has since made much of the qualification in the resolution that there should be area organisations.
  It stated:
  "the area level organisation may as part of its remit establish at local level bodies adequately staffed and funded with due regard to geographical and population distribution".
  The association seems to be advocating the possibility of an additional tier of council.
  I understand that an experiment in The Borders, which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will know all about and which was established by the council there, has not proved successful as a result of the difficulty of appointing representative members. However, I recognise that there may be occasions when councils will wish to establish ad hoc groups to give advice on the position in a particular local area. Nothing in the regulations precludes that.
  The regulations provide the framework within which the councils will operate. They cover the submission of schemes by boards, the functions of councils and the related requirements of boards to consult and provide relevant information. They allow for councils to visit NHS premises and make provision for staffing, accommodation and finance. The regulations allow for existing councils to remain until the new councils are established.
  This new framework for local health councils has to be seen in the context of the important changes now being introduced into the health service. These will ensure that the needs of patients are at the very heart of health service priorities. Strong and effective councils, with members solely appointed on merit, have an important role to play as consumer watchdogs. We simply cannot afford to allow the old, ineffective arrangements to continue. What is needed are new councils fully able to meet the challenges of an invigorated national health scheme. The regulations provide the way forward.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The regulations need to be seen in the context of the drastic changes that are taking place in the national health service in Scotland. Those changes are nowhere more evident than in Lothian region. I fully accept the Minister's statement that, if we have to make a choice between funding a consumer representative organisation, a consultative committee such as a local health council and patient care, there is no doubt about the decision that people would make. They would want to spend their money on patient care.

  417
  At a time of such drastic changes, especially in areas such as my constituency, there is a need for an effective consumer voice so that patients and their families can make their views known to those who make the decisions—the Minister and the health boards. As the Minister knows, I am acutely concerned about what is happening to the national health service in my constituency. It has been sorely hit by the package of cuts that have been imposed by Lothian health board, partly as a consequence of bad management by that board, and partly because of underfunding by the Scottish Office.
  As a result of those cuts, our one geriatric hospital is to be closed and replaced by a private unit in Roodlands hospital in Haddington. The cuts also mean that we are to lose our local accident and emergency and casualty service.
  The Minister and Lothian health board assured me that a casualty service would continue to be maintained at Roodlands hospital. However, last week I discovered that the Scottish ambulance service was instructed that all casualties in my constituency were to be taken to hospitals in Edinburgh because there was no effective casualty service left in Haddington.
  Against such a backdrop, it is vital that patients are effectively represented in the debates that are going on about the future of the services that are vital to patients and their families. East Lothian health council has rather distinct interests from those of other parts of the Lothian region. There are obvious differences between what happens in East Lothian, West Lothian and Midlothian and in the city of Edinburgh. Even the Minister should be able to grasp that.
  There must be some way in which opinion in an area like mine can be focused. The management of the national health service is ludicrously incestuous. The service is run on behalf of the Minister by the health boards that he appoints directly. He is accountable to no one. He certainly is not accountable to the electorate of Scotland, and the health board is accountable only to him.
  At present, 80,000 people in my constituency are represented by one individual on Lothian health board. I am sure that it is pure coincidence that that person was appointed shortly after he lost his seat as a Conservative councillor for Dunbar on East Lothian district council. Perhaps that appointment was a consolation prize. The Minister told us that that person was appointed purely on merit.
  It is now suggested that one local health council should cover the whole of Lothian. Again, East Lothian would probably have only one representative nominated by that health board. That is no way in which to organise consumer or patient representation.
  Clearly, the valuable services of the local health council should be maintained. I understand that, as a compromise, East Lothian local health council has suggested that it would be happy to work with the neighbouring local health authority in Midlothian, where there is an understandable community of interest. However, to lump East Lothian as a nominally local health council in with the rest of the Lothian region does not make sense.
  We need accountability in the national health service, particularly when the Government are inflicting such drastic cuts on health services in areas like mine. My constituents need to be represented. I appreciate that the
  418
  regulations make it possible for there to be more than one local health council in health board areas. I hope that that will be the case.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Mick Buchanan-Smith: I was slightly alarmed earlier because, after our previous debate this evening, I thought that we were gradually moving towards a consensus between the two Front Benches. That may have been unfashionable in recent years, but I do not find it wholly unwelcome in politics in Britain. However, my newly-fanned fires of enthusiasm were slightly dampened when the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) agreed with my hon. Friend the Minister. I began to think that perhaps this move to consensus was not so good as I had first thought. It filled me with alarm and has made me rather more diffident about what I am going to say than might otherwise have been the case.
  While I believe that the local health councils should be subject to review and reorganised from time to time, and I welcome the review, I have several reservations about the consequences of that review. If the argument was that as the councils no longer served a purpose, they should be removed, that would have been the end of the matter. However, the fact that an area is to retain one health council must make us anxious about whether the council will be representative of the consumers of the health service in the areas covered by the health boards. If the principle is that we should retain a health council, we must consider whether the proposal offers representation in its area.
  That is why I see grounds for rationalising and reducing the number of health councils. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, areas like Dumfries have willingly and voluntarily reduced their numbers. That reflects the local view.
  I have genuine concern about wide geographic areas. It is appropriate that in Grampian, for example, there should be only one board, and I agree that there could be some rationalisation. I have advocated to the board that there should be one health council for Aberdeen, one for what I would describe broadly as north Grampian and one for south Grampian. I represent a constituency which stretches from Braemar, on the eastern edge of the Cairngorms, to within a mile of the centre of Aberdeen, at Duthie Park, where it adjoins the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), and the interests of my constituents in those two places are entirely different. I feel sometimes that I represent two constituencies in a parliamentary sense.
  Those who live in Kincorth or Garthdee, for example, have an interest in the health board quite different from that of those who live in Braemar. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be sensitive to that. My constituents in Kincorth and Garthdee were not much interested when at Upper Deeside and Torphins we were fighting to retain the local maternity hospital, which was a worthwhile cause and a battle in which the local health council played a sensible and constructive part. In the same way, I am sure that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will appreciate that my constituents at St. Cyrus, at the south end of my constituency immediately

  419
  north of Montrose, do not have a great deal in common with those living at Elgin, up on the Moray firth. They are separated by many miles.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: With the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the right hon. Gentleman and I have worked together on various health matters which have affected us generally in the Grampian region. Does he agree that it has been recommended by the five existing health councils in Grampian that there should he a minimum of three councils, an arrangement which would take account of the two rural geographic areas and Aberdeen? They are not saying that they should fight one another. When the Minister of State talks about flexibility, the views of the existing councils should be taken into account.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Lady makes a relevant point. If the existing health councils had decided to fight for the status quo, I would have found less credibility in their argument. Instead, they have said that it is important to ensure that health councils are representative in a geographic sense of the areas that they cover.
  I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State when he said that health boards can have more than one council if they wish. That was encouraging. However, the Grampian health board said, "No, I am sorry, but we are going to have only one council." I am disappointed that the board did not take advantage of the latitude that it was offered. I think that there would have been a better set-up if it had done so.
  I have been in correspondence with the Grampian health board and it has shown some sensitivity in responding to me, as it may have done to other hon. Members who represent constituencies in the region. Et has stated that the membership of the council will be related primarily to geographic areas and secondly to population. That is a step forward, and one that I welcome.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will try to persuade the health boards, and especially the Grampian board, that if they are to have only one council they should try to provide that within that structure there are nominated sub-committees which are representative of different areas. In that way, there would be some sense of identification of an area. There would be a local sub-committee with which a local community could identify when it wished to submit views representative of a certain area. With sub-committees, local communities would be able to make submissions in the knowledge that there was a definite voice for their area within the council. In that way local views and problems could be aired and examined.
  That final recommendation is second best to what I would want. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider my recommendation and press it on those health boards which have decided to have only one health council.
  11.10 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I endorse the points made by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) about the position in Grampian—which is itself somewhat peculiar as it is the health board that is part of the problem. That is not often the case in other areas.
  420
  The House should commend the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) for tabling the prayer. It is an important debate. We must sincerely commend him also for the genuine work and interest that he has put into the matter. There was a real worry that health councils would be abolished. He contributed greatly towards positively resolving that question. However, his remarks this evening have shown that he has a wholly west-coast, central industrial belt perspective. I am surprised that his party sources did not tell him earlier that he was on the wrong lines for the revision of the role and function of the health councils. It is commendable that he has so positively contributed to the debate, but his recommendations are inappropriate and wrong, certainly for the areas that I and other hon. Members represent.
  The context of the debate is important. The whole structure and management machinery of the national health service has been recast. The lines of authority, the centres of decision making and the whole process of setting priorities are fundamentally changing. There are new conflicts within the new system. They are real and acute and they will be difficult to address. There will be ministerial political direction together with the direction of the new chief executive. There will be a general manager at local level and there will be health board members, and especially non-executive members. All of them will have to try to make the best judgment possible in new and very different circumstances.
  That process worries me because it can be much more easily politically manipulated than the old consensual system. I am not saying that the old system was perfect but simply that any Government—not just the incumbent Government—will have immensely increased powers in manipulating the way that the management structure works. Health boards have a new set of pressures and priorities within which they must work. The difficulties that they face will be made worse because the system can be more politically manipulated.
  It is more important than ever that the local health councils are independent, that they have adequate resources and that they have a real and meaningful standing in the local community, in the health boards and in St. Andrews house. There must be a proper recognition of their function and their role. They are the only statutory representatives of the public in the new system, and they are supposed to be separate from the management process. To succeed, they must be given adequate resources and genuine access to the new decision-making process. They need a proper place in the hierarchy.
  Two major and connected issues arise from the regulations—first, the number of local health councils in each board area, a matter which has already been referred to, and, secondly, the ability of local health councils to decide what is best for their area.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kirkwood: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not want to take up more time than I have to.
  The regulations are, on the face of it, flexible enough to get the number of local health councils right and for them to have the ability to decide what is best for them. It is what is in the Minister's mind that is causing the uncertainty and concern. He has given a clear signal that he wants one local health council per board, he has decided

  421
  on 15 members, and he is not prepared to consider any district or sub-committee structure. The Minister is pointing at the Opposition Front Bench, but I am not responsible for the Opposition's policy on this. We have our own point of view.
  We must make it clear to the Minister that one local health council per board area is unacceptable. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) eloquently made the point that the Government's circular was ultra vires, and other hon. Members have referred to that, too. The fact that local health councils have no powers of co-option is to be deplored. The boards have been given the power of co-option. My local health council has, as the Minister said, experimented with district sub-committees and co-opting people. It is keen to continue to co-opt people on specific issues and in specific localities as is necessary. The Minister says that it can, but the impression that it has received is that the Minister has set his face against that. It is regrettable that the regulations refer to a joint responsibility with health boards for appointing staff, and that compromises the independence of councils in an unacceptable way.
  There is a cogent legal reason for voting against the regulations. As hon. Members will know, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has made three or four points about the validity of the orders. In its opinion, regulations 9, 11 and 12 are potentially outwith the Government's powers and appear to make an unexpected use of the powers conferred by the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. If those turn out to be defects, they are far reaching.
  The Committee questions whether the Government have power to require health boards to comment on reports produced by local health councils, whether there is a valid power to require health boards to provide local health councils with staff, accommodation and other facilities. It said that it could find no powers specifically available. Thirdly, regulation 4 empowers each local health council to keep under review the operation of the health service in its district, excluding NHS trusts, as was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
  The House has not been able to study those points in depth because the report has not yet been published. But the Minister did not say a word about those potential defects. I hope that he will do so when he replies.
  The Minister has a choice. He can create a strong consumer voice in the NHS, but he can do that only if he gives the new local health councils independence and strength and the resources that they need. If he does not do that, he will effectively stifle public scrutiny. He apparently wants to reduce the number of councils, retain control of their membership and diminish their role. It looks suspiciously like an attempt to sideline local health councils and limit their ability to represent the best interests of patients so that the Government are not embarrassed. It is not too late for him to think again, but it will be too bad for patients if he does not.
  11.19 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: I follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), because Grampian region has a broad geographical spread of urban and rural areas, and I strongly support the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in that regard.
  What does the Minister mean when he talks of a strong voice for the consumer and strong, adequately-resourced health councils? From the regulations, it appears that the whole process will be in the hands of the health board. We know already of Grampian health board's decision to hear only one voice, and that it has ignored the local community's proposal that more voices are required properly to represent the views of consumers.
  Over and above that, the regulations have an ideological bent that should not be ignored. [Laughter.] The Minister laughs, but I want to raise two matters of particular concern. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments pointed out that the regulations contain no requirement for opted-out trusts to provide information.
  I heard the Minister's earlier explanation, but I am well aware that one of the Scottish Office's favourite targets is Aberdeen royal infirmary. It provides a whole range of acute services, and it serves not only the city of Aberdeen and Grampian region but Orkney and Shetland, and some parts of the highlands and islands. If trust status is conferred on that hospital, the voice of the local health council—the consumer organisation—will be neutered. Its role will be diminished, because it will have no locus in respect of that particular hospital.
  Paragraph 6 of the 1974 regulations, which this new measure will replace, imposed a duty on the health board to provide information, with no qualification except in relation to confidential information relating to patients or staff. The new regulations introduce a new area of confidentiality in respect of
  "information in respect of which any rule of commercial confidentiality applies."
  Again, that aspect is one from which local health councils will be excluded.
  The whole ethos and direction of the health service is changing, and new economic and financial factors are being introduced into hospital management. The whole basis on which the health service was founded is being altered, and in this instance commercial contracts for the cleaning, pharmaceutical and laboratory services that we know will be in the pipeline if a Conservative Government remain in power will be excluded from investigation by local health councils.
  I repeat my original question: what does the Minister mean when he talks of a strong local voice for the consumer, when the consumer will be denied representation in the vital areas that I mentioned?
  11.22 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: Unusually, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who made an accurate assessment and judgment of the situation. I am happy to support his remarks.
  I represent a large rural constituency that forms a significant part of Tayside health board area. To me, it is nonsense to suggest that the people in the eastern end of my constituency, which is to the east of Forfar, understand

  423
  the feelings and actions of people in Glen Lyon or Drumochter. It is even more unrealistic to expect that in an area the size of Tayside.
  The practical solution is the one on offer. It is that there should be one properly funded and adequately staffed health council per health board. If we attempt to do anything else, some areas will feel that they are not properly represented.
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall try to deal quickly with the points made in the debate in the short time that is left.
  I was not aware of the position in respect of the casualty department that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) raised, and I shall certainly look into that. However, his stance on health councils was different from that taken by members of the Opposition Front Bench.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that he was disappointed by the decision that Grampian health board has taken. He might wish to reflect that the health board reached that conclusion, I am sure, because it felt that it had a health council which would take advantage of the resources available to it. The point about ad hoc committees, which he and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned, is important. There is nothing in these regulations to prevent health councils from establishing ad hoc committees for a particular purpose. The decisions will remain with the health councils. Nor is there anything to prevent health boards appointing members to health councils, for which they will have to advertise and invite bodies to submit nominations, looking at the geographical spread and taking it into account, as my right hon. Friend said that Grampian would do.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also asked about comments made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. As always, we are extremely grateful for the careful scrutiny of these matters which the Joint Committee carries out.
  The hon. Gentleman will find that regulations 9, 11 and 12 are virtually identical to regulations 8, 10 and 11, which have been in existence since 1975, I believe. On his comment about the Secretary of State retaining control of membership, my right hon. Friend will not appoint members of health councils. They will be appointed by the health boards, having taken nominations from representative organisations and from members of the public.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) found an ideological bent in these regulations. I am sure that if that were so, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) would not have supported them to the extent that he has.
  If Forresterhill becomes an NHS trust, it will be responsible to the Grampian health board, under contract, and the health council will still be able to obtain the information that they require.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Could the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks that it automatically follows that one health council is an appropriate number for the Glasgow area when the general consensus among hon. Members representing Glasgow is that three is a reasonable number? What makes one health council better than three?
  Mr. Forsyth: I know that the hon. Member has had differences of view with the Greater Glasgow health board. It is a large and powerful organisation. The consumer voice—the health council—needs to be a powerful and properly resourced organisation. If there are three such councils, the resources available to fund them will be divided in three. It is a matter for the judgment of the Greater Glasgow health board what conclusion it reaches as to the best way forward. It may, like Grampian, decide that it is better to have one council. It is a matter of judgment. When the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden came to see me some time ago, he argued that perhaps there was a case for having two councils—Glasgow, North and Glasgow, South. Whatever proposals come to us from the Greater Glasgow health board, from Argyll and Clyde, or any other health board, we shall examine them on their merits. When considering proposals, and reaching a judgment about them, we shall want to take account of the views that have been expressed in the debate, which have been fairly clear. It is a matter not simply of quantity, but of quality.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Highland health board's proposal for eight councils makes sense in terms of the geography of the area and also in terms of patients, because most of their problems stern from the geography.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me into making a judgment in advance, or his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will accuse me of being ultra vires. The highlands are very adequately represented by his own efforts in respect of their health needs. They manage with three Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is not arguing that there should be eight Members of Parliament; he would be the first to quarrel with me if I suggested otherwise.
  I believe that the regulations provide the health boards with an opportunity to establish a proper "patient voice" for the first time. We shall, of course, look at them in the light of experience, as always.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 121.

  Division No. 22]

  [11.29 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Kennedy, Charles

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beggs, Roy

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Salmond, Alex

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Sillars, Jim

  Cryer, Bob

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dalyell, Tam

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wallace, James

  Graham, Thomas

  Home Robertson, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Howells, Geraint

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing, and Mrs. Ray Mitchie.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  NOES

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cash, William

  Boswell, Tim

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bright, Graham

  Chope, Christopher

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

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  425

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Mills, lain

  Cran, James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Mitchell, Sir David

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

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Day, Stephen

  Moss, Malcolm

  Devlin, Tim

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Neale, Gerrard

  Dover, Den

  Neubert, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dykes, Hugh

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fallon, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Forman, Nigel

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Paice, James

  Forth, Eric

  Patnick, Irvine

  Franks, Cecil

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Freeman, Roger

  Portillo, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Raffan, Keith

  Green way, John (Ryedale)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Gregory, Conal

  Riddick, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Grist, Ian

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hague, William

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hannam, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

  Sims, Roger

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Harris, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hayes, Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Summerson, Hugo

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Irvine, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Jack, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Jackson, Robert

  Thurnham, Peter

  Janman, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Trippier, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Walden, George

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Walker, Bill (Tside North)

  Knapman, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Knowles, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Lang, Ian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Wilkinson, John

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Maclean, David

  Wood, Timothy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Mans, Keith

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Brain Injury Rehabilitation (Frenchay)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Patnick.]
  11.40 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: Frenchay health authority covers a substantial area to the east of Bristol, but it touches on my constituency in two respects. First, many of my constituents already look to Frenchay as an alternative provider of services to their home district of Southmead or the Central Bristol and Weston district. Many more are looking forward to the more consumer oriented and more varied pattern of service that will inevitably develop in the three districts as a result of the Government's health service reforms next year. Secondly, a major part of Frenchay's provision for mental handicap is at Stoke Park hospital, which lies within the boundaries of the Bristol, North-West constituency, as does the independently funded Burden institute. It is likely that the staff of those two highly respected institutions would be the principal providers of the proposed service in respect of brain injury rehabilitation.
  Despite a rapid increase in knowledge of the nature and rehabilitation of acquired brain injury around the world in the past decade, rehabilitation facilities and the study of rehabilitation techniques in the United Kingdom are sparse and unevenly distributed. The south west region has one small unit which serves only Cornwall. Wessex region has four in-patient general rehabilitation facilities, but no dedicated brain injury service exists in the south west or adjoining regions. I believe that there is no comprehensive organisation for the management, study and treatment of brain injury anywhere in the United Kingdom.
  As a result, no accurate data exist in the United Kingdom on the actual incidence of severe head injury. By "severe" I mean that defined as causing post-traumatic amnesia of more than 24 hours. Evidence shows that the outcome of treatment of serious brain injury is far from optimum and is capable of improvement by way of increased personal independence and reduced job loss. However, those optimum outcomes tend to be available only as a result of prolonged intensive rehabilitation.
  For more than 10 years a partnership of consultants and research scientists at Frenchay hospital and the Burden neurological hospital and institute have been working on designing a model service for brain injury management and rehabilitation. The model is based not only on information and advice from successful centres in the United States of America, other parts of Europe, Israel and Australasia and on wide consultation with professionals in rehabilitation of all kinds throughout the United Kingdom, but on a considerable body of personal experience built up in the district. The resulting service is, to say the least, impressive.
  A few years ago, a layman such as I would not have thought possible the advances in medical science that the use of sophisticated computer techniques and advanced learning programmes, overlaid with the detailed experience in the treatment of brain injuries, have brought about. Links have been established with other local units in respect of particular elements in the treatment programme. For example, the Bristol royal infirmary conducts assessments and offers clinical follow-up facilities. There are also links with clinicians working with the brain-injured elsewhere in the south-west. So far,

  427
  however, facilities have not been developed in line with scientific advances, and the lack of any specialised in-patient rehabilitation facility has meant that the consultants and research scientists have not been able to achieve for the victims of brain injury what they know can be achieved and what international experience has shown can be achieved.
  In 1989, Frenchay health authority applied for special medical development funding for a head injury rehabilitation service, but its bid was unsuccessful in competition with bids from other medical areas. I understand, however, that the Department is still interested in funding a model head injury rehabilitation service, and it is on that basis that the authority has prepared and submitted a further proposal.
  The authority has proposed a centrally funded model brain injury rehabilitation service with independent scientific evaluation of its effects in terms of economic quality of life and cost-effectiveness over a five-year period. It is intended that initially the service will provide skilled treatment, rehabilitation and follow-up for all those with brain injuries in the northern part of the South West regional health authority area, but I am sure that many of the members of the team which has developed the service share my view that demand will rapidly stretch beyond the sub-regional area that it was originally intended to cover.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that, like recovery from brain injuries. their assessment and treatment is a slow process and that we should therefore need a minimum trial period of five years for the Department properly to investigate any system?
  Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend has hit on one of the most important aspects of the problem. The authority's proposal can be made to work only if it is allocated an appropriate trial period. The five-year period has been chosen because recovery is slow and the medical and social outcomes can be assessed only after a lengthy period has elapsed. A period of less than five years would fail to produce data of clinical value.
  Mr. Jack Aspinwall: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject. Is he aware of the interesting situation that has developed in respect of Headway, an organisation which is very active in the Frenchay and Bristol areas, and which works hard to encourage the kind of project that he has proposed? I hope that my hon. Friend will take into account the many representations that have been made to him and to me. In the past few weeks, I have received more than 100 such representations from my constituents.
  Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important aspect of the case. I applied for an Adjournment debate partly because, like him, I had received a large number of representations from families and friends of people who had suffered brain injuries, and who are aware of the scope for additional work to be done.
  It is accepted in Frenchay's application that the service would not necessarily be restricted to the needs of the head-injured. Many of the techniques developed so far could be applied to other forms of disability such as severe encephalitis and the effects of anoxia. However, the service could not be adapted to meet the needs of patients who
  428
  have suffered strokes or the victims of progressive neurological diseases, and it would be concerned, at least in its initial stages, with adults rather than with children.
  Finally, I should mention that the proposal, once implemented and evaluated at the end of the five-year period, would ideally fit into the pattern of provision of service that will develop as a result of the Government's reforms. There is a clear intention that a properly evaluated service will be offered through the contracting system to purchasing health authorities not just in the sub-region but beyond it, and what I am therefore inviting my hon. Friend to consider this evening is a permanent addition to the range of services offered by the national health service which, once initially funded, will not require further special funding.
  A consultant at the Burden neurological institute has drawn my attention to a paragraph in the original Beveridge report of 1942 which pointed out the need for a national health service to encourage rehabilitation, and which stated:
  "Rehabilitation is a new field of remedial activity with great possibilities, but requiring expenditure of a different order of magnitude from that involved in the medical treatment of the nation".
  I commend the proposal to my hon. Friend and look forward to his reply. First, however, I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope).
  11.50 pm
  Mr. John Cope: Frenchay hospital is situated in my constituency and in the past 16 years I have got to know it quite well. I know some of the consultants and other staff at the Frenchay and Burden hospitals who are involved in the treatment and rehabilitation of those with head injuries, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) has been speaking. The proposal that my hon. Friend has supported today has important potential which deserves the closest study from my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that he will look at it carefully and I hope that he will consider it sympathetically.
  11.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on introducing this subject on the Adjournment. The idea that he has drawn to the attention of the House has clearly aroused considerable interest in the Bristol area. My hon. Friend is right to bring the matter to a wider audience because in so doing he draws attention to what I shall seek to demonstrate is recognised to be one area in the national health service in which further improvement is necessary. The proposal which has been prepared by the Frenchay district health authority and which my hon. Friend has espoused in this short debate suggests an interesting way forward, to which I hope to be able to respond in a friendly spirit, if not in a concretely positive spirit immediately.
  My hon. Friend suggested that the Department should accept the proposal from the Frenchay health authority that a sub-regional brain injury rehabilitation unit should be developed in the authority, which would not only form the basis of improved care in the immediate area around Frenchay but could provide research and expertise that could be applied elsewhere in the health service. That is a powerful case, to which we react with interest, but also

  429
  recognising that, within the context of the health service, such a submission must always enter immediately into the competition for resources which is a necessary part of the management process.
  In terms of our analysis of the problem, there is no difference between myself and my hon. Friends, or between myself and the Frenchay health authority. This is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed, and in bringing it to the attention of the House this evening my hon. Friend has done a service nor merely to the residents of Frenchay but to a wider audience.
  I think that my hon. Friend would accept that he has been addressing the specific problem of rehabilitation after the immediate acute phase of treatment has been attended to. It is important to distinguish between the treatment of the acute condition and the post-acute rehabilitation service.
  In the context of the acute care of people suffering from head injury, the health service has a good record. The victim of a motor accident or any other incident leading to serious injury can, in the immediate phase after the injury, expect from the national health service quality of care that is second to none. The care gives the patient a good chance to stabilise his condition and enter a rehabilitation phase. The immediate control of the acute symptoms of a head injury is something that the national health service does well, and that pattern repeats itself in the course of other treatments under the NHS. Treatment of acute-phase post-injury is of a high quality throughout the country.
  The problem that my hon. Friend highlights relates not to the acute phase immediately after an accident, but the long-term rehabilitation when the patient's condition is stabilised and there is potential to set him on the road to recovery. As I have already acknowledged, that is where the record is less good. The problem is not purely esoteric, applying only to a small number of patients, but involves a significant part of health care provision. It is a serious problem, which each health authority should address.
  My hon. Friend rightly said that statistics are unreliable, but such estimates as are available suggest that, in the average district health authority, there are each year 20 new cases of severe disability and 45 new cases of moderate disability arising from brain injury. Even after six months, five of the 20 severe cases and five of the 45 moderate ones still display substantial disability. The cumulative effect of that on the resident population in an average district health authority means that each authority contains between 250 and 350 survivors of accidents or other causes of brain injury with severe disability. In each health authority district, the problem is of substantial if not large proportions, and one that each authority must address.
  Precisely because our care of the acute condition is relatively good, there has tended to be a rise in the number of those likely to benefit from the type of rehabilitation care for which my hon. Friend argued this evening. Therefore, the issue is not purely esoteric. Clearly, potential benefit is available if proper rehabilitation is provided because it is beyond dispute that, where that is provided, the improvement in the patient's condition can be considerable. When proper support is provided, it is
  430
  possible to see dramatic transformations in the expectation of a patient and his carers and supporters in the immediate post-acute phase.
  We acknowledge that the rehabilitation service falls below the aspirations that most of us have for it. It would be hard to do otherwise, because two recent reports, one from the Royal College of Physicians and the other from the Medical Disability Society, have drawn attention to the lack of specialist facilities for the rehabilitation of brain-injured patients and to the likelihood that they will find themselves in an inappropriate place for the care that they need. There is a risk that patients will find themselves in a mental handicap or mental illness hospital, or bed blocking in an acute hospital. None of these are proper places for high quality rehabilitation.
  The two reports also highlighted deficiencies in the training of staff and drew attention to the lack of out-patient and day-patient facilities, so it is clear that the infrastructure of the rehabilitation service is not all that we should like it to be.
  The news is not uniformly bad, however. There are places in the NHS, notably the Rivermead centre in Oxford, where there is high quality rehabilitation care. Some authorities use quite well-known facilities in the private sector to provide rehabilitation.
  The Department has already taken some steps to try to improve basic provision, notably by providing funds for the charitable organisation that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) mentioned: Headway. We also support the development of Oakwood house in Stockport and the work that it is doing in co-operation with the Leonard Cheshire Foundation. So we have supported the development of rehabilitation care facilities in the voluntary sector.
  We recognise that further action is necessary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said, even in the days of Beveridge it was suggested that the NHS should be a three-legged stool—we should emphasise prevention and rehabilitation as well as treatment. The rehabilitation leg for brain-injured patients is not yet as good as we should like it to be.
  What steps do the Government intend to take to put right this acknowledged weakness? We are considering whether to invite model schemes of the type that Frenchay has put forward. Before doing so, however, we should first consider how high a priority to attach to the rehabilitation of brain-injured patients in the health service. At any given moment, there are always opportunities to improve the quality of the health service, but any proposal to improve the rehabilitation of brain-injured patients will have to take its place in the competition for resources in any given year. It might be decided that it was a longer-term priority.
  Our first decision, which we have not yet taken, is to determine whether the improvement of rehabilitation facilities for brain injured patients is a priority that we can tackle in the next financial year. If we decide to invite applications, we would invite from each health authority development schemes to treat brain-injured patients. If such an invitation is issued, I have no doubt that Frenchay would put forward its scheme. I have had a brief look at that scheme and, plainly, it has been well thought out. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West referred to its genealogy.
  The scheme is well established and its ideas are the result of considerable background knowledge of the field. Therefore, it would be a strong runner, but it would not be

  431
  right for me to commit myself to accepting that proposal rather than one of the other runners that I have not yet had a chance to examine in the paddock. It is right to decide, first, whether the priority can be addressed next year. Secondly, if we decide to address it, we must ensure fair competition between the proposals that are submitted by health authorities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West has drawn attention to an important matter, and even if we do not address it next year, we shall clearly have to address
  432
  it at some time. The proposal that he espoused is a useful contribution to the debate about precisely how services in that field should develop. When the Secretary of State is able to say that he intends to fund some model schemes, the Frenchay proposal will be considered seriously and sympathetically by whoever has the opportunity to improve facilities.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Judges
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what target he maintains for the number and percentage of female judges there will be in the year 2000;

  (2) what target he maintains for the number and percentage of black judges there will be in the year 2000;

  (3) what steps he is taking to increase the number of female judges;

  (4) what steps he is taking to increase the number of black judges.

  The Attorney-General
  Candidates for judicial appointment are considered on their merits, regardless of sex or ethnic origin. The Lord Chancellor has, however, repeatedly made clear his wish to appoint more women and members of ethnic minorities to judicial office. Steps have been taken to make this widely known, and thus to encourage more suitably qualified women and members of ethnic minorities to put themselves forward for consideration. The composition of the bench at any one time is, however, dependent on the composition of the legal profession in the age groups with the necessary experience to be suitable. At the moment, there are relatively few women and ethnic minority candidates in the legal profession in the appropriate age groups with the right experience. It is expected that the number will increase significantly over the next 10 years, and that this will result in more women judges, and judges from ethnic minorities. It is, however, impossible to predict the composition of the pool of suitably qualified candidates for judicial office, or the number of appointments needed, 10 years ahead, and it would therefore be inappropriate to set targets.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage and number of(a) county court judges, (b) judges who sit full time in the Crown courts, (c) judges who sit in the divisional court, (d) recorders, (e) Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, (f) judges who sit in the Court of Appeal and Court of Criminal Appeal and (g) judges who sit in the High Court, are female.

  The Attorney-General
  The following figures are correct as at 1 December 1990. There are 10 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, of whom none is female. There are 27 Lords Justices of Appeal, of whom one is female (3·7 per cent.). There are 83 High Court judges, of whom two are female (2·4 per cent.). There are 424 circuit judges, of whom 19 are female (4·5 per cent.). There are 762 recorders, of whom 43 are female (5·6 per cent.). In addition, the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, president of the family division and Vice-Chancellor are all male.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage and number of(a) county court judges, (b)
  114
  judges who sit full time in the Crown courts, (c) judges who sit in the Court of Appeal and Court of Criminal Appeal, (d) judges who sit in the divisional court, (e) judges who sit in the High Court, (f) Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and (g) recorders, are black.

  The Attorney-General
  Records are not kept on the ethnic origin of members of the judiciary or of candidates for judicial appointments, but our understanding of the position is as follows.

  There are no Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, heads of division, Lords Justices of Appeal, or High Court judges from the ethnic minorities. There are 424 circuit judges, of whom one is from an ethnic minority (0·2 per cent.). There are 762 recorders, of whom five are from ethnic minorities (0·65 per cent.).

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to make any orders under section 48(2) of the Housing Act 1988 to amend the permissible objects of housing associations.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  North Sea
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to implement the declarations made following conferences on the protection of the North sea in Bremen 1984, London 1987 and the Hague 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  Progress on implementation of measures agreed at Bremen was reported to the second North sea conference held in London in 1987 and detailed national progress reports on the implementation of second North sea conference measures were prepared by all North sea states for the Hague conference in March 1990. Copies of these reports are held in the Library.

  In July this year the United Kingdom published a "Guidance Note on the Ministerial Declaration of the Third International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea" which details action planned to implement the new measures agreed at the Hague. Copies are available in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table in the Official Report based upon the information contained in annex VIII of his local government finance statement of 31 October, showing for each local authority area listed on pages 2 to 13 (a) income from the community charge for standard spending, (b) business rate income and (c) revenue support grant, in each case as a percentage of their standard spending assessment, with each local authority being listed in ascending order according to the percentage size of their revenue support grant.

  Mr. Key
  Revenue support grant (RSG) and business rate income are distributed to charging authorities so that if each notifiable authority spent at the level appropriate to provide a standard level of service, all charging authorities could set a charge at the community charge for standard
  115
  spending of £380·41. As the cost of providing a standard level of service, measured by the standard spending assessment (SSA) varies with the demographic, social and physical characteristics of an area—the proportions of SSA met from RSG and business rates also varies. Uniquely the SSA for the City of London does not reflect the cost of providing a standard level of service.

  Full details of the distribution of RSG and business rates for 1991–92 are set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) approved on 18 January and the draft Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England) published on 31 October.

  I have today placed in the Library a table showing for each receiving authority area in England the information requested, together with an additional column containing the percentage of standard spending assessment (SSA) met by total external support, that is, the sum of business rate income, revenue support grant, area protection grant and the inner London education grant. The SSA for a receiving authority area is calculated by summing the SSAs per adult of the receiving authority and of all notifiable authorities precepting on that receiving authority and multiplying by its relevant population.

  Roofing Slates
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for the level of production of roofing slates within the United Kingdom; what was the level five years ago; and what were the corresponding figures for the importing of roofing slates into the United Kingdom in each of those two periods.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested on the production and imports of roofing slates for the United Kingdom is given in the table. Exports have been added for completeness.

  Tonnes

  Production

  Imports

  Exports

  1984

  22,000

  14,000

  2,000

  1989

  46,500

  49,000

  5,500

  Leaseholders
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many leaseholders live in flats, including old houses converted to flats, in England and Wales excluding right-to-buy purchases from local authorities.

  Sir George Young
  The information is not available in the form requested. In 1981 the total number of leasehold households in England and Wales was 1,506,434. It is likely that the majority of these households occupied flats.

  Single People (Accommodation)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many single persons, over the age of 16 years, are currently living within family units; how these persons are considered in producing projections for future housing needs; and what assessment he has made of the future requirement for single persons' accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 22 November 1990]: The estimated number of single persons aged 16 or over
  116
  living within family units in England in 1988 is 4·9 million, of which 1·3 million were aged 16 or 17. These figures are derived from the 1988 labour force survey housing trailer.

  In estimating the future number of households my Department makes projections of the proportions of persons who will be household heads, separately by age, sex and marital status (including single). The method is described in the Department's publication "1985 based estimate of numbers of households", a copy of which is in the Library.

  The Government do not make estimates of housing requirements for particular types of household.

  Business in the Community
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many schemes in cities and towns have been set up or commenced under the Government's business in the community programme; if he will list the schemes giving locations and the amount of grant allocated for each scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 29 November 1990]: Business in the Community (BITC) is not a Government initiative. It is a charity funded by over 400 of the country's major businesses and grants from the Departments of the Environment (DOE), Employment (DE) and Trade and Industry (DTI). BITC encourages business men to play a part in encouraging economic regeneration aims across the country. I will write to the hon. Member with details of my Department's grants.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Private Firms (Uniforms)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations he proposes to introduce to limit private firms' use of uniforms in the style of police officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans, at present, to introduce such regulations. I am pleased to note that the British Standards Institution has recently issued, for public comment, a draft British standard code of practice for manned security services, which makes recommendations on the provision of uniforms by security companies.

  Hazardous Chemicals (Transportation)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met local authority representatives to discuss the role of local authorities in the energency response to an accident involving the rail transportation of hazardous chemicals; if he will detail that role; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has not had the opportunity to meet with local authority representatives to discuss this specific matter. However, Mr. Brook, the Home Office civil emergencies adviser, has had, and will continue to have, discussions with the local authorities about their response to a whole range of civil emergencies.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist to protect the general public from possible off-site consequences of an accident involving the rail transportation of hazardous chemicals.
  117
  Mr. John Patten
  The off-site consequences arising from such an accident are dealt with by the emergency services in consultation with the local authority and sources of specialist advice on chemical toxicity.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he has taken in respect of research into alcohol misuse and the social effects of alcohol misuse in England; and how much money he has made available for this purpose in the current financial year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During the past three years the Home Office has commissioned a survey of drinking in England and Wales, carried out research into drinking and disorder in non-metropolitan areas, evaluated the effects of experimental byelaws to control public drinking in the central parts of various towns and cities and commissioned a preliminary study of the role economic models may play in understanding the links between alcohol and crime. The cost of work falling in this financial year was about £15,000.

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish tables showing(a) the number of new buildings, (b) the amount spent on new buildings, (c) the amount spent on repairs and maintenance and (d) the amount spent on building renovation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is not available centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Details of remuneration at 1989 rates for appointees to Home Office public bodies are contained in the publication "Public Bodies", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Police Inspectorate
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on its inspections of police forces.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [pursuant to my noble Friend's reply, 23 March 1990, c. 794]: All reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary inspections are now published; the Derbyshire report will be published tomorrow and copies will then be placed in the Library.

  The report conveys the professional policing judgment of the inspectorate; it offers a worrying catalogue of Derbyshire county council's policies and procedures which, in the view of the inspectorate, hinder the commendable efforts of the police force to provide the best standards of policing.
  118
  No bids for extra police manpower were made for 1988 and 1989: my predecessor approved an additional 19 posts for 1990—on which 51 per cent. police grant would have been paid—but the council was unwilling to meet its share of the funding and the posts were not taken up; civilian posts are left vacant or take six months to fill; buildings are in a poor state and the police committee did not respond to a 1988 Home Office invitation to submit proposals for a building plan; budgetary processes are exceptionally cumbersome, and little control is devolved to the chief constable.

  Resources for policing are allocated on the same basis throughout England and Wales. But no other police authority has merited such informed professional criticism. The issues identified in the report are the consequences of the policies of the Derbyshire authorities; I shall be watching very closely to see what action they take to make substantial improvements in their performance.

TRANSPORT

  Train Passengers (Falls)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider establishing an independent inquiry to look into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of passengers falling from trains.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Accidents involving deaths are fully investigated by railway operators and the appropriate coroner. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate would investigate as a matter of course if there were any evidence that accepted standards of safety had not been maintained.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of passengers falling from moving trains there were in each of the last five years; how many died from the fall; and how many were seriously injured.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Fatal

  Major Injury

  Minor Injury

  Total

  1985

  16

  8

  42

  66

  1986

  12

  15

  34

  61

  1987

  26

  16

  28

  70

  1988

  19

  13

  32

  64

  1989

  19

  16

  12

  47

  Empty Houses
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many houses his Department owns; how many are empty; and how many are along routes of proposed road building schemes.

  Mr. Chope
  On 1 October 1990, the total number of dwellings owned by the Department of Transport was 2,370. Of these 2,339 have been acquired in connection with road schemes and 31 are used by the coastguard services. A total of 498 are empty.

  Aviation Fuel (Transport)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of(a) the amount, (b) the type and (c) the frequency of the transportation of loads of aviation fuel from the Isle of Grain through London to Stansted airport.
  119
  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is a commercial and operational matter for British Rail.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the administrative costs of his Department rose by more or less than the retail prices index in the last financial year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Gross running costs expenditure on Department of Transport administration was 9·3 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than in 1988–89. During the same period the retail prices index rose by 7·8 per cent.

  Hazardous Chemicals (Transportation)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements have been agreed concerning rail transportation of hazardous chemicals through the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No arrangements have yet been agreed. It is for Eurotunnel to put forward proposals for the movement of dangerous goods. The proposals will be considered by the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission which is advised on safety matters by the independent binational safety authority.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will set out the regulatory framework that exists to cover the rail transportation of hazardous chemicals;

  (2) what regulatory framework exists to cover the possible health and safety implications of the rail transportation of hazardous chemicals; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will review the regulations and their enforcement controlling the containment of chemicals in transit in the light of the Isle of Grain derailment on 28 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Dangerous substances are carried by rail in accordance with the British Railways Board's "List of Dangerous Goods and Conditions of Acceptance by Rail on Freight Services and Parcels Service" (BR 22426). These are based on the United Nations' "Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods".

  Responsibility for the safety of staff and the public rests primarily with the railway operator. Her Majesty's railway inspectorate is responsible for enforcement of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 on the railways. The inspectorate transferred to the Health and Safety Executive on 1 December.

  I am considering what further action is needed to ensure that dangerous substances safety rules on our railways and those applying internationally are regularly updated and appropriately aligned.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken concerning(a) the derailment of a train carrying chemicals at Stratford, east London, on 21 November, identifying the chemicals being transported and (b) the derailment of a train near the Isle of Grain refinery on 28 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  An inspecting officer of the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate (RI) visited the scene of the accident on the Isle of Grain on the morning 120
  of 28 November. British Rail will be conducting its own inquiries into both the Stratford and Isle of Grain accidents and will send a copy of its findings in due course to RI, which will then decide whether any further action is necessary. I understand from BR that the train at Stratford included wagons carrying sodium hydroxide solids and diphenyl methane—4, 4—diifocyanate, but that these particular wagons were not derailed.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the inventory his Department maintains on those chemicals currently transported by rail in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department does not have such an inventory, but I understand that British Rail has a list of dangerous substances which can be transported by rail.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of railway accidents involving chemicals being transported in each of the years 1980 to 1990 and for each of the categories(a) corrosive, (b) poisonous, (c) volatile and (d) explosive.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the railway inspectorate does not have information in the form requested.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what role his Department takes in planning for, and responding to, possible accidents involving the rail transportation of hazardous chemicals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for British Rail, the emergency services and local authorities.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what hazard assessment and emergency planning arrangements exist for accidents involving the rail transportation of hazardous chemicals; what body is responsible for this work; and if possible off-site consequences of an accident are taken into account in the assessment and planning arrangements.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail, the emergency services and local authorities, which are responsible for the off-site consequences of an accident, liaise closely in assessing hazards and developing arrangements to deal with major railway accidents, including those involving hazardous chemicals. As part of these arrangements, joint exercises are held frequently.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedure exists to provide emergency services attending an accident involving the rail transportation of chemicals with information concerning the identity and possible hazard of these substances; and how early during an emergency response such information is available to the emergency services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Every railway wagon carrying a dangerous substance should be identified by a HAZCHEM label, and there are also arrangements for British Rail regional control offices to provide the emergency services with lists of wagons and contents. Further advice is available from the consignor or the Chemical Industries Association's CHEMSAFE arrangements. I understand that response times are usually very quick.

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish tables showing(a) the number of new buildings, (b) the amount spent on new buildings,(c) the amount spent on repairs and maintenance and (d) the amount spent on building renovation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Fees and salaries for the majority of appointments made by my right hon. and Friend are contained in the annual publication "Public Bodies" published by HMSO, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The appointments which are not listed in this document are:Acting conservator of the River Mersey (£7,667 per annum),
  Delegate to the Central Rhine Commission (unpaid),
  Chairman and members of the honorary medical advisory panel on driving and diabetes (unpaid),
  Chairman and members of the honorary medical advisory panel for driving and disorders of the nervous system (unpaid),
  Chairman and members of the honorary medical advisory panel on driving and cardiovascular disorders (unpaid).

  My right hon. and learned Friend also appoints some part-time members to ports authorities, but their remuneration is a matter for the individual authority concerned.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects the passenger trains for services through the channel tunnel from destinations from north of London to be delivered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  British Rail last December announced plans to operate daytime international rail services connecting stations on the east and west coast main lines directly with Paris and Brussels. These plans remain unchanged. However the high-speed trains are even more complex than those which will operate between London, Paris and Brussels and will require a substantial period of safety and operational testing. The manufacturers have not yet been able to quote a firm price and delivery date. As a result, through passenger services are unlikely to be available until 1994. In the light of this I have indicated to British Rail the importance I attach to improving the journeys of passengers from north of London in the period immediately after the tunnel opens. I understand it is now planning to operate some inter-city services from the north into Waterloo, so avoiding the need for passengers to cross London. Tenders for rolling stock for night trains through the tunnel are likely to be invited shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about ministerial responsibilities in his Department.

  Mr. Brooke
  I announced yesterday the following ministerial responsibilities.

  The right hon. the Lord Belstead, Her Majesty's Paymaster General and deputy to the Secretary of State, is responsible for law and order and the Department of Education. He is spokesman on all Northern Ireland matters in the House of Lords.

  Dr. Brian Mawhinney MP, Minister of State, is responsible for the Department of Finance and Personnel, the central community relations unit, political affairs division and the information services. He is also the spokesman in the House of Commons on law and order and education matters.

  Mr. Richard Needham MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, is responsible for the Department of Economic Development, the Industrial Development Board, and the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Jeremy Hanley MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, is responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Agriculture. As one of the four United Kingdom Ministers responsible for agriculture I will maintain my interest in that area.

  I will continue to have overall responsibility for the work of the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is currently being provided to the Soviet Union; what form it takes; and if there are any plans for it to be stepped up.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have announced a know-how fund of £20 million for the Soviet Union. Its aim will be to transfer British skills and expertise in areas essential to economic reform, particularly food distribution, energy, small business formation and financial services. Wider financial assistance will be a matter for multilateral action in the light of the EC and IMF studies of the Soviet economy now under way.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Barriers
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress by the European Community on removing barriers to trade to permit a satisfactory outcome to the Uruguay round.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is this week leading the United Kingdom delegation to the ministerial meeting in Brussels called to conclude the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. It is in everyone's interest, including the European Community, that the
  123
  round should succeed. For this to happen, all concerned will need to show flexibility. But it is essential to preserve and strengthen the multilateral trading system. We are continuing to work with our Community partners in Brussels this week to bring this about.

  British Exporters
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department intends to bring forward any new proposals to help British exporters.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department is seeking, through the current GATT negotiations, to liberalise the world trading environment. We are also leading the way in implementing the directives necessary for creating the single European market.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to help British exporters.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department, together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, provides a wide range of services for British exporters. We are continually monitoring our schemes to ensure they are meeting the needs of business.

  Textiles and Clothing
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of trade in textiles and clothing.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend is seeking to improve market access by reducing tariff and trade barriers and to strengthen the rules and disciplines of GATT so as to provide fairer conditions for trade in textiles and clothing.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had from industry about the future of the United Kingdom defence industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department is in contact with many defence companies about a wide range of matters concerning the defence industry.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the telecommunications duopoly.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government published a consultative document entitled "Competition and Choice: Telecommunications Policy for the 1990s" on 13 November. By that time, my Department had received over 40 informal submissions regarding the telecommunications duopoly. I have now received a handful of responses to the proposals in the document. The deadline for comments is 14 January 1991.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the Director General of Oftel regarding developments in value added telephone services.
  124
  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently discussed the full range of telephone services with the Director General of Oftel in the context of the telecommunications duopoly review.

  Steel Imports
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current level of steel imports.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest available figures indicate that imports of steel for the 10 months to the end of October stand at 3·6 million tonnes. This represents a fall of 5·5 per cent. compared with the same period last year.

  Post Office (Letters)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the Post Office letter monopoly.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Post Office's letter monopoly is a privilege, not a right. While we keep the options on the letter monopoly under review, we have no present plans to end it, although in the event of a cessation or serious disruption to the letter service we would consider suspending it. The Government and the Post Office remain fully committed to the existence of a national letter service available to everyone, including those in rural areas, at a reasonable and uniform tariff.

  Companies and Financial Services Acts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had about the prosecution of offences under the Companies and Financial Services Acts with the regulatory authorities.

  Mr. Redwood
  My officials are in regular touch with the regulatory authorities; the subjects discussed include the prosecution of offences.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to expand the role of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Through the ECGD, United Kingdom exporters have access to a range and quality of credit insurance and export finance facilities which are among the best available in the major exporting countries. My aim will be to ensure that ECGD continues to respond flexibly to its customers' changing needs.

  Iraq (Trade Mission)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the dates and details of the last trade mission to Iraq that was sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The last outward mission to Iraq sponsored by my Department took place from 22–28 June 1990. It was organised by the Nottingham chamber of commerce and 13 United Kingdom firms were represented.

  The City
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received any representations from the City of London corporation regarding the future development of the City.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received no such representations from the City of London corporation, although I am aware of its decision to mount a study. I myself hold seminars with City practitioners to discuss the future of the financial sector.

  Debt Advice
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consider increasing the funding of debt advice services as a resource for households in debt.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department does not specifically fund debt advice services, and I have no plans to do so. However, a large proportion of debt advice is provided by local citizens advice bureaux, as part of their general advisory work. Local bureaux receive most of their funding from local authorities, but my Department funds the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Citizens Advice Scotland, which provide support services for local bureaux. Total DTI grant in aid to NACAB and CAS will be more than £11 million in 1990–91.

  Project Assistance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department proposes to make any changes in its scheme for assistance for exceptional projects.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have no plans to alter the criteria for supporting applications for assistance towards exceptional projects.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had concerning progress at the GATT talks.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend and I have had numerous representations on the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations, from a wide variety of sources, including industry, farmers, consumers and representatives of other Governments. This House also had a full debate on the Uruguay round on 23 November.

  Textile Manufacturers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in the GATT talks to gain access to new overseas markets by the United Kingdom textile manufacturers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The GATT negotiations are continuing in Brussels this week. It is a high priority for the Government to reduce barriers to Community textiles exports in overseas markets. Some countries, such as Canada, South Africa and Thailand, have offered to reduce their textiles tariffs. The Community is pressing all participants to improve their offers on textiles as part of the overall market access negotiations.

  Solvent-based Products
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to strengthen the provisions of the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act to restrict the sale of solvent-based products to minors.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have no plans to amend the provisions of the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of those measures laid down for the creation of the single European market still have to be agreed between the member states of the Community.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Of the 282 measures specified for the creation of the single European market in the Commission's 1985 White Paper, 190 have been agreed and 92 still remain to be agreed.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to meet the chairman of the Post Office to discuss the quality of postal services.

  Mr. Leigh
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, regularly to discuss various matters of mutual interest and concern.

  Scottish TUC
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the state of Scotland's industries.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have no plans to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

  Consumer Affairs
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of local authority trading standards officers to discuss consumer matters.

  Mr. Leigh
  My right hon. Friend has not had any meetings with representatives of local authority trading standards officers. However, officials have frequent meetings with them and I have accepted an invitation to meet representatives of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration early next year.

  Glass Industry
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to next meet his EC Trade Minister colleagues to discuss the glass industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend keeps in close contact with his EC ministerial colleagues but he has no plans at present to discuss the glass industry.

  Retail Goods
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further measures his Department is taking to improve the safety of retail goods.
  127
  Mr. Leigh
  The safety of retail goods will continue to be a high priority for my Department. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 makes it a criminal offence to supply any consumer product that is not reasonably safe. This is supported by specific regulations, where necessary, and by a range of enforcement powers that enable action to be taken effectively and swiftly against unsafe consumer goods. I see no justification for further legislation in this area.

  Company Records
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in which department requests which arise at Companies house satellite offices for individual company records on microfiche are dealt with.

  Mr. Redwood
  The majority of search requests made in the satellite offices are satisfied by Companies house in London.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry where microfiche records paid for at a Companies house satellite office to be sent to the inquirer's office or home are posted.

  Mr. Redwood
  Microfiche records requested and paid for in Companies house's satellite offices are not posted on to customers' offices or homes.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what system is used to transport company microfiche requested at satellite offices from Cardiff to those offices; and if this system is more expensive or cheaper to operate than if the same packets were sent to the satellites by Royal Mail.

  Mr. Redwood
  The system used to transport search requests to the satellite offices is operated by Britdoc Ltd. trading as British Document Exchange. This system is 50 per cent. cheaper than first-class post per item and 33 per cent. cheaper than second-class post.

  EC Financial Directives
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in negotiations on the terms of the capital adequacy directive; and what issues remain to be determined.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Commission proposal for a directive to establish minimum capital adequacy requirements for investment firms and credit institutions conducting investment business was submitted to the Council in June. Negotiations are now under way in the Council working group. The directive as drafted represented a major improvement on earlier, unpublished drafts but it is clear that a number of member states favour higher minimum initial capital requirements. The Government's immediate concerns are to resist any increase in these initial requirements, to agree a satisfactory treatment of independent financial intermediaries, and to agree a satisfactory definition of those illiquid assets which must be deducted from the capital of investment firms. The Government's overall objective remains to negotiate a directive which genuinely relates capital requirements for individual firms to the risks to which those firms are exposed, and maintains the international competitiveness of the European Community.

  Iraq (Supergun)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make it his practice to answer any questions relating to the export of militarily sensitive supergun parts to Iraq.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 27 November 1990]: Where I can add to the information provided by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on Second Reading of the Import and Export Control Bill, without helping the Government of Iraq (or any other would-be evader of export controls), I will answer questions which fall within my Department's area of responsibility.

  Auditing Practices Committee
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date his representative on the Auditing Practices Committee was informed of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies' review of the Auditing Practices Committee.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 November 1990]: In mid-July.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Coinage
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in respect of the size of the new 5p piece.

  Mr. Maples
  A number of letters have been received.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of business investment in 1991; and what is the level of business investment in(a) France, (b) Italy and (c) Germany, respectively.

  Mr. Maples
  In the autumn statement, business investment in the United Kingdom in 1991 was forecast to be £56 billion at 1985 prices.

  The latest estimates of private non-residential investment—the standardised international definition which is closest to business investment—for the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy are for 1989. They are set out in the table as a share of GDP. The United Kingdom devoted a larger share of its GDP to private non-residential investment than the other three countries.

  Private non-residential investment as a share of GDP, 1989

  Share of GDP

  United Kingdom

  13·9

  France

  12·6

  Germany

  12·8

  Italy

  112·4

  1 1988; 1989 not available.

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.
  129
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The annual salary and fixed fee cost of appointments made by the Treasury is about £1 million a year. There are further appointments that pay a daily fee depending on involvement and most appointments pay travel and subsistence expenses. Details of this expenditure are not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

ENERGY

  Piper Alpha Report
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the cost of technical and hardware measures outlined in the interim report of the Piper Alpha disaster and the Cullen report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The principal recommendations of Lord Cullen's report deal with broad principles of safety management rather than detailed technical or hardware measures. The cost of any measures required or thought desirable in the light of the application of these principles seems likely to vary from case to case, and it is not possible at this stage to make any overall estimate of additional costs attributable to the implementation of these recommendations.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the percentage of the cost of the technical and hardware measures outlined in the interim report of the Piper Alpha disaster and the Cullen report which will be met(a) by the oil companies and (b) by the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The extent to which the future cost of any such measures would be borne by the Exchequer would depend on a number of factors including the tax position at the relevant time of the oil or gas field, and of the company, in question.

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91 (forecast)

  Number of new buildings1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Amount spent on new buildings1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Amount spent on repairs and maintenance2

  £189,247

  £71,704

  £83,764

  £231,542

  £170,000

  Amount spent on building renovation1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Expenditure on the Department's new headquarters building over the period 1987–88–1989–90 was borne on the Property Services Agency's Vote.

  2 Expenditure on minor new works and maintenance within the Department's delegated responsibility under the Property Repayment Scheme rules.

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the publication "Public Bodies" produced by the Cabinet Office, the latest edition of which will be published by HMSO later this month. The publication includes all

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provision he has made to ensure information concerning the privatisation of the electricity industry has been made available on tape and in Braille to assist blind people.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The production of offer for sale documents on tape or in Braille was ruled out on the grounds of excessive cost. Blind people do, however, have the option to telephone the share information office, which is able to answer a comprehensive range of simple questions.

  Gas Leaks
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he has made towards establishing reliable estimates of gas leakage from the low-pressure distribution system; whether his Department remains dependent on British Gas for such estimates; and what is the current best estimate for such leakage.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) gave on 23 April 1990, at column 96. The Department of the Environment (DoE) has primary responsibility for emissions inventories and currently uses an estimate of 1 per cent. for methane loss in the natural gas distribution system.

  Work is being undertaken by DoE, British Gas and others better to characterise all types of methane emission. This will be incorporated in the national estimates of total methane emissions in due course.

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will publish tables showing(a) the number of new buildings, (b) the amount spent on new buildings, (c) the amount spent on repairs and maintenance and (d) the amount spent on building renovation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information in respect of the Department of Energy for the financial years 1986–87 to 1990–91is:

  appointments to bodies for which my Department is responsible except for the Director General of Gas Supply whose salary is in the range £53,420 to £63,390.

PRIME MINISTER

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has any intention of setting up an inquiry into teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement.
  131
  The Prime Minister
  The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill currently before the House sets up new machinery under which the local authority employers and the teacher unions will be able to negotiate teachers' pay. The Government have undertaken not normally to intervene on cost grounds if the overall cost of recommendations resulting from those negotiations falls within the inter-quartile range of private sector settlements for non-manual employees.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Antarctica
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the Antarctic minerals convention.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We believe that the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities (CRAMRA) contains all necessary environmental safeguards, and that it offers the best way to resolve the minerals issue and protect the Antarctic environment. However, as we have always made clear, we are prepared to discuss all proposals.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the administrative costs of his Department rose by more or less than the retail prices index in the last financial year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Gross running costs expenditure on Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing administration was 9·86 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than in the previous year; and for the aid wing it was 9·56 per cent. higher. During the same period the retail prices index increased by 7·8 per cent.

  Purchasing
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the purchasing policy of his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This Department is bound by the Government's policy that purchasers should base all procurement of goods and services on value for money, including quality (or fitness for purpose) and delivery against price. In accordance with that policy, goods and services are acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Under EC rules, and GATT (Government procurement agreement (GPA)) where appropriate, this Department is obliged to award relevant contracts in accordance with prescribed procedures aimed at avoiding discrimination on grounds of nationality.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what were his Department's(a) best and (b) worst purchases made in the current month as measured against the Government's supply index;

  (2) what were the 10 worst purchases made by his Department in the month of October as measured against the Government's supply index.
  132
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not at present subscribe to the Government supply index run by PI Ltd.

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish tables showing(a) the number of new buildings, (b) the amount spent on new buildings, (c) the amount spent on repairs and maintenance and (d) the amount spent on building renovation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the latest issue of "Public Bodies", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library, which contains all the information he requires.

  Biological Diversity
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the proposed UNEP biological diversification convention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government fully support proposals for the elaboration of a global convention on conserving biological diversity. The United Kingdom has extensive and internationally respected scientific and technical expertise in this area and has taken a leading role in a series of preparatory meetings organised by the United Nations Environmental Programme. Formal negotiations are planned to begin in February 1991, with the aim of reaching agreement in time for the UN conference on environment and development which will be held in Brazil in June 1992.

HEALTH

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is currently being carried out within the national health service into improved methods of withdrawing from benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Professor Malcolm Lader and his team at the Institute of Psychiatry in London provide a service to NHS patients who wish to withdraw from benzodiazepines. The service offers both psychological and pharmacological methods of treatment and aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a range of approaches to this form of drug dependency.

  Research into various aspects of dependency on benzodiazepines has been carried out in Yorkshire, West Midlands and South East Thames regions.

  Military Medical Requirements
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the financial cost to the national health service of the cutback in military medical facilities since 1975.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Apart from the services provided to the dependants of military personnel, the treatment which military hospitals provide to civilians is undertaken to ensure adequate training and professional opportunities for the staff of such hospitals. It is not taken into account when determining the funding requirements of the national health service, or when allocating funds to regional health authorities.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of measures presently being undertaken in the national health service as a result of a possible military conflict in the Gulf.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The national health service has at all times the function of ensuring that it is in a position to respond effectively to a major emergency. Contingency plans are reviewed regularly in the light of prevailing circumstances. The cost of maintaining this function is not held centrally.

  North Nottinghamshire Health Authority
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the consultation period for proposals for the creation of a new North Nottinghamshire health authority began; when it ended; and on what date the consultation document was supplied to the hon. Members for the constituencies concerned.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering Trent regional health authority's proposal to proceed to formal public consultation. No document has yet been issued.

  Benzene
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government's health advisers have now examined the evidence on exposure of the public to benzene in the atmosphere and its possible implications for public health; what conclusions have been reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  At a preliminary discussion recently the Department of Health's independent committee on carcinogenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment (COC) concluded that benzene is a human carcinogen for which it is prudent to assume no safe level of exposure. This accords with the view of the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is based on evidence from heavily exposed occupational groups. Exposure of the general population from benzene in the environment, food and drink is at an extremely low level. The committee is now considering information on exposure levels including occupational exposures in order better to assess the risk to public health. Meanwhile the Department advises that exposure should be reduced as low as reasonably achievable.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will meet voluntary organisations to discuss the implementation of sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986;

  (2) when he last met voluntary organisations to discuss implementation of sections 1 to 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986;

  (3) when he next expects to meet voluntary organisations to discuss implementation of section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986;

  (4) when he last met local authority associations on sections 1 to 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement on the meeting.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I met representatives of the consortium of voluntary organisations, "Act Now", on 5 June, with the right hon. Member and other members of the all-party disablement group. I have no current plans for further meetings. Decisions as to further action on sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act cannot be taken until our consultations with the local authority associations are complete. Officials last met the associations on 30 October.

  Waiting Lists, Herefordshire
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the latest available figures for(a) urgent and (b) non-urgent hospital waiting lists for each district in Herefordshire.

  Mr. Dorrell
  At March 1990 there were 3,579 people on hospital in-patient waiting lists in Herefordshire district health authority compared with 3,648 at March 1989, a reduction of 2 per cent. Waiting list data have not been collected by urgency of condition since 1987.

  NHS Reform (Leaflet)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate the cost of the preparation and distribution of the leaflet "The National Health Service Reforms and You".

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 5 July at column 675.

  Custard Tarts
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of food poisoning have been notified to his Department as a result of the consumption of custard tarts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None specifically related to custard tarts. The public do not, however, always report foodborne illnesses to their doctor.

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will publish tables showing(a) the number of new buildings, (b) the amount spent on new buildings, (c)

  135
  the amount spent on repairs and maintenance and (d) the amount spent on building renovation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of Health occupies buildings on the common user estate provided and administered by the Department of the Environment. Identifiable totals of the Department of Health's expenditure are available only from 1 April 1989 following this Department's separation from the Department of Social Security. In the financial year 1989–90 the Department of Health spent £2·292 million on new works not exceeding £150,000 each.

  Details of the combined Department of Health and Department of Social Security major building projects are published each year with the supply estimates and details are in the Library.

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Transplant Service
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has decided on the arrangements which are to be made to set up the United Kingdom transplant service as a special health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The report prepared by Dr. N. J. B. Evans has been considered and Ministers have decided, in general, to accept its recommendations. Regulations will be laid shortly to set up the authority. Dr. Evans will be appointed as its chairman. A copy of his report has been placed in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  State Opening of Parliament
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will itemise, by Department, the cost of the current year's state opening of Parliament.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The estimated cost to the Parliamentary Works Office is £45,500.

  Workplace Nursery
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made on the feasibility study regarding a workplace nursery in the House; and if he has yet consulted the staff unions regarding carrying out the study and establishment of the nursery.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is understood that the feasibility study by the Administration Department on the provision of child care facilities has been completed and is to be considered by the Services Committee at its next meeting. Copies of the study have already been made available to the trade union side of the House of Commons Whitley 136
  Committee, and there will be a further consultation with it and with other relevant staff organisations once the Services Committee has responded.

  House of Commons (Reform)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to reform the workings of the House of Commons.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 3 December 1990]: I am always ready and willing to consider ideas for improvement. I shall, of course, be replying to the Procedure Committee on Select Committees.

THE ARTS

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish tables showing(a) the number of new buildings, (b) the amount spent on new buildings, (c) the amount spent on repairs and maintenance and (d) the amount spent on building renovation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Renton
  Responsibility for the repairs and maintenance of the two properties occupied by my Department rests with the Property Services Agency (PSA). The payments made to it in respect of these works are given the table:

  £

  1986–87

  26,747

  1987–88

  24,525

  1988–89

  36,333

  1989–90

  41,376

  1990–91

  52,983

  Prior to 1 April 1988, responsibility for the building and maintenance programmes of the national museums and galleries that my Department sponsors and of the British library also rested with the PSA. Expenditure incurred by the PSA, but which was included in the central Government arts programme, was £34·5 million in 1986–87 and £34·0 million in 1987–88 in respect of the national museums and galleries, and £11·2 million and £21·8 million, respectively, for the British library.

  From 1 April 1988, such costs have become the responsibility of the individual institutions, with that of the new British library building project at St. Pancras the responsibility of my Department.

  The grant in aid provisions for the national museums and galleries building and maintenance programmes are:

  Grant in aid

  Building programme provision

  (Amounts shown in £ millions)

  Institutions

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  British museum

  6·497

  7·650

  9·000

  Imperial War museum

  6·363

  4·097

  3·100

  National gallery

  3·255

  4·390

  5·100

  National Maritime museum

  1·853

  3·450

  4·600

  National museums and galleries on Merseyside

  2·690

  3·060

  3·800

  National Portrait gallery

  2·926

  1·530

  1·800

  Natural History museum

  6·172

  6·260

  8·100

  Science museum

  4·617

  5·310

  5·920

  Tate gallery

  3·236

  3·800

  4·800

  137

  Institutions

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Victoria and Albert museum

  7·024

  7·660

  9·900

  Wallace collection

  0·271

  0·482

  0·627

  Totals

  44·904

  47·689

  56·747

  Expenditure on the British library building project at St. Pancras is:

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  23·3

  41·4

  49·2

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of repairs and maintenance needs in(a) theatres, (b) museums and (c) libraries.

  Mr. Renton
  I am setting in hand a new initiative to review and assess rigorously the building renovation needs of the national museums and galleries which I sponsor. This review, which will be undertaken by professional multidiscipline building consultants, will entail a detailed study of a variety of building conditions and other technical surveys. These will be compared against requirements already identified in museums buildings and the need for further technical studies identified if required. The review should be completed by summer 1991. The results will inform my decisions in carrying forward the Government's policy of bringing about the renovation of these important and historic buildings by the end of the decade; I am at present providing £189 million over the next three years towards these building and maintenance needs.

  I understand that the Theatres Trust is carrying out a small study to establish whether a systematic examination of the national state of theatres could be undertaken at reasonable cost. It is for other relevant funding bodies, including local authorities, to determine the needs for the buildings within their areas of responsibility.

  Funding Requirements
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what he estimates is needed by(a) the Arts Council, (b) the Museums and Galleries Commission, (c) the Crafts Council, (d) the British Film Institute and (e) the British library if their 1991–92 budgets are (i) to stand still in relation to inflation, (ii) return in real terms, to levels of (1) 1986–87 and (2) 1979–80 in cash terms and in percentage terms.

  Mr. Renton
  The future expenditure programme of the Office of Arts and Libraries and the particular provisions for the institutions it supports are defined in cash terms.

  In comparison with 1986–87 and 1979–80, the 1991–92 expenditure programme will be higher in real terms by £86 million (18 per cent.) and £199 million (55 per cent.) respectively. No additional funding is needed, therefore.

  Additional details for each of the institutions listed could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.
  138
  Mr. Renton
  In general, those appointed by my Department to the institutions and committees it sponsors and supports do not receive fees or remuneration. They are normally reimbursed for travel and other expenditures which they incur as part of their duties, but detailed information on such reimbursements could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  There is an exception; part-time members of the British library board are remunerated for their services. The annual cost to the British library is currently £70,000.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  GCSE Examinations
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of students entered for GCSE examinations in the years 1988 to 1990 were from maintained further education institutions.

  Mr. Eggar
  In summer 1988, candidates from further education institutions accounted for about 4·4 per cent. of GCSE entries. In 1989, the corresponding figure was about 4·5 per cent. The figures for 1990 are not yet available.

  Purchasing
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science is he will make a statement about the purchasing policy of his Department.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department is bound by the Government's policy that purchasers should base all procurement of goods and services on value for money, including quality (or fitness for purpose) and delivery against price. In accordance with that policy, goods and services are purchased by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Under EC rules, and the GATT Government procurement agreement (GPA) where appropriate, the Department is obliged to award relevant contracts in accordance with prescribed procedures aimed at avoiding discriminiation on grounds of nationality.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what were his Department's(a) best and (b) worst purchases made in the current month as measured against the Government's supply index;

  (2) what were the 10 worst purchases made by his Department in the month of October as measured against the Government's supply index.

  Mr. Fallon
  This Department does not subscribe to the Government supply index because the items currently covered by the index do not form a significant part of our expenditure and it has not therefore been economically viable to join the system. It follows that we are not privy to the information which would enable comparisons to be made.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the administrative costs of his Department rose by more or less than the retail prices index in the last financial year.
  139
  Mr. Eggar
  Gross running costs expenditure on DES administration was 8·7 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than in the previous year. During the same period the retail prices index increased by 7·8 per cent.

  Research Councils
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what advice he has received in the current year from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the level of science expenditure from public funds; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish the advice given to him by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils for the current year's public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) on 19 November 1990 at column 30.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the chairmen of the Agricultural and Food Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council to discuss the levels of their budgets; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I from time to time meet the chairmen and secretaries of each of the research councils. However neither of us has recently had any such meetings to discuss the levels of their budgets.

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91 forecast

  Number of new buildings

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Expenditure on new buildings (£000)

  0

  0

  0

  1,184

  5,100

  Expenditure on repairs and maintenance (including building renovations) (£000)

  116

  116

  980

  411

  296

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  The estimated cost for 1990–91 of fees to people appointed by the Secretary of State to non-departmental public bodies is £775,000. In addition there are a number of appointments to other bodies which do not normally attract payment. Information about reimbursement is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Architecture Courses
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information his Department supplies to students, outlining alternative funding arrangements for those studying five-year architecture courses giving
  140
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received the annual report of the Economic and Social Research Council for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The annual report of the Economic and Social Research Council has been submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend under the requirements of the Science and Technology Act 1965, and a copy is being laid before the House today.

  I was most interested to read about the council's achievements in the first full year after its move to Swindon. I noted in particular the council's introduction of a new method of allocating course work awards; its creation of a new training strategy; and its continuing commitment to the development of new centres of excellence.

  I congratulate the council on these and its many other achievements, and look forward to reading about further progress in next year's report.

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish tables showing(a) the number of new buildings, (b) the amount spent on new buildings, (c) the amount spent on repairs and maintenance and (d) the amount spent on building renovation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department's own expenditure in respect of buildings is limited to those which are occupied by departmental staff. The information is given in the table.

  exemption from parts 1 and 2 of the RIBA examination in architecture, following the de-designation of such courses by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A circular letter sent by the Department in August to local education authorities and higher education institutions asked them to inform their affected students of the following arrangements for support in 1990–91:

  (a) courses leading to a first degree or comparable qualification giving exemption from part 1 of the RIBA examination continue to be designated for mandatory student awards from LEAs;

  (b) separate courses leading to further qualifications giving exemption from part 2 cannot for legal reasons remain designated but eligible students will instead receive equivalent bursaries under a temporary scheme.

  Funds and detailed guidance have been provided for the institutions administering the scheme, and most eligible students should have received their bursaries. The Department publicised the arrangements again in September, and has continued to explain them in response to any individual inquiries from students or others. A further circular letter was issued last month on the handling of any outstanding cases.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the cost of the common agricultural policy to the United Kingdom expressed in terms of the average cost in food bills and tax for a family of four.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government have long recognised that the CAP system of agricultural support, in common with the support policies of other industrial countries, gives rise to substantial costs to taxpayers and consumers compared with a situation in which foodstuffs were imported at world market prices with no support to domestic producers. Estimates of these costs, and the savings that could be secured if current policies were ended, are possible only by making many assumptions. Important judgments are necessary about the current levels of world prices—no simple matter given the wide variations in quotations and substantial fluctuations from year to year—and the changes in these prices if present policies were abandoned. The latter depends on how producers and consumers throughout the world might respond to the new circumstances and on the impact on such factors as exchange rates.

  Estimates made by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, using a particular set of assumptions, imply that the transfers from consumers and taxpayers in 1989 resulting from agricultural policies in the European Community as a whole—separate figures for the United Kingdom are not available—were equivalent to £14 per week per family of four. (This is derived from the OECD estimate of the aggregate cost of 88·5 billion ecu for 1989, assuming the EC12 population is 324·8 million and that 1 ecu = £0·6733.) This is one estimate of the extent to which the CAP raises the cost of food and agricultural products, and incurs budgetary costs, compared to existing "world" prices. Those who quote this figure ignore the authors' note that the estimate is a static one: it takes no account of the effect that removal of farm support would have on world prices, and other variables, and thus gives no indication of the extent to which taxpayers and consumers might be better off if current policies were removed. A family of four would benefit by considerably less than £14 per week if all agricultural support were removed.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of reduced production due to set-aside in each year since its inception in tonnes of cereals and meat and also in value at real and 1990 prices.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC Commission has estimated that in the first year of the scheme 362,000 hectares were set aside in the Community representing a saving in production of between 1 million and 2 million tonnes of cereals. Recent information from the Commission suggests that a further 328,000 hectares have been set aside in the second year giving a total of 690,000 hectares which would represent a saving in production of between 1·9 million and 3·8 million tonnes of cereals. The Commission has not made available any estimates of value nor of impact on meat production.

  Tributyltin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what tests he has conducted for levels of tributyltin in fish and shellfish; if he will publish the results; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that fish stocks are prevented from contamination by the anti-fouling agent tributyltin; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what analysis he has carried out to assess the levels of tributyltin in United Kingdom coastal waters; and if he will publish the results.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department began a programme to measure tributyltin (TBT) levels in water, fish and shellfish in 1982. Measures to control the use of TBT were introduced in 1986 and 1987. These include a ban on the use of TBT anti-fouling paints on boats less than 25 m in length. Since that time this Department, jointly with the Department of the Environment, has commissioned a more intensive research and monitoring programme to assess the efficacy of these control measures. Reports on this work have been published at regular intervals in the scientific press and brief details were included in the directorate of fisheries research aquatic environment monitoring report No. 22, copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House. Further more comprehensive and updated reports are currently in the process of being published. The results of this work show that TBT levels are declining and affected populations are recovering. Levels in the worst affected areas have declined by between six and ten-fold since 1986, as a direct result of the controls applied.

  Work is now focused on establishing the most effective means of controlling inputs to harbours and other areas affected by the use of TBT anti-fouling paints on deep water ships.

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish tables showing(a) the number of new buildings, (b) the amount spent on new buildings, (c) the amount spent on repairs and maintenance and (d) the amount spent on building renovation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry took on responsibility for vote accounting and project sponsorship for major new buildings projects and major improvements to the existing buildings two years ago. Prior to this time the Department of the Environment's Property Services Agency held this responsibility and I have no details of actual expenditure incurred on projects for earlier years. Since 1988 details of proposals for individual projects with a total forecast cost exceeding £2 million have been published in the major projects table annex of this Department's published estimates with lesser projects treated in aggregate. The total expenditure details for the 1988–89 and 1989–90 financial years are:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Number of new buildings projects on which expenditure was incurred

  11

  12

  Expenditure on new buildings projects (£ million)

  8·62

  8·40

  143

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Expenditure on improvements to existing buildings (£ million)

  7·35

  1·40

  The management of the maintenance of the Ministry's departmental estate was passed on from the DoE Property Services Agency on 1 April 1990. Previously the costs of repairs and maintenance were met by the Property Services Agency from sums recovered from Departments in the accommodation charge. I am therefore unable to publish figures.

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  This Department is responsible for appointments to a number of such bodies many of which attract the payment of fees and/or the reimbursement of expenses.

  Because there are wide variations in the circumstances and in the manner in which these bodies are constituted, payments are made from a number of different accounts. Information on the totals is not collected centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Indications of the level of remuneration paid to appointees to public bodies are, however, available in "Public Appointments: A Guide for Women's Organisations" (Women's National Commission, June 1990) and "Public Bodies" published annually by the Cabinet Office. Copies of both publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Canthaxanthin
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies have been carried out into the possible carcinogenic properties of the pigment canthaxanthin.

  Mr. Maclean
  The results of carcinogenicity studies carried out on canthaxanthin are summarised in the

  Office

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  Total

  North West Region

  1,495

  2,193

  1,744

  1,503

  1,788

  1,530

  1,484

  1,461

  1,527

  1,770

  16,495

  Belle Vale

  17

  22

  20

  15

  31

  19

  25

  10

  12

  16

  187

  Bootle

  25

  37

  30

  30

  51

  29

  30

  21

  21

  18

  292

  Breckfield

  54

  38

  23

  16

  7

  18

  19

  20

  38

  27

  260

  City

  5

  15

  9

  13

  13

  17

  9

  8

  5

  5

  99

  Crosby

  13

  35

  30

  20

  38

  17

  17

  19

  25

  18

  232

  Edgehill

  23

  33

  13

  17

  30

  16

  19

  17

  11

  16

  195

  Garston

  17

  6

  16

  11

  25

  11

  15

  18

  15

  9

  143

  Huyton

  21

  42

  30

  16

  43

  22

  26

  25

  30

  21

  276

  Kirkby

  31

  63

  24

  21

  38

  23

  22

  20

  20

  19

  281

  St. Helens

  83

  84

  118

  79

  99

  86

  86

  109

  68

  96

  908

  Toxteth

  9

  21

  6

  12

  13

  21

  18

  9

  14

  7

  130

  West Derby

  16

  14

  14

  12

  16

  17

  4

  4

  4

  20

  121

  Southport

  8

  11

  11

  8

  20

  5

  11

  4

  14

  21

  113

  144
  monograph drawn up by the FAO-WHO joint expert committee on food additives. The monograph was recently published and a copy is being placed in the Library of the House.

  The United Kingdom expert committees do not consider canthaxanthin to be a carcinogen but are concerned that canthaxanthin can form deposits in the human retina.

  I summarised the Government's action on canthaxanthin in my reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 4 November 1990 at column 64.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his written answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North- East of 21 November, if he will give for each of the benefits and superseded benefits that he listed(a) their monetary value or range of monetary values on 1 January of each year since 1961, (b) the current monetary values or range of monetary values and (c) those values in real terms related to the retail prices index, using 1 January 1961 or the nearest available date as the base of 100·0 in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Injuries (Benefit)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Merseyside region of his Department have made claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit during the current year to date; how many have had their claims accepted; and what has been the total amount paid out in benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  In the period from 1 January to 31 October 1990, a total of 16,495 new claims have been received in all local offices covered by the Department's north western region. The table gives the number of claims received in each of the offices identified by the Department as being in Merseyside. Information about the number of successful claims and total amount of benefit paid is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Care
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will respond to the Social Services, Committee's ninth report, "Community Care: Social Security for Disabled People"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We are in the process of examining and considering the contents of the report and we will be publishing our response in due course.

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish tables showing(a) the number of new buildings. (b) the amount spent on new buildings, (c) the amount spent on repairs and maintenance and (d) the amount spent on building renovation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  Responsibility for new buildings, renovation and repairs is shared by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Social Security, and the division of this responsibility has changed over the period in question. It would not be possible to provide the information in the form requested except at disproportionate cost. However, new buildings for sole occupation by the Department have been completed as follows since April 1988, when the Department acquired responsibility for major works expenditure:

  Year

  Number of new builds

  Total cost (£ million)

  1988–89

  2

  2·689

  1989–90

  4

  23·573

  1990–91

  3

  15·770

  The total cost includes expenditure incurred by the Department of the Environment prior to April 1988.

  The total expenditure on new works and maintenance within the Department's delegated responsibility is given in the table. For the period prior to April 1989 the information covers the combined Department of Health and Social Security, and certain capital projects in which both the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health have an interest continue to be funded by the Department of Social Security.

  Year

  New works1

  Maintenance

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  21986–87

  0·123

  4·824

  31987–88

  10·314

  7·132

  1988–89

  442·561

  7·002

  1989–90

  89·001

  7·735

  51990–91

  91·181

  618·284

  1 New works expenditure encompasses all capital projects including new builds, renovations and adaptations as a result of changed operational requirements.

  2 For 1986–87, the Department was responsible only for certain new works and maintenance projects up to the value of £1,000.

  3 From 1987–88, the Department became responsible for certain new works up to a value of £150,000 and for maintenance projects up to a value of £5,000.

  4 From 1988–89, expenditure included all new works projects irrespective of value.

  5 The figures for this year are forecasts.

  6 From 1990–91, the Department became responsible for all maintenance projects on a proportion of the estate.

  146
  The hon. Member will be aware of the new works project at the Stoke North local social security office completed this year. The project involved adaptation and improvement of the reception and waiting areas at a cost of £360,000. This amount is included in the table.

SCOTLAND

  Firearms
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any representations concerning the implications for recreational shooters in Scotland of the implementation of article (5A) of European Community draft directive Com. 89 446 final, on the possession of firearms.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Seven representations have been received in connection with this draft directive.

  Military Casualties
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what hospitals have been designed for the treatment of military casualties in the event of conflict in the Gulf.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Crossroads (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding will be made available for the Scottish charity Crossroads (Scotland) care attendant schemes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Local authorities and health boards are the main sources of funding to local Crossroads schemes. According to Crossroads' own statistics £669,000 was made available from these authorities in the financial year 1989–90. My Department is paying a grant of £23,865 in the current year. This meets approximately 30 per cent. of the costs of the headquarters organisation of Crossroads (Scotland) which provides direction and support to local Crossroads projects.

  Action on Phobias Association
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding will be made available for the Scottish charity Action on Phobias Association, to pay for a development officer.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The organisation's request for grant, one of many worthwhile applications competing for finite resources, is being considered at present. It is too early to offer any assessment of its likely chance of success but I hope that a decision will be reached early next year.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he has taken in respect of research into alcohol misuse and the social effects of alcohol misuse in Scotland; and how much money he has made available for this purpose in the current financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems have been identified as a priority area for research supported by the Scottish Office for many years.
  147
  Estimated expenditure on external alcohol-related research in the 1990–91 financial year is £15,000. Additional funds are available and applications for soundly based research projects will be sympathetically considered. In addition, an evaluation of experimental byelaws to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in designated public places is being conducted internally by the Scottish Office.

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  The annual remuneration paid to those appointed to non-departmental public bodies within my responsibilities as at 1 July 1989 is set out in pages 60 to 68 and 85 of the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1989", a copy of which is available in the Library. The 1990 edition is due to be published later this month. Information on the annual cost of reimbursement of expenses is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mature Students
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has received about the number of mature students who have been obliged to withdraw from courses in colleges of further education in the current academic year due to financial difficulties.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 November 1990]: Apart from the cases raised in correspondence by the hon. Member himself, we have no evidence that there have been significant withdrawals by mature students in general.

  In the current academic session only 10 mature students have withdrawn from those courses at Scottish colleges of further education which are supported under the students' allowances scheme. There is nothing to suggest that any of these students withdrew due to financial difficulties. Indeed, with the introduction of student loans, we have increased student support by 25 per cent. this session. We have also allocated some £1·06 million in access funds to Scottish further education colleges to distribute to students experiencing financial hardship.

  Teachers
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure regional councils have consultative machinery with teachers which reflects the constitution of the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 December 1990]: Consultative machinery at local level is a matter for regional and islands councils in consultation with the bodies representing teachers. It clearly makes sense to take into account the composition of national negotiating machinery for teachers when determining the local arrangements.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the level at which domestic rates in Wales would have to be fixed in 1990–91 in order to raise the same amount as under the community charge.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The estimated average rate bill per ratepayer for Wales in 1990–91 is £430 or 3 per cent. over 1989–90. For a detailed breakdown for each local authority I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 11 May 1990.

  Community Care
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of funding for community care services in Wales in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not available in precisely the form requested, but I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on Thursday 5 July 1990. Expenditure on community health services in 1989–90 was £108·5 million.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of community psychiatric nurses in Wales at the present time; and how many there were in 1979.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information is available only on the total staff in post for all nursing and midwifery staff. Between September 1979 and 1989 the whole-time equivalents of these had risen by 22 per cent. to 28,037 (this does not take into account the reduction in nurses' hours in 1980).

  The Department is working closely with district health authorities to enable accurate breakdowns of these staff into areas of work to be made in future.

  Rents to Mortgages
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current position regarding the rents-to-mortgages scheme in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  In the first 12 months of the scheme 17 per cent. of eligible tenants have expressed an interest. More than 60 (nearly 8 per cent.) have applied to become flexi-owners. Fourteen sales (nearly 2 per cent.) have been completed.

  Unadopted Streets
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his latest estimate of the number of unadopted streets in Wales and the cost of making up such streets;

  (2) how many unadopted streets were adopted by each of the Welsh local authorities in each of the last 10 years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is not held centrally.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales on the latest available figures went into full-time jobs after completing a course of employment training.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The latest results from the follow-up survey of employment training leavers show that 35 per cent. of respondents were in full-time employment three months after leaving the scheme. A further 10 per cent. were in part-time employment, voluntary work or further education.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales on the latest available figures are still unemployed having completed a course of employment training.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The latest results from the follow-up survey of employment training leavers show that 50 per cent. of respondents were unemployed three months after leaving the scheme.

  Coal Exports
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of coal exports from Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest available figures show that, in the six months to the end of June 1990, 178,048 tonnes of coal were exported from Welsh ports.

  Registered Second Homes
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of registered second homes by district area as at(a) 1 April 1980, (b) 1 April 1985 and (c) 1 April 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not available in the form requested. Some information on the proportion of second or holiday homes identified in each district during the 1986 Welsh inter-censal survey is published in table A1.2 of the report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Roads, Dyfed
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the rate of progress of regrading Dyfed roads.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Cardigan bypass is to be completed this month, ahead of schedule. Plans for other improvements to trunk roads are set out in "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s". A supplement updating this information is to be published in the new year. Improvements to local roads are a matter for Dyfed county council.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to build the eastern approach road in Aberystwyth during the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A feasibility study on the A44/A487 Aberystwyth approach roads, commissioned by the Department, has recently been completed. It is too soon to say what proposals might emerge from it.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the present level of coal imports into Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest available figures show that, to the end of June 1990, 1,829,552 tonnes of coal were imported into Welsh ports.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to extend the boundaries of the Development Board for Rural Wales to include parts of north Pembrokeshire, including Fishguard and Goodwick; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No.

  Pembrokeshire Health Authority
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the further information referred to in his reply on Tuesday 27 November regarding Pembrokeshire health authority's national health service trust bid.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on Tuesday 4 December 1990.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sum of money he calculates would be adequate to provide a high-standard service in each county in Wales to tackle the problem of alcohol abuse; and on what he has based his calculation.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is for local and health authorities to determine and respond to local needs for alcohol misuse services as part of their normal development of services. Central Government support is being made available to encourage local initiatives, but should not be regarded as a substitute for local funding. A total of £150,000 has been earmarked this year to combat alcohol misuse in Wales.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the criteria on which organisations in Wales are being selected to receive part of the £150,000 funding for projects to help combat alcohol misuse announced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at his Department on Drinkwise Day in June.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Guidance for organisations wishing to bid for a share of these resources is being issued this week and I shall be placing a copy in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he has taken in respect of research into alcohol misuse and the social effects of alcohol misuse in Wales; and how much money he has made available for this purpose in the current financial year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given earlier today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of formal training days being given, since their inception, to the new district health authority members in Wales, by district health authority and in total.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Department does not keep records of training that may be provided at the local level by district health authorities (DHAs).

  At the all-Wales level, a one-and-a-half day briefing event was held for all new DHA members in October this year, to provide general briefing on the organisation and finance of the NHS in Wales. A one-and-a-half day induction course was also provided in November.

  A further five-day programme covering such issues as strategic planning, care in the community, purchaser-provider roles, finance, contracts, resource management and medical audit is planned for the period January to May 1991.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the administrative cost of introducing the reforms affecting the national health service in Wales as itemised in the National Health Service and Community Care Act.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The estimated recurrent administrative cost of introducing the NHS reforms in Wales. as itemised in the financial and explanatory memorandum to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is £8·650 million per annum.

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish tables showing(a) the number of new buildings, (b) the amount spent on new buildings, (c) the amount spent on repairs and maintenance and (d) the amount spent on building renovation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has not financed any new buildings for its own use during the last five years. Expenditure incurred by my Department during that period on repairs, maintenance and improvements (renovation work is not separately identifiable) was as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure £

  1985–86

  217,017

  1986–87

  225,195

  1987–88

  219,014

  1988–89

  299,405

  1989–90

  686,144

  Expenditure incurred by the Property Services Agency on my Department's behalf is not included in these figures.

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.
  152
  Mr. David Hunt
  Salaries of members of non-departmental public bodies are set out in "Public Bodies 1989", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Private Streets
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what detailed amendments to the law on the adoption of private streets he is considering; and when he intends to bring forward legislation;

  (2) whether he intends to review and simplify the working of the private street works code to reflect experience of the Highways Act 1980 and subsequent Scottish law.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  After a review in 1983 of private street works law for England and Wales, it was decided to maintain both the principle of frontager liability and the arrangements for the adoption of private streets. Some minor amendments may be necessary in the future. Private street works law in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

EMPLOYMENT

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the reason for the delay in announcing ESF funding allocation.

  Mr. Forth
  There have been a number of difficulties with the implementation of the new requirements under the reformed ESF this year. A major cause of the delays was the late approval by the Commission of the operational programmes for 1990 onwards in August this year. It was only then that work on the individual applications for ESF support could start. Some 2,500 applications have been submitted, of which over 1,500 were received by my Department at the end of September. The vast majority had to be returned for revision because of errors. My Department is doing everything possible to expedite the process and to authorise payments to applicants.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of time schemes have been operating without funding whilst awaiting the outcome of the ESF bids.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available.

  It is only once an application for ESF assistance has been approved, and a claim for a first advance payment made, that my Department is notified of the scheme's actual start date. Moreover, the European social fund provides only up to 50 per cent. of the funding of schemes.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to announce details of ESF funding arrangements.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department indicated in May this year the amounts of money likely to be available to the main groups of organisations involved in the European social fund in 1990. The European Commission gave its approval for our operational programmes only in August this year. Since then some 2,500 applications have been submitted,
  153
  of which 1,500 were received by my Department at the end of September. The vast majority had to be returned for revision because of errors. My Department is doing everything possible to expedite the process. Some payments have already been made and it is hoped to complete the process by the end of January.

  Job Losses, Durham
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he will take to prevent further job losses following the recent loss of jobs at the Philips factory in Durham.

  Mr. Jackson
  Staffing levels are a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies concerned.

  My Department, through its Employment Service and training, enterprise and education directorate, and through the training and enterprise councils, operates a wide range of employment, enterprise and training measures to help unemployed people find new jobs, retrain or set up businesses of their own.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Employment whether the administrative costs of his Department rose by more or less than the retail prices index in the last financial year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The gross administrative costs of my Department rose by 5·2 per cent. in the last financial year—considerably less than the retail prices index, which rose by 9·4 per cent. over the same period.

  Purchasing
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were his Department's(a) best and (b) worst purchases made in the current month as measured against the Government's supply index.

  Mr. Forth
  The best and worst purchases have been identified by comparing actual cost per unit with the Government's supply index average cost and are based on prices paid by those parts of the Department of Employment group subscribing to the Government's supply index.

  Actual price per unit £

  Best price

  386 PC personal computers

  985

  Worst price

  Computer listing paper (per 1,000 sheets)

  8·95

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the 10 worst purchases made by his Department in the month of October as measured against the Government's supply index.

  Mr. Forth
  The worst purchases have been identified by comparing actual cost per unit with the Government's supply index average cost and are based on prices paid by those parts of the Department of Employment group subscribing to the Government's supply index.
  154

  Ten worst—October

  Description

  Actual price per unit £

  1. Exercise books

  0·13

  2. 3·5" floppy disks

  1·87

  3. Box files

  2·93

  4. Box files

  2·71

  5. Computer listing paper (1,000 sheets)

  8·95

  6. Battery

  0·33

  7. 5·25" floppy disk

  0·77

  8. 5·25" floppy disk

  0·75

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the purchasing policy of his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department is bound by the Government policy that purchasers should base all procurement of goods and services on value for money, including quality (or fitness for purpose) and delivery against price.

  In accordance with that policy goods and services are acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Under EC rules, and the GATT GPA where appropriate, my Department is obliged to award relevant contracts in accordance with prescribed procedures aimed at avoiding discrimination on grounds of nationality.

  Education Business Partnerships
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans the Government have for supporting local education business partnerships.

  Mr. Howard
  I am pleased to announce, on behalf of myself and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, that my Department has today issued a prospectus inviting training and enterprise councils to apply for funds to launch and extend local education business partnerships in collaboration with local education authorities and others.

  Partnerships will be able to use the funds provided through TECs to support work experience for students and teachers, business visits to schools, science and technology projects and a wide range of innovatory activities bringing benefits to both education and business.

  I am looking to TECs, local education authorities and other community organisations to build partnerships which help to raise the aspirations and achievements of students in education and training, of all ages or abilities and which contribute to our future prosperity.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland will make separate announcements about their arrangements for partnerships.

  HSE Annual Report
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much the Health and Safety Executive's annual report costs(a) to produce and (b) to print; how much it is sold for; how many copies are sold; and how much profit is made on it.

  Mr. Forth
  The costs of producing the Health and Safety Commission's annual report vary from year to year. The most recent report (for 1988–89, published in
  155
  February 1990) cost approximately £34,000 to produce, of which the print costs were £14,834. The report is priced at £10; and 1,466 copies had been sold by end-October 1990. No profit has been made to date on sales of the report.

  Youth Training (Accidents)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fatal, major and minor reportable accidents have occurred on YTS for each quarter since 1 October 1989; and what these figures were by region and as a percentage of total YTS trainees in each year.

  Region

  6 October 1989—December 1989

  January 1990—March 1990

  April 1990—June 1990

  July 1990—September 1990

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Scotland

  1

  25

  72

  —

  19

  69

  —

  28

  87

  —

  13

  59

  Northern

  —

  14

  95

  —

  7

  93

  —

  12

  89

  —

  9

  62

  North West

  —

  23

  146

  —

  19

  93

  —

  16

  83

  —

  17

  83

  Yorkshire and Humber

  —

  20

  104

  —

  14

  74

  —

  22

  79

  —

  11

  60

  West Midlands

  —

  19

  80

  —

  13

  56

  —

  26

  66

  —

  9

  49

  East Mids and Eastern

  —

  20

  75

  1

  11

  57

  9

  48

  1

  10

  27

  Wales

  —

  20

  61

  —

  9

  53

  —

  13

  46

  —

  4

  34

  South West

  —

  11

  35

  —

  5

  25

  —

  16

  25

  —

  6

  23

  South East

  —

  13

  40

  —

  12

  23

  —

  15

  38

  —

  5

  28

  London

  —

  5

  13

  —

  1

  7

  —

  5

  17

  —

  3

  12

  Total

  1

  170

  721

  1

  110

  550

  —

  162

  578

  —

  87

  437

  Notes:

  1. Employment Department figures are compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on employed persons. However, the Employment Department's figures will include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments and road traffic accidents which may not have been reportable to the Health and Safety Executive had the individual been employed.

  2. Major accidents are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  Training
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been spent on training in the past year; what were the figures in 1975 and 1978 in real and money terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Records are kept on the basis of the standard financial year for Government expenditure, which runs from 1 April to 31 March.

  The total expenditure on training by the Department of Employment group training, enterprise and education directorate (and its predecessors the Training Agency, Training Commission and the Manpower Services Commission) in 1975–76, 1978–79 and 1989–90 at cash and constant (1990–91) prices is as follows:

  £ million

  Cash prices

  Constant (1990–91) prices

  1975–76

  171·7

  620·2

  1978–79

  377·3

  954·3

  1989–90

  2,658·8

  2,871·5

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  New works expenditure (£ million)

  880

  905

  886

  1,018

  1,155

  Maintenance expenditure (£ million)

  659

  564

  604

  634

  1,011

  Major projects completed

  9

  11

  12

  6

  Not available

  Notes:

  1. All figures relate to works and so encompass more than simply buildings.

  2. Major projects are those with a works cost of more than £6 million.

  3. Expenditure figures exclude PSA costs. 1990–91 figures reflect the transfer of responsibility between PSA and MOD, and so are not directly comparable with previous years.

  4. 1989–90 and 1990–91 expenditure figures are derived from the original supply estimates. Earlier years are outturns.

  5. Data on expenditure on building renovation are not separately available.
  156
  Mr. Jackson
  The table gives the numbers of fatal, major and minor reportable accidents which occurred in YTS for each quarter since October 1989, by region. The figures are provisional.

  Accident rates are expressed as an annual rate per 100,000 trainees. The latest available figure for all accidents is 829 per 100,000 for the year 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990.

  Figures are shown at cash and constant (estimated) 1990–91 prices calculated by use of the GDP deflator index from the Chancellor's autumn statement.

DEFENCE

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish tables showing(a) the number of new buildings, (b) the amount spent on new buildings, (c) the amount spent on repairs and maintenance and (d) the amount spent on building renovation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will detail the dates when the nuclear reactor systems of each submarine of the Valiant-Churchill and Polaris classes, together with the dates for the first two boats commissioned in the Swiftsure class, were last examined; and if any defects were found in the reactor system;

  (2) if he will provide an estimated cost of the repairs and/or modifications required to correct the defects in any Polaris class submarines;

  (3) if he will detail the nature of the nuclear reactor system defect in HMS Warspite, together with any findings or recommendations made at that time by or to his Department;

  (4) when the defect of the pressurised water reactor coolant system in HMS Valiant was discovered;

  (5) if he will detail the nuclear submarines in which the same type of reactor system defect exists as is present in HMS Warspite;

  (6) when the nuclear safety certificate, or similar document, for HMS Conqueror was last issued; and what was the date on which this certificate ceased to be effective.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the last date on which a letter of authorisation was issued for the operation of the nuclear propulsion plant of(a) HMS Renown, (b) HMS Resolution, (c) HMS Repulse and (d) HMS Revenge; and if authorisation has since been rescinded;

  (2) whether his Department is to seek financial compensation from Rolls-Royce for the generic nuclear reactor fault on submarines powered by the Rolls-Royce P1 nuclear reactor.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to comment on matters relating to the design of nuclear-powered submarines or on their material state. I can, however, confirm that our nuclear submarines operate in accordance with rigorous safety standards and with the endorsement of our independent safety advisers.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if work on the refitting of HMS Warspite and HMS Churchill extended beyond the date when the defect in the nuclear reactor system of each boat became known;

  (2) if he will provide the overall cost of refitting (a) HMS Warspite and (b) HMS Churchill and list the cost of that section of the refit programme in both (a) and (b) completed after knowledge of the defect in the nuclear reactors came to light.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not our practice to publish details of nuclear submarine refits. However, in a typical nuclear submarine refit the majority of the spend is incurred in the earlier stages, with relatively little incurred in the final stages. At termination in September 1990, Warspite's refit was substantially complete and Churchill was two thirds finished.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make public the findings of the nuclear warship safety committee that reviewed the safety of operation of the nuclear propulsion systems of the Valiant-Churchill and Polaris class submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. The committee's advice is provided in confidence to the Secretary of State. I can 158
  confirm that the Ministry of Defence has acted fully in accordance with nuclear-powered warship safety committee advice regarding the operation and inspection of our nuclear submarines.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide the estimated and actual radiation dose equivalent uptake resulting from the current inspection programme of the nuclear reactor systems of the Valiant-Churchill and Polaris class submarines.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not the Department's policy to comment on matters relating to the design of our nuclear-powered submarines or on their material state. The hon. Gentleman may be assured, however, that our stringent policy on radiological protection, which was commended by the House of Commons Defence Committee recently, is applied throughout the Department. Rigorous steps are being taken to keep all doses as low as reasonably practicable.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the number of weeks that each of the Valiant-Churchill and Polaris class submarine boats have put to sea under their own nuclear power propulsion during the last three years;

  (2) if he will specify the last date when HMS Valiant put to sea under its own nuclear power propulsion system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our general practice to disclose such details of the operational movements of Royal Navy submarines.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will detail the stages and time scales involved in the decommissioning of nuclear-powered submarines;

  (2) if he will provide an estimate of the number of civilian employees engaged at each stage of the decommissioning of each nuclear-powered submarine;

  (3) if he will provide details of the decommissioning programmes for the HMS submarines Warspite, Churchill and Conqueror, stating when and at which royal dockyard each submarine is to be decommissioned; when, where and to what extent each submarine reactor compartment and its machinery is to be dismantled; when and where the radioactive components are to be stored or disposed of; when the remainder of each submarine is to be entirely dismantled and disposed of; when and where the submarines are to be laid up; and what is the anticipated cost for each submarine and the total costs of the entire decommissioning programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The first stage of the decommissioning programmes for each submarine will be a package of work contracted to Devonport Management Ltd. or Babcock Thorn Ltd. as appropriate in the royal dockyards, to defuel, de-equip and prepare each boat for a period of storage afloat. Detailed specifications for this work are being prepared and it is too early to determine time scale and cost. The manpower input, and hence employment consequences, are primarily a matter for the contractor. The subject of disposal of nuclear submarines is under active consideration but no final decision has yet been made.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department is undertaking discussions with the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive Ltd. with
  159
  regard to securing a means of storage and/or disposal of radioactive materials and components removed from nuclear-powered submarines during decommissioning.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  NIREX is aware, through routine contacts, of the MOD's potential requirements arising from the disposal of nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under whose military command the Polaris class submarine comes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Commander-in-Chief Fleet.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individual Polaris class submarines have failed to undertake a scheduled patrol at any time during each of the last three years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our general practice to disclose such details of Royal Navy submarine deployments. I can confirm, however, that Polaris submarine deterrent patrols have been, and continue to be, carried out in accordance with our policy to keep at least one such boat at sea at all times.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when it was announced to the ship's company of HMS Valiant that the boat was to be withdrawn from active service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No such announcement has been made.

  HMS Trenchant
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the steps his Department has taken to ensure that the log of the submarine HMS 160
  Trenchant for its operations during Thursday 22 November is made available for purposes of inquiries undertaken by statutory bodies.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The relevant sections of the log will be made available to the investigating authorities as necessary.

  Christmas Mail (Gulf)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer of 26 November,Official Report, column 302, if he will state what action he has taken to ensure that all families of British soldiers serving in the Gulf are informed that the final date for posting air mail parcels in time for Christmas at the forces concessionary rate is 1 December.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Detailed information on postal arrangements for forces mail to service personnel in the Gulf, including the latest posting dates for parcels under the forces concessionary rate, has been published through both official and welfare channels.

  Within BAOR, from whence the majority of personnel deployed, the information has been published through forces radio, television and newspapers as well as information sheets at forces post offices and through discussions with wives' clubs.

  Within the United Kingdom, similar information has been provided through unit families officers and welfare services, post office posters, and press releases by both the Royal Mail and the Ministry of Defence. In addition a Royal Mail parcelforce hotline (0800 224466) has been established specifically to deal with inquiries from members of the public on postal arrangements to the Gulf.

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

GATT: Uruguay Round
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prevent the collapse of the GATT Uruguay round.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is this week leading the United Kingdom delegation to the ministerial meeting in Brussels called to conclude the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. Working with our Community partners he will certainly be making every effort to encourage participants to take the difficult decisions needed to ensure success and so strengthen the multilateral trading system.
Lord Jay: My Lords, since the extreme agricultural protectionism of the EC is as damaging to this country as it is to world trade, will the Government now make a maximum effort to ensure that more adequate and convincing concessions are made by the EC before it is too late?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will not expect me to negotiate from the Dispatch Box. However, it is perfectly true that without an agreement on agriculture the round will not succeed. The EC must be prepared to move further if necessary to secure an agreement in the final negotiations.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not an acid test of the economic management of the Community that in the interests of a successful Uruguay round it should be prepared to curb the excessive protectionism in particular of France and Germany?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope that my previous answer in part answered my noble friend. However, it is also worth reminding your Lordships' House that the proposed United States demands for a 75 per cent. reduction do not include deficiency payments, which form a substantial part of its funding for its agriculture.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the wrangling over the GATT talks at present exposes the hypocrisy of claiming that there is any such factor as a free market in world trade? Does he recognise that the subsidies which are being given to farmers in Europe and North America are causing starvation and poverty throughout the third world?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, placing his finger on
176
the pulse of the problem and confirming that which I knew to be true: that the free market is the key to removing the iniquities that exist in our world.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does one risk being dubbed non-communautaire if one states that the failure of the GATT talks would be more damaging to the world than the disintegration of the Delors proposals arising from the Treaty of Rome?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that, if the noble Lord were to put down a Question on his second point, I or another Minister would be more than happy to answer it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the common agricultural policy lies at the root of the problem with regard to Europe? Is he aware that, according to the recent draft budget published by the Community, agricultural expenditure is due to increase by £2.496 billion and that the consequent net burden on the United Kingdom will be an additional £300 million over and above the £2.2 billion already in the Government's expenditure plans? Will he take steps through the Council of Ministers to terminate this ramshackle common agricultural policy?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is important to remember that the common agricultural policy is not only a name but that it involves people. If there were further reduction in expenditure on direct aid to food production, the Commission would be committed to increase expenditure with regard to the social dimension. That is particularly true with matters that are environmental or production neutral.
The negotiations are extremely difficult. They go far beyond agriculture. There are problems over services and intellectual property. It is important to remember that a record number of 107 countries, with 5,000 delegates representing those 107, are involved in a very difficult and complex round of which the CAP is only a part.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, whatever the iniquities of the CAP, it would be unreasonable to expect the British farmer—I stress "British" farmer—to make further sacrifices when operating in an already extremely depressed industry?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I pointed out in my previous answer, in order to provide protection on the point that my noble friend makes, the Commission is committed to increases in expenditure even though there is also a commitment to reduce production.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we on these Benches, who have always been the greatest supporters of the Community, have never supported a fortress Europe approach? In these negotiations there are signs of the emergence of fortress Europe, which we greatly deplore. Will the Minister agree that if we cannot achieve our desired settlement some kind of settlement in the Uruguay round is better than total failure?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that on all sides of your Lordships' House there is a desire that we should not have total failure because the consequences

177
would be extremely grim. The situation in Brussels is fluid and, as I said earlier, I am sure that the noble Baroness would not expect me to enter into negotiations from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Rees: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that agriculture has played a predominant part in the present and the two previous GATT rounds? Will he also confirm that there is at least a suspicion that it is used to distract attention from other areas where protectionism is rife and that other countries are advancing claims against the European Community?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct. It is fair to say that agriculture has provided a smokescreen over the various other sectors to which I referred earlier. They have not been as extensively aired in the press in this country but they are equally important.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, did the Minister say that the free market is the solution to the food situation? If so, I refer him back to the 1926–34 period during which we had a free market in food. If he would care to consult people about what happened, particularly his noble friend Lady Elliot, he would form different ideas about a free market in food.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I was referring to the principle. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, suggested that this example showed that the free market satisfied nothing. I believe that in asking the question he answered it: that the free market was the route to salvation in the overall picture of the GATT negotiations.
Lord Morris: My Lords, to what extent and for how long have the United States Government been protecting and subsidising their farming interests?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is another question which I shall be more than happy to answer if my noble friend tables it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister convey to his right honourable friend who is conducting the negotiations the virtually unanimous desire in this House for success? Furthermore, will he indicate that the Prime Minister is taking an interest? Has the Prime Minister been in touch with Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand in order to obtain some relaxation in the present Community position on agriculture?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I shall convey his message to my right honourable friend. The Prime Minister is constantly in touch with other leaders within the Community but I cannot say whether he has been in touch this afternoon.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in view of the meeting between Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand should not the Prime Minister be in touch in order to press the point?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the Prime Minister is capable of making such a decision on his own.
Lord Jay: My Lords, if all else fails is this not a case, if ever there was one, for the heads of government to get together and not to go away until they have reached a sensible compromise?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is important to remember that the negotiations on behalf of the European Community are being conducted by the Commission. The Ministers are behind the Commission and the issues at stake are being discussed. However, we are negotiating as a European Community.

The Gulf: Concessionary Telephone Calls
2.47 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will arrange with British Telecom to permit service personnel stationed in the Gulf to make at least one free telephone call to their next of kin during the Christmas period.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, in consultation with British Telecom, Mercury and Cable and Wireless, we are giving urgent consideration to the establishment of a welfare telephone link between the Gulf and the UK and Germany. A trial system is currently being tested.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, though it is not clear. I am sure that thousands of people are glad that something is being done and that the Government are bowing to press and public pressure. Can the Minister give a little more detail, because the press releases from Mercury and British Telecom are not clear? They appear to be hedging about prices, telephone cards, available boxes, reversed charges and below standard charges. What is the position, because my Question asks for a free telephone call to relatives?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we hope that an easier and more understandable position will be announced by the Ministry of Defence within the next few days. The system that we aim to establish will operate on a telephone card basis. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that the British Legion is aware of the matter and has generously offered to sponsor one free telephone card to all service personnel in the Gulf. Noble Lords will agree that that is a wonderful gesture and will provide a great boost to morale, particularly with Christmas fast approaching.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the last part of the Minister's answer is well received. However, is he aware that the facility is already available to the majority of the forces of other countries now serving in the area? Why must our people wait? Is red tape holding things up? If so, will the Government cut through it, get on with the job and make the facility available as a matter of urgency?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is an urgent matter and we are giving it serious attention. We are confident that a system will be in operation well before Christmas. The Americans

179
tried a free charge call originally but I understand that that has now been changed and that instead there is improved access to telephones. However, American users must pay the current rate. Our charging arrangements have yet to be determined but they will almost certainly be on a concessionary basis rather similar to that existing at present in Northern Ireland where a 50 per cent. subsidy is given.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, bearing in mind the very heavy burdens which are continually placed on the British Legion, is it really right that we should leave it to the British Legion to provide that essential service at Christmas time to our forces who are on duty on our behalf in Saudi Arabia? Is it right that that should be left to the British Legion with all its present burdens? Should we not bear some part of the cost?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is precisely what I said. We are looking at this matter and the probability is that the scheme will be subsidised on a concessionary basis.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the House whether British Telecom or Cable and Wireless are making any contribution in monetary terms to this project? Is it entirely a matter for the British Legion and possibly a subsidy from the Government? What are British Telecom and Cable and Wireless doing?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the final details as to who pays what are still being ironed out by the Ministry of Defence. When the details are announced, I am sure that that point will be incorporated.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, if it is not too wide of the Question on the Order Paper, will the noble Earl also look into broadcasting services for the forces? Members of the parliamentary delegation who recently visited the Gulf thought that that was important and that some heads needed knocking together in this country.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is a slightly tenuous link between the noble Lord's question and the Question on the Order Paper. However, BFPS already uses spare BBC world service short wave frequencies for three 30-minute programmes per day. There are deficiencies in that system which is why we are at present looking at the possibility of increasing the VHF system, which we hope will be in place soon. However, I do not anticipate that that will be much before March.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, will the Minister agree that all sides of the House are very anxious about the welfare and morale of British forces everywhere, and particularly in the Gulf? Will he not agree that the matter of cheap communication is of some urgency, particularly as there are only 15 shopping days to Christmas?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, but I have tried to make it clear that well before Christmas a system will be in place which British forces will be able to use on a very good concessionary basis.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that most of the international telecommunications in
180
the Gulf countries are owned by Cable and Wireless? Can he not contact his noble friend Lord Young, who no doubt could arrange such a scheme without difficulty?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Young is a splendid man but we are in full command of the situation and can act accordingly and responsibly in a short time.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned March as being the earliest date by which broadcasts can be provided in the Gulf. That will be nine months after the invasion. One and a half hours of broadcasting per day is not very much for forces serving in a featureless area without any amusement. Surely in a matter of days, or a week at the most, transportable VHF equipment could be in place so that radio receivers can pick up transmissions in that area. Can that not take place more rapidly?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is a target date of 16th December for VHF broadcasting to troops in Eastern Saudi Arabia within a 20 mile radius of Al Jubayl. The March date concerns transmissions to a much wider area.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, may well be splendid and the noble Earl and his right honourable friend may well be in command of the situation. However, will the noble Earl take account of the question put by my noble friend Lord Glenamara who is also expert in these matters? Can the Minister not arrange for his right honourable friend to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Young, to see whether better arrangements can be made?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no system is perfect. If the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition wishes it, then I shall ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to speak to my noble friend Lord Young to see whether any improvement can be made to the existing situation.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt but we have now spent nearly 18 minutes discussing two Questions. Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, asks his question and then we move on to the next Question.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House of the estimated total cost of providing that facility for the troops if it is borne wholly by Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the total cost has not yet been calculated but that will be considered when the details are worked out and announced shortly.

Refugee Council: Proposed Reception Centre
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the proposals from the Refugee Council and others for a new reception centre for unaccompanied refugee children.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the proposals from the Refugee Council and others for reception and assessment services for unaccompanied refugee children make a useful contribution to consideration of the issues in this complex area. They are being carefully considered. A formal response will be sent as soon as possible.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in the light of the totally inadequate conditions in which these children are being held—for example, in town halls and unsupported in hotels—does the Minister agree that his Answer lacks a sense of urgency? If the Minister cannot respond to the Refugee Council's proposals, can he tell the House what government initiatives can be put into effect to help those children? Does he also know the official number of unaccompanied refugee children in the UK at present and what resources the Government are giving specifically to help those children in 1990–91?
Lord Reay: My Lords, separate figures for unaccompanied children under the age of 18, identified on arrival, have been kept only since 20th August 1990 when we became aware that this was a significant problem. Thirty-four children have arrived between that date and 26th November.
In response to the first point made by the noble Baroness, I can only repeat what I said in my original Answer; we consider that proposal to be a most useful contribution. We are looking into it and we shall take a decision as soon as we possibly can.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this problem has a particular urgency with regard to Kurdish refugees from Eastern Turkey. Can the Minister assure the House that every effort is made to reunite children with their relatives who are already in this country?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's suggestion and I am sure that everything possible is being and will be done.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that under the Children Act, homeless children are the responsibility of social services departments? At present those departments in this country are undermanned and can hardly carry out their statutory duties. It is impossible for them to deal with the refugee children as they would like if they had the necessary resources.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend is right in that she says that the local authorities have a statutory responsibility in that area. The Government appreciate that the arrival from overseas of large groups of unaccompanied children can present local authorities with a problem. That is a matter about which there have been discussions.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government have considered the costs, direct and indirect, human and financial, of allowing the situation to continue? Can he say whether the Government regard those costs as acceptable?
Lord Reay: My Lords, apart from considering the specific proposal made by the Refugee Council, the
182
Government are urgently reviewing all arrangements relating to those seeking asylum as a result of the sharp increase in the numbers in recent years.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, did not the Refugee Council, under the distinguished chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, put forward proposals to the Government as long ago as July this year? I believe those proposals were based on guidelines and suggested the setting-up of a new agency funded by government departments. Is it not time that the Government recognised the urgency of the situation and made some constructive response to the proposals? When will the Government reply to the proposals of the Refugee Council?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we accept that this problem needs to be looked at. We are doing so, and shall make our replies as soon as possible.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister give the level of funding currently provided by the Government specifically towards the care of refugee children for 1988, 1989 and 1990? Can he also tell us the projected figure for 1990–91? Somewhere in the bowels of the ministries in Whitehall are assessments of what the cost will be. I am sure it would be helpful if we had that information.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am willing to undertake to scrutinise the bowels to see whether I can discover the figures requested by the noble Lord.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the heavy costs to local authorities of maintaining and caring for these children, can the Minister say whether the Government will reimburse local authorities?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Department of Health had meetings with representatives of local authorities regarding the recent influx of unaccompanied children, in particular from Eritrea. The department is considering whether there is a case for special funding to assist with the cost of providing for those children.

Nineteen Year-Olds in School: Support
3.2 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What financial help is available to allow a 19 year-old student with no financial support from his family to complete a course at school or sixth form college if it is interrupted through illness or other cause.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, local education authorities have discretion to award grants, known as educational maintenance allowances, to young people who choose to remain at school beyond the age limit for compulsory schooling. It is entirely for the local education authority to decide whether it wishes to use them.
Baroness David: My Lords, I expected that Answer. The problem is that local authorities do not have the money to do that at the moment. The Government changed the social security system to deprive these young people of housing benefit and income support.

183
Does not the Minister think that these young people who, through no fault of their own, are still in the non-advanced system of education, should be given some form of help? We constantly hear that the Government wish to improve the participation rate of young people in higher education. If they are forced to leave in the middle of taking an A-level course, as some I have known, this situation will not help them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness will not be surprised that I disagree with her. Local authorities are responding to the needs of these young people. First, perspective is important. As of January this year, from the most recent Form 7s, as the noble Baroness will be aware, there were 307,140 young people in the 16 to 19 year-old bracket; of that number, 19-pluses accounted for only 1,261. Against that, awards made in 1987 were 1,633 and last year 1,873. The needs of the most vulnerable in that category are being met by local authorities.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the sums available for educational maintenance allowances paid to individual young people are so low that any young person of 19 who is not receiving financial support from his or her parents will be unable to continue a course? Will the Minister agree that, in a situation where we are desperately trying to increase participation rates in full-time education, that is entirely unsatisfactory?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the degree to which a young person is helped will be a matter for the local authority assessing the needs of a particular individual. It also needs to be said that a large group of vulnerable young people receive help not only from the local education authority but also from the Department of Social Security. They include children of single parent families; children who may be orphans without an acting parent or guardian; children with severe mental handicap or physical disability which means that they are unlikely to find work within 12 months of leaving school; young people, estranged from their parents or guardians, who may be in physical or moral danger; young people whose parents or guardians are in prison, chronically sick or mentally or physically handicapped; and young people whose parents are prevented from entering or re-entering the country. That accounts for a proportion of those 19-pluses. That must be added to the way in which local authorities consider other needs of local young people.
I believe that the needs of the most vulnerable in that age group are being addressed. Those who are able-bodied and fall outside that category are deemed to be able to see out the school year without financial assistance.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say what provision there is for people who are no more than simply late developers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all sorts of people are late developers. If they choose to remain at school beyond the statutory age, they are deemed to be able to be sustained by their families. If they fall into any of the vulnerable categories I mentioned, or find
184
themselves severely disadvantaged by staying on at school, the local education authority has the discretion to address their needs.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not always through choice but often through necessity and what has happened previously that these young people are still in the non-advanced system of education? I was glad to hear the figures given. However, I should like to know whether the amount of money local authorities are giving—when they give it—is adequate to provide both housing and maintenance for a young person for the full course of their school year.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are speaking of the area of discretion for local authorities. We could spend time discussing the increase in local authority spending over the past decade. The priority given to this area is a matter for the local authority. The particular circumstances addressed by the Question tabled by the noble Baroness, concerning young people of 19-plus who are still at school due to a long-sustained illness, fall into the category for which a local authority could give sympathetic consideration to any application.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's short debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Hampton. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the first short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit. But I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would conform with the spirit of these short debates if they would keep their speeches within the 15 minutes which apply to the mover of the motion. In the care of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 12 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Shard Bridge Bill Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That any Petitions relating to such Bills presented in the last Session shall stand referred to the committees on the Bills in the present Session; and that the last day for the deposit of a Petition against such Bills shall be the day following the day on which the Bills are brought from the Commons—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on personal Bills be appointed, to which all Petitions for personal Bills shall stand referred, and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Airedale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

David, B.

Templeman, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wilberforce, L.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bill of Rights
3.9 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham rose to call attention to the case for the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law as a Bill of Rights; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion calls for attention to be paid to the case for the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law as a Bill of Rights. It is worth saying that in moving this Motion I feel both some pride and some embarrassment. The pride I feel is that I am a member of the party which has kept the torch alight for this specific issue in this House over many years. I refer to the consistent activities of Lord Wade. Donald Wade brought before your Lordships' House, on no fewer than three occasions, Motions for a Bill of Rights. He was a staunch supporter of this cause and would have been pleased to see how wide is the interest and support that now exists in this country for the proposition that I bring before the House today.
I am also very glad to be able to speak in this Chamber on this subject because in 1985, the last occasion on which your Lordships debated it, a Bill was brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, with the active involvement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and I was able from outside the House, as chairman of the Constitutional Reform Centre and chairman of the rights campaign, to work with them closely on that Bill. It is a particular cause of disappointment and sorrow to me that neither is able to be here today for this debate, as they would have wished to be.
Any embarrassment that I feel is, first, because I am not a lawyer. I am a new Member of the House, which can be remedied by time, but I am not a lawyer and at my time of life I do not expect to be a lawyer. This is a subject which attracts lawyers, as can be seen from the noble Lords who intend to speak today. However,
186
I do not believe that, in the end, the issues concerning a Bill of Rights in this country should be monopolised by lawyers. It is a subject on which lay voices should be heard and I am glad that I have this opportunity to be the voice of a layman.
The embarrassment I really feel is on behalf of this country. We are now the only country in the Council of Europe that does not have either a Bill of Rights or a written constitution. I am sure that we shall be told later in the debate that that is our glory, but I do not believe that it is. It is a great weakness of this country that we are the only country that is not prepared to delimit and demarcate the powers of the state, that we are the only country which is not prepared to have the rights of its citizens as a rock on which good government and genuine democracy are founded.
Some people may say that democracy and the demands of democracy are met by the election of Parliament, the House of Commons, and that that is both necessary and a sufficient condition for human rights and freedoms to be reflected. I do not take that view. First, Parliament has been elected by a minority of the electorate. Incidentally, how noteworthy it is that the German election has produced a fair result, conducted on a proportional representation system, in which the government will be based on a majority of the citizens of the Federal Republic.
However, even if we had a genuine majority government in this country, instead of alternating minority governments, we would have to pay heed to the wise words of John Stuart Mill that the rights of minorities are not always respected by the majority, that there are minorities and individuals who need permanent and enduring protection. It is in that spirit that I bring forward the Motion this afternoon.
Although I am pleased as a Member on these Benches to have this opportunity to introduce the Motion, it is worth emphasising that this has not been, either in the country or in this House, primarily a partisan issue. The cross-party support on the occasion of the Broxbourne Bill and the cross-party support shown when that Bill was revived in the other place by Sir Edward Gardner the following year demonstrates that there is interest and support across the party spectrum.
Even more recently than that we have seen interesting expressions of support by the Institute of Economic Affairs, a Right-wing think-tank, for the prospect of incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights, and next week the Institute for Public Policy Research, a think-tank linked with the Labour Party for producing policies for the Left in Britain, is to publish a paper called A British Bill of Rights. That institute is presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—she is not in the Chamber at the moment—and I am delighted, having been sent an advance copy of the paper, to be able to congratulate her on it and express the hope that the institute will have a benign effect on the formation of Labour Party policy on this important subject. Therefore, there is interest across the political spectrum.
In 1985 we drew particular encouragement from the support of the then Lord Chancellor, recently retired, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who I am glad to see is here this afternoon.
Many people would go further than the Motion. Many would say, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said in his Hamlyn lectures, that there should be a written constitution in this country with entrenched rights. My own party holds that view. However, the Motion has much more modest aims. It proposes simply to take the European convention and make it part of British law so that British citizens in British courts may have access to the rights for which at present they have to travel a long, expensive and weary road to Strasbourg. The Motion proposes to domesticate and bring into our domestic laws those rights which at present can only be obtained in Strasbourg. It does not have the profound constitutional implications in terms of the sovereignty of Parliament that a written constitution or a fully entrenched Bill of Rights would have.
It may be worth while recapitulating for your Lordships the history of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was ratified by the Labour Government in 1951 after considerable misgivings. Lord Jowett, who was then the Lord Chancellor, advised the Labour Cabinet against ratification. Interestingly, one of the reasons he gave for advising against ratification was that the consequence would be that,
"we shall have to bring in legislation applying the conditions of the Convention to our domestic law".
He saw clearly that the inevitable consequence of ratification would be that the Motion we are now discussing would become a pressing reality.
The European Convention on Human Rights is not some alien piece of law codification. It represents the classic rights with which we are familiar in this country: the rights that have figured in most international statements of human rights and international conventions to which we are also signatories. The drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights was largely undertaken by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, later Lord Kilmuir. The wording, language and spirit of that convention in many ways reflect the best of the British tradition and approach to rights in our own common law.
Moving on, in 1966 the Government accepted the jurisdiction of the court and accepted the right of individual petition. Since 1966 we have been the most active customers—if I may put it so irreverently—of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. We have had more cases brought before that court than any other country in Europe and we have had more judgments made against us. We are a large European country so to some extent that is understandable.
However, the list of cases does not make altogether happy reading. They include: inadequate safeguards for personal privacy against phone tapping; ill-treatment of suspected terrorists in Northern Ireland; unfair discrimination against British wives of foreign husbands under the immigration rules; and dismissal
188
of workers on account of the operation of a closed shop. There is also the famous Sunday Times thalidomide case which rested on freedom of speech.
As I have said, it is possible for a British citizen to seek remedy and justice in the European Court even without incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. However, that process is expensive. It can take up to seven years and the costs in terms of both time and money mean that the remedies available for breaches of human rights are not normally available to ordinary citizens whose rights have been infringed. Thus it is not surprising that in 1977 the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights in Northern Ireland recommended that we should incorporate the European convention. Interestingly, that is one of the few issues which unites all parties in Northern Ireland. If there is an issue on which the whole political spectrum is united in Northern Ireland it is that there should be incorporation of the European convention and that that should be available to citizens in Northern Ireland.
In 1978 your Lordships' House established a Select Committee which recommended by an extremely narrow majority—one—the incorporation of the European convention as a British Bill of Rights. We are now 12 years further on and nothing has happened. I wish very briefly to recapitulate the arguments for bringing the convention into our domestic courts. First, I have in a sense already mentioned ease of access and the closeness to remedy. Secondly, there should be in a European convention an openness of texture which would make it possible for future generations gradually to develop and interpret rights in the way that they are in other democracies such as the United States, and be responsive to the changing needs of society. Thirdly and crucially, the convention is to check the exercise of improperly administered power by the Executive and the state.
For most of the time we live in a country in which the intention of government of all kinds, including government agencies and local government, is honourable and administration is fair. But that is not always the case. To paraphrase Lord Acton, power is delightful; absolute power is absolutely delightful. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has said that too easily in this country we find ourselves with a system which is more properly characterised as an elective dictatorship where there are not limits on the exercise of executive power of the kind that other democracies take for granted.
Finally, I suggest that in many ways the most compelling argument for incorporation of the European convention is that it would have an effect on the democratic system as a whole and on the values by which we conduct our public affairs. Bills framed with a Bill of Rights in mind would be Bills more properly framed. Greater care would be taken by civil servants in the execution of their duties and they would be sensitive to the need not to encroach on the position of the citizen.
Yet at the same time there are powerful arguments which should be acknowledged against a Bill of Rights and even against the incorporation of the European convention. First, doubts are expressed about the judiciary. Some will say, particularly those on the Left, that it should not be for judges to concern themselves with matters which are the exclusive province of elected officials. It is fair to say that the selection and training of the judiciary are areas in which it is possible to imagine that, in a perfect world, there might be improvements. The independence of the British judiciary and the fact that we have the potential for a system of checks and balances is one of the glories of the British system. There is the possibility of checks and balances. British judges have to take the law as they find it. The law which they find does not include this broad, generous tradition of human rights which a European convention would import.
The other argument used is that any Bill of Rights would meet head on the problem of parliamentary sovereignty. I readily acknowledge that is a problem. However, the Motion does not in any way seek to encroach on parliamentary sovereignty. Those who would like a more comprehensive constitutional settlement have to face up to the fact that it would affect parliamentary sovereignty and that we would move to a system of checks and balances in the full constitutional sense. That is not what the Motion says. It says that we should incorporate the European convention.
If Parliament chose to incorporate the European convention as a Bill of Rights, a subsequent Parliament could repeal that Act. As long as the Act was in place it would be incumbent on Parliament expressly to suspend, repeal or amend that Act; otherwise subsequent legislation would be deemed to be in accordance with the Bill of Rights. In fairness, it must be said that those who believe that we should go down that path hope that we shall have a kind of moral entrenchment of the Bill of Rights of the European convention. Over time it would begin to assume the character of something which the citizens respected and which any government would be reluctant to repeal.
There is now a new and urgent imperative for us to consider the incorporation of the convention. It rests on the international developments of the past year or two. In this House on several occasions we have found the opportunity to applaud the changes which have taken place in Eastern and Central Europe over the past year. The drive in those countries towards democracy, though still precarious, has been spectacular. It is interesting that our new partners in Eastern Europe have learnt the hard way that there are no short cuts when you want to set up a system of democracy and human rights. They are not always exactly the same thing, though they are closely connected.
They have learnt the need to enshrine inalienable rights within the law so as to guard against future totalitarian regimes. At the Copenhagen meeting of
190
the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe the participating countries, which included Hungary and Czechoslovakia, declared:
"human rights and fundamental freedoms will be guaranteed by law and in accordance with (participating States) obligations under international law".
The conference document commits the signatories to,
"consider acceding to a regional or global international convention concerning the protection of human rights, such as the European Convention on Human Rights".
As a direct result of that conference the Czechs are now in the process of incorporating the European convention into their domestic law. Hungary has already committed itself to incorporation.
The United Kingdom was also a participant in the CSCE Copenhagen conference, but I regret to say that our Government have not followed the example of Hungary or Czechoslovakia. Our Government have taken no steps towards incorporation. Yet on 5th August this year, in Aspen, Colorado, our then Prime Minister called for the creation of a Magna Carta for Europe. She said, in very inspiring words:
"I propose that we should agree on a European Magna Carta to entrench for every European citizen, including those of the Soviet Union, the basic rights which we in the West take for granted. We must enshrine certain freedoms for every individual: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of access to the law and to the market place; freedom to participate in genuinely democratic elections; to own property".
She concluded by saying that there should be,
"freedom from fear of an over-mighty state".
At the conference in Paris held two weeks ago those commitments were repeated and in a sense they were built on. Yet Britain has done nothing to entrench those basic rights in our own domestic law. Britain is now in grievous danger of being accused of double standards. If we continue to urge entrenchment of human rights on other countries, why are we not prepared to take our own medicine?
It is possible that some noble Lords think—they may even say so later in the debate—that Britain has a long tradition of democracy and an excellent record on human rights, but, unlike the states which are only just shaking themselves free from totalitarianism, has no need of such remedies. I hope that I have been able to explain why I believe that is not the case. European law is now creeping and seeping into our judicial system. Would it not be better in the case of European human rights law to face that directly, to welcome it into our domestic law and so enrich our domestic law with it? I should like to see this country become a leader and not a laggard on the question of human rights. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this important subject for debate. It is assuredly not my purpose to extinguish the flames of the torch carried by the noble Lord, only to use that torch to seek to illuminate another corridor of approach. As to embarrassment, my embarrassment on this occasion is that I am a lawyer. I wholly accept that there is no monopoly of lawyers and that the ultimate decisions

191
and opinions are the lay decisions taken in your Lordships' House. But that having been said, I do not think we have to worry too much about taking lessons in democracy from Czechoslovakia, Hungary or elsewhere.
Although incorporation of the convention into United Kingdom law as a Bill of Rights is opposed, there are, however, many matters upon which I hope we can all make common cause. A means of resolution must assuredly be found so that effective and appropriate action may be taken by the Government to resolve the problem of the absence of a remedy in the United Kingdom for breach of convention. A means of resolution other than that proposed by the noble Lord, which was not considered by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House set up to report on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will be proposed, but tentatively proposed, for your Lordships' consideration.
At the outset, let us clear the decks and let us state the matters on which we can make common cause. First, if United Kingdom rights were to be repatriated, to use the term of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, but not in the sense in which he used it, the vast majority of cases would find a remedy in the United Kingdom, with Strasbourg as a long stop, and this horrifying spate of adverse judgments against the United Kingdom since 1975 would be stemmed. Can we not make common cause on that?
Secondly, the extant system of "ad hoc" domestic legislation —it really is post hoc propter hoc legislation—to give effect to these adverse judgments is wholly unsatisfactory. Surely some form of judicial process must be established to adjudicate here in the United Kingdom on alleged breaches of convention in the light of the relevant body of jurisprudence, with power to afford a remedy within the meaning of Article 50 of the convention, thus depriving the Commission and the Court of Justice of jurisdiction to entertain complaints as to breaches of convention owing to absence of a domestic remedy, which is the present position.
Thirdly, if a Bill of Rights were to be introduced, this would not substantially infringe the sovereignty of Parliament, and the judiciary would be capable of interpreting a Bill of Rights. The arguments for and against a Bill of Rights Act to incorporate the convention into United Kingdom law were fully considered at paragraphs 32 to 34 of the report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House set up to consider the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, a proposal on which the Select Committee was split right down the middle. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, split with the five who dissented on the proposal. That is not exactly the background on which we can all go forward. That is why I am seeking to find another corridor.
The next matter on which surely we can make common cause is that by ratification of the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act we have accepted the supranational effect of Community law as interpreted by the Court at Luxembourg, which in practice applies the convention and the jurisprudence
192
of the Court at Strasbourg. I turn to the last matter on which I am sure we can all make common cause. The time has now come when, as a facet of a new approach to our treaty obligations in Europe, consideration must be given to affording a domestic remedy in the United Kingdom for breaches of the convention.
There are objections to incorporation by direct supraimposition of general application by statute, whether under a Bill of Rights or not. Certain articles of the convention—Articles 8 to 11 in particular—are concerned with political issues which are more properly for Parliament to decide and not the judiciary. Secondly, the form of the convention is not apt for general application by direct and immediate supraimposition by statute.
I shall quote if I may the speech of Lord Elwyn-Jones in the debate on Lord Broxbourne's Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Bill in December 1985. It was a remarkable speech which I shall always remember and in which, having done his homework as he always did, Lord Elwyn-Jones cited the observations of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Diplock and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in support of his views. I shall not weary your Lordships by quoting all of it. It is there for noble Lords to read and most noble Lords have no doubt read it. He said in one sentence that:
"this uncertainty … may well result in a great increase of litigation in our courts if these provisions become part of our law". [Official Report, 10/12/85; col. 190.]
One could argue for ever whether he was right or wrong; but what is unarguable is that if that is the considered opinion of a jurist of such eminence, it would be hazardous to ignore it.
As regards the proposed resolution, in the light of full discussion and debate on the Bill of my noble friend Lord Broxbourne, it is accepted that any attempt to enlarge the process of judicial review would not be appropriate and that my personal attempts in this regard were wholly misconceived. However, it is suggested that there are two viable options, either of which, if implemented, would render incorporation of the convention into United Kingdom law by a Bill of Rights unnecessary. That is the corridor which I would use the noble Lord's torch to illuminate.
We should either set up a special court with plenary jurisdiction to adjudicate on all complaints on alleged breaches of the convention in the light of the relevant body of jurisprudence, to afford declaratory and injunctive relief and to award damages in compensation: thus to afford a full and effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 50 of the convention.
On the other hand, we could appoint a commissioner to entertain all such complaints, as was proposed some 20 years ago by Lord Silkin of Dulwich in his Protection of Human Rights Bill which, alas, was counted out in another place. In either event, express statutory provision would be requisite and there should be a right of appeal, but only with leave, direct to the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. Of course, the special court would be more satisfactory, but it would also be more expensive.

193
This is not the occasion upon which to consider the precise manner in which either institution would discharge its functions so as to afford an effective remedy under a new set of statutory rules or regime. The rectitude of the principle in question, and the machinery for effective operation, could be considered not only by your Lordships today, but also by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the Law Commission or a Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
There is no doubt that the time has come when action must be taken by government. Even if in today's debate your Lordships are not agreed upon the form of the action to be taken, that does not dispose of the essence of the problem; namely, that action must be taken. I beg to move for papers
3.45 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it is some time since this important issue last had an airing in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has done us a service in raising the issue and doing so in such a persuasive way. In my innocence, I thought that there would be genuine agreement on one point; namely, that if there were to be a Bill of Rights, it would be best achieved by incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights. But I am now not quite so sure on the matter, having also seen an advance copy of the document to which the noble Lord referred. However, that is what the Motion suggests and that is what we are debating today.
The convention is far from perfect. Indeed, it is somewhat inelegant, notwithstanding its provenance. For example, it does not deal with economic, social or cultural rights. But to try to evolve yet another code and drag in the international covenant on civil and political rights when we and so many others are committed to the present convention would cause enormous problems.
Opinions begin to differ when one goes on to consider whether incorporation in our domestic law is the right course. There is certainly a case for doing so. We all believe in human rights; we are signatories to the convention; and, as the noble Lord pointed out, the other signatories embody the substance of the convention either in their written constitution or in their domestic law; and we are unique in looking on the Strasbourg court, slow and underfunded as it is, as in effect a court of first instance. When I had the privilege of chairing the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on this question in 1978 —and when as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, reminded us, I ended up by voting in the minority—I was then persuaded that the arguments against incorporation into our law were stronger on balance. Over the years, I have remained of that opinion, and on the information at present available I remain so. I shall try to illustrate the reason behind that view.
It has long been the practice in this country to legislate in a specific form and entrust to the courts the role of interpreting such legislation. As we all know, the convention proceeds in a totally different way. It
194
provides for rights in the most general terms. It also provides for permissible exceptions to these rights—again, in the most general terms. If it were made part of our domestic law, overruling anything previously on the statute book, a number of consequences would follow. It seems to me that in the first place it would introduce a wide-ranging element of uncertainty.
Let us take as an example Article 8 of the convention. The article states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. But it goes on to say that there can be interference by a public authority with this right, if necessary, in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others. That is quite a list.
No one would know what those very general provisions meant in our law until the courts had laid it down—and it had not been reversed in Strasbourg—on the accident of the cases coming before them. That would apply in areas covered by a number of articles such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, privacy, breach of confidence and contempt, to name but a few. It would be the courts, the unelected judges, and not Parliament who would be saying what those words in the Bill of Rights meant.
It may be said that we have already incurred that uncertainty by subscribing to the convention; but, as a set of principles of domestic law, the convention would have a life of its own and could be invoked all the time in our courts which would have to make decisions, probably without any guidance from the jurisprudence in Strasbourg. Nor would it be a question of giving to our judges a similar role, in relation to the convention, as is played by the judges at Strasbourg.
What the Strasbourg court says in essence, if it finds against us after measuring our domestic law against the yardstick of the convention, is that we have not acted in accordance with the principles enshrined in the relevant article of the convention, and that we had better go away and put things right. That we do, if possible, by administrative actions but if need be by legislation under the ordinary parliamentary procedure, as with telephone tapping or caning in schools.
There may be various ways in which the problem could be met, and there is opportunity under that procedure for thought and consultation as to which of the ways would be best. However, if the convention were part of our domestic law, as I see it, it would fall to the judges to say, there and then in a particular case, what the relevant article meant in our law, since that article would be up-to-date law and would override any previous statutory provision. The judges would have to do that on the spot without being in any way equipped to review possible alternative ways of dealing with the problem. Many of us would find it hard to take that judicial encroachment into matters we have been brought up to believe are for the legislature.

195
The noble Lord mentioned entrenchment. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the legal advice we received on the Select Committee about entrenchment did not match the views that he expressed. However, we might possibly agree that we should be left with a position of moral entrenchment.
The inevitable consequence of any such development would be that the judges would tend to become embroiled in political issues. As the noble Lord said, there are those who believe that the judges are not suitable to be the policy makers on issues such as freedom of thought, conscience and religion, provided for in Article 9. That is not the point that I am making. I am trying to say that they would be considering arguments, and applying criteria, which on any ordinary basis would be regarded as political. One has only to look to the USA to see a supreme court which concerns itself with issues which here would clearly fall to be settled by the legislature. For example, abortion, capital punishment, telephone tapping and compulsory sterilisation for the sub-normal.
The result there is that the political, philosophical and social views of the members, or would-be members, of the court are matters for public debate and scrutiny. It is not a fate which one would wish to see overtaking the judiciary here; but I do not see how it could be altogether avoided if the noble Lord, Lord Holme, were to have his way. I recall that it was that consideration that primarily led the late Lord Diplock (for whom I have the highest regard) to come down against incorporation.
It is on such grounds that I still come down against incorporating the convention into our law and against a Bill of Rights in the form suggested by the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, who is out of the country, has authorised me to say that he shares those views.
There is one final point: there are risks of exaggerating the importance of a decision on this issue, whichever way it goes. Even more important to my mind are the depths of society's commitment to human rights and values, and the vigilance of Parliament, the courts and the press in protecting those rights. A society which is contemptuous of them will not be made virtuous by Act of Parliament. We hear a great deal about the American Bill of Rights; but, after all, it did not provide much of a protection against McCarthyism. Therefore, despite the eloquence and force with which the Motion was moved, I find myself, on balance, on the other side.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, with this debate, as your Lordships will have already seen, the Chamber is following a well-trodden path. We have had two Bills and the report of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. If I may say so, we have never had the case put better than it has been by my noble friend Lord Holme.
I should like to place the matter in the context of recent events. When the Prime Minister stood on the steps at No. 10, he said that he wished to see a Britain at ease with itself. That was a most significant
196
statement. It signalled (did it not?) an end to the strident divisiveness of recent years and foresaw a society which, being at ease with itself, is one surely in which the individual feels truly free, and where restraints on freedom are willingly accepted; where those who abuse civil rights are clearly identifiable and accountable. Furthermore, it is a society where information is readily available upon which to bring such abuses to book, and where a citizen's vote will to his knowledge count in the election of his representatives.
The debate points the way therefore for Mr. Major if he means what he says. Today the citizen wants to know what are his civil and political rights; where they are to be found; and how his children are to learn what they are. He wants to know how he can assert those rights, and so he needs access to the law which alone can offer him protection against abuse. We see around us today a profoundly dissatisfied society where people are confused as to what are their rights and where access to law is made less possible year by year.
No matter in what area one works, or in what activity one participates, the ordinary person is frustrated and at odds with the Government. Thatcherism has been obsessed with the concept of authority; with the centralisation of power; and with the paternalism of "we know best-ism". In every Bill that reaches the House, we find clauses removing power from the individual and vesting it in Ministers and civil servants. That culminated in the legal services Green Paper in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor blatantly aimed to bring the administration of the law itself under the will of the Executive. The noble and learned Lord was finally forced by the House to abandon that aim.
The long list of men overboard from the ship of state, and the unceremonious manner in which the skipper herself was required to walk the plank, would seem to indicate the launch of a new, sounder and more stable Tory vessel. It could be one that could happily take on board at long last the incorporation of the European convention. Why not? The noble Lord, Lord Allen, who is a most distinguished mandarin, set out a number of reasons against incorporation. That does not surprise me. He speaks of the uncertainty of Article 8. The answer is that in over 30 cases which have gone from this country to Strasbourg the European judges have not found the slightest difficulty in coming to a conclusion within the terms of the convention and finding justice for the individual in this country.
The noble Lord said that the convention would have a life of its own in the legal system of this country. When one hears someone as distinguished and experienced as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, saying that there would not be the slightest difficulty so far as he was concerned in incorporating the spirit and the essence of the convention into British common law, one cannot help feeling that one would side with him on the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, speaks of the encroachment of the judges on Whitehall. He looks upon that with the greatest possible fear. The judges

197
would be involved in political decisions, he says. Is not the tapping of phones of ordinary individuals a matter for the courts? What about the "Belgrano"? What about the ABC case? What about the Sunday Telegraph case? What about Spycatcher? What about GCHQ? Are all these matters to be kept out of the courts and away from the judges because they have political overtones? Of course they have political overtones, but far more importantly they affect the civil rights of the individual.
In our complex world of information technology, freedom of the individual can no longer be defined negatively as it was in more leisurely and insular days in this country. "You can do or say anything which is not prohibited by law" is a wholly unworkable and inadequate principle, I suggest, in the face of the torrent of rules and regulations which now govern the behaviour of the citizen. People must now know where they stand. They seek assurance that officials—the police, immigration officers, civil servants, local government officers, politicians; yes, even prison personnel—should be clearly accountable for the power which they wield. Surely it is a sign of political immaturity to continue to cling to the myth of the protection of the absolute power of the elected Chamber to which my noble friend referred, the myth of undiluted parliamentary sovereignty, at the expense of individual justice.
The power race at present is: first past the post, minority rule, an all-powerful executive with a massively powerful Prime Minister, a weakened and undemocratic second Chamber and a denigrated and frustrated local government. That is where we stand today.
The convention sets out—brilliantly, I suggest—the individual rights to which every citizen is entitled in a democracy. That is only his civil and political rights. It provides machinery by which an individual may secure those rights; machinery which is undoubtedly cumbersome and elaborate, but no wonder when it embraces the first unique stride forward under the umbrella of the Council of Europe towards a true international community of civilised states and of course a route which was envisaged as a last resort. Why should our citizens alone compared with those of our powerful neighbours have no first resort to this basic justice in their own country? Why should they have to embark on the long, five-year trek to Strasbourg, supported by lawyers who largely take no fee?
These questions should be put to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate, it is the noble and learned Lord, with his authoritative voice, who is responsible for the judiciary. He has been, I regret, conspicuously reticent on matters of human rights, unlike one of his illustrious predecessors—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—whom we are happy to see in his place this afternoon.
Perhaps the noble Lord was in communication with his noble and learned friend before this debate. I
198
wonder whether he has asked him why a prisoner should have to go to Strasbourg to establish his right to see a lawyer or stop wrongful interference with his correspondence if he is in one of Her Majesty's prisons. Why should a mental patient have to go to Strasbourg in regard to his illegal detention? Why should a newspaper have to go there about an article truly inconvenient to the Government and suppressed? Why should a suspect subjected to inhuman treatment have to do so? Why should a prisoner who is subject to inhuman and degrading treatment have to go there? Why should a homosexual who is subject to discriminatory treatment have to do so? Why should a foreign husband banned from joining his wife in this country have to go there? Why should a juvenile subjected to degrading punishment have to do so? Why should a long-term prisoner kept incarcerated for years on the say-so of a junior Minister have to go there?
I ask the noble Lord also: why should at least 20 other of our fellow citizens have been forced successfully to seek justice in serious matters of principle in Strasbourg rather than here in London? Why has all that been necessary? Why have at least 80 laws and regulations been either repealed or amended as a result of these long journeys to Strasbourg? No doubt the noble Lord will give his answer in due course.
Do the Government believe that our judges alone in Europe are not to be trusted to interpret and uphold the provisions of the convention? Faced with the ever-increasing misuse of power by public bodies and in the absence of incorporation the judges have adapted the common law by a process of judicial review of administrative actions. So on a very limited front they have upheld their historic role of standing between the state and the citizen. For years, in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the judges have been interpreting bills of rights incorporated in Commonwealth constitutions, modelled in almost every case on the European convention itself.
If it is not the unfitness of the judiciary, is it in reality the fear of any independent curb upon executive power? That is a fear so clearly evidenced by Whitehall's distaste for the doctrine of judicial review. Hitherto the Labour Party has wrapped up its reluctance with the populist cry of judicial prejudice and conservatism. However, the views expressed recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg—I am happy to see the noble Lord in his place—give one hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may have seen the light himself and will tell us later in the debate of his party's conversion to the policies of Charter 88 and the Institute for Public Policy Research.
Only on these Benches has the clear principle been consistently spelt out and advanced that, ultimately, protection of human rights and freedoms can only be guaranteed by a tribunal which is wholly independent of the Executive and is free to interpret and to apply the law set out in the convention.
Therefore in the end I am not embarrassed to say that that must be a matter for the lawyers. It is the

199
independence, the training and the selection of the judges which will ensure the effectiveness of such a tribunal and the achievement of a Britain which is truly at ease with itself.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I join in the congratulations offered to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for bringing us once again round this well-trodden course, but I fear that the noble Lord may be disappointed in two respects. First, he can hardly have assumed that his noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington would seize this occasion to deliver a party political oration on the follies of the Government. However, the other disappointment, which is the more serious for our debates—this relates to the arrangement of our affairs—is that the debate has been arranged for a time of day when none of the noble and learned Lords who sit in their judicial capacity can be present.
As it appears to me that a great deal must turn—the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, mentioned this—on the impact on the judiciary of the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I believe the whole House would have profited from the guidance of those who hold and have held high judicial office. In that sense, and with due deference to the ornaments of the two branches of the legal profession who have addressed us or are to address us today, I must say that we lack the guidance that we might have expected and which could easily have been provided if the times of the two debates today had been reversed.
I, like everyone else—this is a well-endowed think-tank —have received and studied the effusion that has come from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and her friends. It is indeed a gratifying piece of research which those of us who approve or disapprove of the idea of incorporation can only profit from. However, the thing that I found most interesting—the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, must have found this the most disquieting aspect of the paper—is that the authors of the paper admit that there is no great popular clamour for change. There is no clamour coming from outside these walls from the masses of an enraged people. It is coming, let us say, from the intelligentsia. It has always been my belief that the salvation of this country is that the intelligentsia has so little influencia.
The kinds of matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has referred and which are mentioned at length in the think-tank paper are matters on which a section at least of thinking people have strong and unexplored views. However, they are also matters on which a great many other people take a wholly opposite view. Some people believe—they are entitled to do so—in the absolute supremacy of individual rights over the public weal as defined by Parliament or by government, but others believe the contrary. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and the authors of the think-tank paper regard the denial of trade union membership to persons working at GCHQ as a moral outrage. Those of us who are very concerned with this country's capacity for collecting intelligence which may be of vital importance to our security and to our relations with our allies take an
200
opposite view. We are, I believe, equally entitled to take that view. However, it is assumed by those who hold opposite views to mine that if only a Bill of Rights could be incorporated somehow or other matters would always come out the way they wanted them to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, was undoubtedly right to call our attention to the legislative history of this remarkable document of the European convention. However, at his age the noble Lord would not have had direct memory of the circumstances of the post-war period when this instrument was framed. I doubt whether the late Lord Kilmuir, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Holme, gave credit for much of the authorship of the measure, or his fellow workers at the Council of Europe, really thought they were providing a yardstick which governments, parliaments and judiciaries of democratic countries in the West could live by. What they put on record was what they believed had been the experience of Europe under Nazi rule. They were, in a sense, pledging the countries of Europe to ensure that that did not happen again.
The transformation by the Commission and the court at Strasbourg of that document into something which could make inroads into the domestic lives of people in the initial member countries was, I believe, not forecast at the time. If it had been forecast, it might have led to a somewhat different document. It is undoubtedly desirable that citizens should be protected. Here for once I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, in that I believe there are a great many ways in which our legal system is deficient in protecting the interests of all citizens, particularly because of delays and the limitations on legal aid. The latter matter has frequently been referred to in your Lordships' House. None of those crucial questions seems to me to be likely to be dealt with by some case finding its way to a new supreme court or a new supreme commission, or whatever was charged with the British end of litigation.
There may be arguments about the politicisation of the judiciary. On the whole, I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in his remarks on that matter. It has not been answered. Anyone who has followed recent events in the United States will know that that can be a difficult question to answer. Quite apart from that and the added complexity and length of litigation, there is the matter of whether in a parliament which has all too little time for tackling issues of this kind, we are not turning our attention to what is in a way a gesture and away from areas where the legal protection of citizens or particular groups of citizens should be a subject of worry. I say "a gesture" because I am not convinced. That is why there is no popular backing as the authors of the policy report suggest.
I doubt whether Britain's record on questions of human rights is regarded as very poor in the light of the set of cases in which its laws have been found deficient by the European Court. If I were contemplating a brush with an agency of government, with the police or with the courts, on the whole my

201
chances of justice would be better in this country than in a number of countries which are signatories to the convention which may well not have a similar list of cases brought against them, possibly because their litigants have not been keen to proceed.
Furthermore, as has been mentioned, there is the question of the cost of taking a case to Strasbourg. However, the cost would not be diminished because, as I understand it, if the convention was incorporated into our law and we had a British court of first instance we could not block a right of appeal so long as we are signatories to the convention. Therefore we would be adding another step, further delay and additional cost for a potential litigant. That is something which those who approve of such a court should consider. It is curious that we should regard it as possible or desirable to treat the genuine problems that exist in such an extraordinarily roundabout way.
No doubt it is true that the late Lord Kilmuir and others from this country played some part in drafting the convention. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who knows a great deal about the subject, has said, it is not a document which could be adapted naturally to the writing of a statute. The noble Lord did not go so far as to say so, but he may agree that it has the stamp of the civil law rather than of the common law. If the noble Lord, Lord Holme, had suggested not incorporation in British law—which is a very curious concept—but in Scottish law, that would have been a much more plausible case because Scotland is notorious for its interest and affection for Europe. English common law has got along—the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, does not think that it has got along very well, but most people in this country think that it has—on the basis of an existing Bill of Rights (the fruit of our Glorious Revolution), on the basis of Magna Carta and on the basis of the independence of the judiciary, fortified by statute after coming into being as a result of custom.
I refer your Lordships not to another report but to a passage which I read in your Lordships' Library yesterday—I admit that I was not in the Chamber for the New Roads and Street Works Bill. I was reading the memoirs of the Russian dissident Alexander Herzen, who describes two trials in London in the early 1850s. One was the trial of a group of people who had taken part in an illegal duel, and the other of someone accused of complicity in an attempted assassination of the Emperor Napoleon III. He gives a marvellous description of the Lord Justice Campbell, dressed in what he calls a female dressing gown, and a wig which distorted his carriage, and so forth, and the well, beef-fed British jurors. How different it was from what he would have seen at a similar trial on the continent of Europe, on which he had lived. The acquittals or very light sentences delight him. To paraphrase him, he says that though quaint, British justice is still something of which Europe can be proud. That comment might inspire our views on this Motion.
4.25 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, almost five years ago to the day your Lordships' House debated this issue in connection with a Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne. The main arguments on both sides were rehearsed. They have been cogently summarised today by my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham, to whom we are all most grateful for giving us the opportunity for this debate. I have nothing to add to what was said in the debate in 1985 and to much of what has been said today. I shall therefore be brief: my purpose is not to argue but to testify.
I accept the analysis of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington of the central arguments deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The European Convention on Human Rights was the product of a change in international law, described by the late Paul Sieghart in his survey of the dramatic development of human rights in the aftermath of Hitler's war as,
"so profound that it can properly be called a revolution. Today, for the first time in history, how a sovereign state treats its own citizens is no longer a matter for its own exclusive determination but a matter of legitimate concern for all other states and their inhabitants".
That revolution was the result of the devastating and shameful experience of Nazism, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said. It was the result of the popular clamour for rights to render impossible experiences such as those of the 1930s.
No wonder the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, in 1985, when chairman of the Bar Council, observed:
"The European Convention is a charter for citizens".
The extension and enforcement of the convention for the benefit of some 400 million people inhabitating the states which have adhered to it establishes a common citizenship of rights which many regard as a great watershed in the history of European freedom.
We should never forget the vitality and crusading power inherent in the concept of rights. When we last debated the assimilation of the convention into English law in 1985 I ventured the belief:
"When the convention is seen alongside today's technical potentialities of the electronic media, the outlook for liberty and the enjoyment of rights may be brighter than many of us have feared. Authoritarian governments have been compelled these past 40 years to pay lip-service to human rights, and they will soon lose the power as a result of new technologies to restrict and control what their subjects may listen to and even what they see on their screens".—[Official Report, 10/12/85; col. 186.]
Two recurring themes of the arguments against the assimilation of the European convention into United Kingdom law as a Bill of Rights are, first, that our system requires Parliament in the end to decide. But we did not need M. Delors to tell us of the uniqueness of Parliament, as our final legislature nowadays wears the pallid look of impending superannuation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said a dozen or so years ago in his Richard Dimbleby lecture:

203
"The pass has already been sold … By joining the Common Market we have put at risk both the administrative acts of ministers and the provisions of Acts of Parliament."
A second recurring theme of the arguments against assimilating the convention is that it would change the role of our judges. Our courts play no part in interpreting a convention to which we adhere by treaty and which applies equally to British citizens as to those of other member states. The view, again of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was that assimilation,
"proposes no more than that which European judges are already bound to decide if need be against the British Government and the Parliament of the United Kingdom … is it to be supposed that our own judges are so stupid or so biased that they are not to be allowed to decide these matters for themselves?"
Or, it may be added, the rest of us, who lack immediate access to the remedies provided by the convention which would be given by assimilation.
I prefer to take my chance with the judges in the sure expectation that they will translate the civil law of the convention, to adopt the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, into our common law if only they had the opportunity.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if I may, I should like to make a few preliminary observations on a matter which is not before us today. This is the first occasion on which I have preceded the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he has not been the Labour Party's spokesman on Home Office affairs. I think it is right, I hope on behalf of the whole House, to refer to the debt that we all owe to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the work he has performed when representing the Labour Party on Home Office issues. Often we have agreed with him; sometimes we have disagreed with him, and at times quite sharply. Nevertheless I think he has done a duty, sometimes on behalf of the whole House, and we owe him a great debt of gratitude.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I turn now to the subject of this debate. My noble friend Lord Holme has dealt with the issues of principle underlying the debate, and I agree with him on the central propositions which he put before the House. The issues I intend to raise this evening cover far narrower territory; namely, the price paid by British litigants before the European Court of Human Rights as a result of the failure of the United Kingdom Government to incorporate the convention into our domestic law.
I accept at once, as I think we all do, that many of the provisions of the convention have no analogy within our own law. There are, for example, few remedies in relation to Article 8, the right to private and family life and correspondence; to Article 10, the right to freedom of expression and to hold, impart and receive opinions and information; and to Article 11, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.
As many Members of the House will be aware, and as I have indicated, the delays involving British
204
litigants are substantial. Those engaged in formulating petitions have to follow a long and complicated process; often our domestic law is silent or insufficiently clear and the petitioners have to institute proceedings in British courts before an application can be made to the European Commission. Then, after the delays which are inevitable there, a petitioner can put his case before the European Court of Human Rights, on the assumption of course that he succeeds before the Commission.
I should like, if I may, to give a few examples of the damage done to many of our fellow citizens because of our failure to incorporate the convention in our domestic law, with the consequence that they cannot ask British courts to deal with their grievances under the terms of the convention. I turn first to the case of Messrs. Webster, Young and James. My noble friend Lord Holme made a passing reference to this extremely important case. I suspect it will be within the recollection of a number of your Lordships that in July 1975 the three railway trade unions reached an agreement with British Rail which provided that henceforth membership of one of the three unions would be a condition of employment.
Between February and June 1976 these three men were dismissed because of their failure to join one of the railway unions. A month later, in July, applications were lodged with the European Commission on Human Rights. On six separate occasions between 1978 and 1979 the British Government, through its representatives, asked for extensions of time to present their case. Three years later the European Commission found against the British Government, and after a further year the British Government succeeded in meeting their fourth time-limit. In August 1981 the European Court found against our Government. It therefore took five years for these men to secure justice: three men thrown out of their jobs because of an agreement between the railway unions and British Rail which was wholly inconsistent with our obligations under the European Convention.
I turn now to the second case, that of Mr. Sidney Golder. In October 1969 Mr. Golder was segregated from other prisoners after a disturbance in one of our prisons. It was alleged that he had assaulted a prison officer—a charge not proceeded with because it was eventually discovered that at the time of the alleged assault he had been in another part of the prison under the control of a group of prison officers. However, Mr. Golder believed that he was denied parole because the false information which suggested that he had assaulted a prison officer had been lodged in his file.
Mr. Golder decided to write to his Member of Parliament and the local chief constable, to draw their attention to his version of the events and the ensuing hardships he had been subjected to as a result of this chain of circumstances. However, the prison governor stopped the letters on the grounds that Mr. Golder had failed to raise the subject matter of the letters through the authorised channels, as at that time required by the prison rules. Subsequently he was refused permission to consult a solicitor with a view to

205
commencing civil proceedings. Once again this case wound its weary way through, first, the European Commission and subsequently the European Court of Human Rights. The total time involved was five years. That was for a man who had been treated deplorably by representatives of the British state.
I come now to the third and most recent example. It is the case of Messrs. Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell. Those men are non-mandatory life sentence prisoners currently in custody. Mr. Thynne has been in prison for 15 years, Mr. Wilson for 18 years and Mr. Gunnell for 25 years. Both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Gunnell were released for a time but were recalled from their periods of licence. That was one of the issues before the European Court of Human Rights.
Perhaps I may concentrate on the case of Mr. Wilson. He first attempted to assert his rights in the British courts. He failed. Eventually he put his application to the Commission in October 1985. The court gave judgment in October of this year, eight years after he had first raised the issue in the courts. What did the European Court of Human Rights decide with regard to those cases? It held that there had been a clear breach of those men's rights under Article 5(4) of the convention. The court took the same view of this matter as did the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on murder and life imprisonment in a report so far, I fear, ignored by the Government. The court took the view that it was wrong for the Executive by itself to take the ultimate decision as to when to release such prisoners. As the Select Committee stated, and the Court of Human Rights has also said, that decision must be made by a tribunal which has the characteristics of a court of law.
I know that we shall be dealing with that issue when the Criminal Justice Bill comes before this House from another place. But can we really tolerate a situation in which the prisoner to whom I have referred—namely, Mr. Wilson—has had to wait eight years for justice, and all because the European convention is not incorporated in British law? If it had been, there is not the slightest doubt that Mr. Wilson, Mr. Thynne, Mr. Webster, Mr. Young, Mr. Golder and all the others would not have experienced such appalling delays in having their cases considered.
I could give a lengthy list of other cases in which similar deplorable delays have taken place for precisely the same reasons. They are cases involving the rights of mental patients under compulsory confinement, judicial birching in the Isle of Man, and the laws of contempt to which my noble friend referred under which a ban was imposed on an article on thalidomide in the Sunday Times.
We have a situation in which, as my noble friend Lord Hutchinson said, 80 United Kingdom laws and regulations have had to be repealed or amended as a result of proceedings under the convention. Yet still there is this last ditch effort by some to prevent incorporation. Many Members of this House, and many outside it, are convinced that far more must be
206
done in this country to buttress the civil rights of our fellow citizens. The first essential step on that road is to incorporate the convention into our domestic law.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the very gracious remarks that he made. I appreciate them.
In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, perhaps I may say that in the streets of Cheltenham at the moment the cry of human rights is not quite irrelevant. I thank the noble Lord, I believe on behalf of your Lordships, for introducing the Motion in such an eloquent way. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has a vigorous sincerity matched only by the vigour of his speech. He asked me if I would see the light. If on grounds of personal safety I do not wish to tread the road of Damascus at this moment I know that your Lordships will understand.
However, I certainly will revert to what I believe to be my party's view on the subject matter that we have been discussing so interestingly this afternoon. To say that this House, or any part of it, is in favour of human rights and progressing them as much as possible is the equivalent of saying that this House is in favour of justice, goodness and righteousness. There is no section in your Lordships' House or in another place that would not immediately advocate the protection of human rights. The question that your Lordships have to answer, as I see it, is how best to do that. Does one do so by incorporating the convention into our law?
It is a strange but interesting exercise to ask why our country has never been tempted to enter into a written constitution. With his usual eloquence, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, with his great knowledge of history, referred as though in similar terms to the matter that we were discussing this afternoon, to Magna Charta, and a Bill of Rights, a celebration of which we had last year by way of a tercentenary. Magna Charta of course represents an argument between the barons and the king, not the citizen and the king. The Bill of Rights was a matter between Parliament and the king, not the citizen and the king or the citizen and Parliament.
This afternoon we are considering the question of individual human rights, and the best way of protecting and enforcing them. I revert to this question: why have we not yielded to the temptation, if temptation it be, of a written constitution? Historians have tried to answer that question in modern times. At least one of them came to the conclusion that it was because we have had no really violent change in our history ever since the successful invasion of these shores in 1066. By the grace of God there has been no repetition of that. Of course there had been a brief period of a commonwealth but there was a reversion to the monarchical system—modified as it may have been—which had preceded the commonwealth.

207
Because one finds that in the United States and France a violent change was followed by the need for a constitution, those countries have one. When we gave freedom to those who had been in our empire, who were starting an entirely new era in their history with an entirely new system of government, we ensured that they too had a constitution. Before one embodies a written code into our legislation, one has to ensure that it does not have the looseness, the argumentative creation, and the lack of clarity of some constitutions.
That is necessary from the point of view of our tradition. The subject has been raised in the debate but in a way which differed slightly from the way in which I propose to deal with it. If our courts have jurisdiction to interpret a law and to penalise people who break it, it is with our worthwhile tradition that the law is clear, precise and our judges can interpret it easily. Without creating law, they are declaring what already is the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, spoke of political connotations. I paraphrase because that may not have been his exact phrase—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, that was not a phrase that I used.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I made a note of the phrase that the noble Lord used: it was "political overtones". I am not referring to political overtones but to political decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was right in quoting to your Lordships Article 8 of the convention. At this moment your Lordships must appoint yourselves as judges. In this context you have not to be lawyers in order that you may decide matters. The article states:
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right".
The right is to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. The article continues:
"except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society".
Is that a political or judicial decision? If I ask your Lordships as judges to interpret what you feel ought to be in a democratic society, am I asking you for a legal definition or interpretation or for a political answer to a political question? The article continues:
"in the interests of national security, public safety",
and I suppose that there could be evidence of that from the Ministries of Defence and Transport and the Home Office,
"or the economic well-being of the country".
In our adversarial way of conducting proceedings in court, is that an issue that judges should be called upon to decide? Are these not political matters for a political body? Have we not Parliament to deal with them? Is it so wrong that we have the sovereignty of Parliament? We have done pretty well with it so far in regard to the freedom of our subjects, even though there may be gaps. If there are gaps, what is the best way of dealing with the situation—
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, looking at Article 8, is the noble Lord's case that he would prefer the Executive to come to court and say, "That
208
is in the interests of national security", and the court would have to accept that; or for the court to decide, "Well, we hear that but is it necessary in a democratic society?"
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I can answer that question very well. I should hope that, in dealing with national security in a court that is open to the public and to visitors from abroad, we should not have the Ministry of Defence arguing that a matter is in the interests of national security and giving reasons, a counsel for the other party arguing that in his view it is not in the interests of national security and the judge having to decide what is in the interests of national security. I stand by that and by precisely the same argument as regards economic well being.
I answer the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, by asking the question: what is my party standing for in this matter? Is it that we too are among those who have no regard for the freedom of the subject and human rights? I do not endeavour to enter into a competition, but I believe that my party has been standing up for human rights and those citizens who are not often able to speak for themselves. I am proud of that tradition. I do not deny that other parties have also participated in the fight for freedom and human rights but my party's tradition is very proud.
If, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, there are cases where human rights are not protected according to the law of our land and we must go to Strasbourg or to a convention to argue the matter, what is Parliament doing by not legislating in the clearest possible terms in regard to such matters? Are we incapable of doing so? With our long history, must we go to Strasbourg for a lesson? There are areas, and we all know them, where there is a gap in our law. My party—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Does he recall that when the Government of which he was a distinguished supporter legislated in the Webster case I warned the House—and I was contradicted from the Woolsack —that there was a breach of the human rights convention at the time the matter was being debated here? We were beaten down.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I always regret the noble and learned Lord being beaten down. There have been only a few occasions during his lifetime when that has happened. If we were responsible for one of them we made an interesting chapter in his biography.
I was saying that there are gaps in our law in regard to human rights and we on this sidle of the House know of them. There are issues of safeguarding privacy, the security powers in our land and protecting human rights in many directions. We have said that we shall produce a freedom of information Bill. We have said that by legislation we shall protect private rights from intrusion. There are also other areas for consideration. All I ask of your Lordships is to give my party the power to introduce those Bills before you. I know that they will have your Lordships' support.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for raising what has proved to be a worthwhile topic for debate. He expounded his case with ability, clarity and fairness. We have heard many important contributions. I agree with some of the points made by the noble Lord; in particular that the subject should not be monopolised by lawyers. I hope that in the time available I shall be able to touch on most of the points which noble Lords raised.
The Government are firm believers in and supporters of the European Convention on Human Rights. Let there be no doubt about that. Now that we have just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the opening for signature of the convention, we see that these basic rights have stood the test of time.
Since the UK ratified the convention, there has been debate over the years as to whether we should incorporate its provisions in our domestic law. The Select Committee on a Bill of Rights of your Lordships' House which sat in 1977 and 1978 concluded that in any country, whatever its constitution, the existence or absence of legislation in the nature of a Bill of Rights can in practice play only a minor part in the protection of human rights. The committee also concluded that it had received no evidence that human rights were better protected in countries which had a code of basic rights embodied in their law than they were in the United Kingdom. I see no reason to think that matters have changed in the interim.
Nevertheless, we must recognise that there is criticism of the fact that we have not incorporated the European convention on the grounds that there have been a number of unfavourable judgments against us in Strasbourg. However, that needs to be put in context.
We have heard it said that we compare unfavourably with other countries when the ECHR league table, as it were, is consulted. Statistics in this field can give a false impression; for example, of the 26 court findings of violations by the UK five concerned similar child care cases heard simultaneously. Moreover, there is no distinction between major and minor violations and there have been cases in which the UK has been vindicated in respect of the major issue, although a finding is recorded against us on a minor subsidiary point. I should add also that our record in providing a remedy is a good one and violations have been recorded against us even though we have subsequently changed the law.
In relation to decisions of the court, one has to recognise that the statistics take no account of when a country accepted the right of individual petition. The UK accepted the right of individual petition since 1966, whereas a number of other countries have accepted it much more recently; for example, France and Spain in 1981 and Turkey in 1986. Since, in addition, it can take five or six years for an application to be decided by the court or Committee of Ministers, it is not surprising that fewer violations have been
210
found in the case of those countries. We regard as fallacious, therefore, the argument that breaches against the United Kingdom demonstrate the need for incorporation and would argue that we have a good record overall.
It has been suggested that Parliament can no longer adequately protect our citizens and that as government activity increases in complexity, the need for protection is all the greater, but afforded all the less. But we consider incorporation of the convention into domestic law would not bring the advantages claimed.
It is the Government's firm view that imposing on the judges a duty to interpret the convention would add a new and undesirable dimension to their current role. That new role would be to decide broad issues of policy. The more we draw judges into political matters, the more shall we impinge on the constitutional concept of the political neutrality of the judges in terms of the general public's perception of them.
It is worth reminding ourselves that in respect of judicial review, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, the grounds of challenge do not extend to the merits of the action under challenge. In judicial review the courts do not seek to substitute their view for that of the Government on such matters as national security and the public interest. The courts are concerned with the procedure whereby the act in question was taken, not the action itself.
I mentioned the judges' role in judicial review simply to emphasise that those who say that requiring them to interpret the convention would introduce no radical change are, in our view, being unduly optimistic.
I do not doubt for one moment that British judges would be far better placed than those in Strasbourg to decide what does and does not comply with the convention in the British context. But that is not the point. The point is that at present judges are charged with interpreting and applying the will of Parliament as set down in precisely drafted statute law. Interpreting the principles set down in the convention would be an entirely different matter, and would involve the weighing of policy issues and conclusions being reached on the basis of the judges' perceptions of the public interest.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said—and I hope that I have better luck than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in finding the exact words which the noble Lord used—judges would tend to become embroiled in political issues and, like the noble Lord, I should find it hard to take the judicial encroachment on our traditional procedures.
The commission and court have tended to construe the various articles in the light of political, social and ethical developments in Europe. This approach has meant that the court and Committee of Ministers have, on occasion, reached decisions which would have been quite unforeseen at the time of our signature and ratification. For example, it was determined in Strasbourg that not only did prisoners

211
have a right to marry provided for in the UK, but that they also had a right to marry within prison itself. To meet this judgment, an amendment to our marriage law was necessary and enacted. We have to ask ourselves whether the judiciary in the United Kingdom might not also adopt a similarly dynamic approach, based on political and other considerations, if faced with interpretation of such broadly defined principles.
Another disadvantage of the proposal to incorporate the convention into domestic law is that it would introduce a significant element of uncertainty into the law. Strasbourg, in finding against us, cannot strike down our law. The court and Committee of Ministers create no vacuum and time is given to reflect and make changes, if Parliament agrees.
Incorporation of the convention would be a recipe for muddle and confusion. We might well find ourselves facing a scenario such as this: Parliament passes a law, without reserved provision, which it fully believed to conform to the convention. Next day, or next year, this law could be struck down by a judge who, acting in good faith, took a different view according to his perceptions of the public interest. The judgment would have immediate effect which in turn could have urgent and significant administrative implications. I suggest this would impose an unpredictable burden on Parliament. If, for example, the law concerned entry to the UK, there would be enormous problems attendant thereafter on the operation of entry control procedures while a new law was being prepared.
A number of points were raised to which I should like to refer. I do not believe that I was asked any specific questions although perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, asked me some rhetorical questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, made the point that most other countries have incorporated the provisions of the convention without difficulty. He asked, therefore, why we could not do that. The answer is that we do not have a written constitution although, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I do not find that to be an embarrassment. Rights exist under common law in this country unless taken away by statute. Thus, an Englishman's home is his castle unless Parliament gives power to the police or others to enter it. To introduce conferred rights into our present system by way of a written constitution could have effects which are not readily apparent. The same problems do not necessarily arise in other countries which have written constitutions and the need to confer rights. Therefore, for them it is far less of a departure from tradition to incorporate the convention.
As regards doing something different from that which other Eastern countries may be about to do, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland would be amazed if they were told that we in this country wished to adapt our traditional practices to fit in with whatever they choose to do now. Surely they are in the position of wanting to learn from us and to select what
212
they want from our constitutional arrangements rather than the other way round, now that they have emerged from the dark night of communist tyranny.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway suggested that it may be possible to establish a commission to deal specifically with complaints regarding breaches of human rights. I wonder if we really need that in addition to our domestic courts—leading up to the House of Lords—and the European Commission—leading up to the European Court. All those remedies are available whether or not we incorporate the convention.
I agree with the basic tenor of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He referred to the exceptions set out in Article 8 of the convention. I agree that it should not be for the courts to determine matters of public policy or the public interest. As I indicated earlier, I agree that the political arena is not the place for judges.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that in his view the independent selection and training of judges is the best guarantee that they will continue to command public respect and confidence, even if we incorporate the convention. I suggest that one only needs to look to the United States to realise that a time may soon come when a judge's political neutrality is something that may be called into question. It is apparent that in the United States the most important criteria for appointment to the Supreme Court are the candidate's social and political views.
I cannot accept the characterisation by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, of my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister's Government as authoritarian and anti-libertarian. On the contrary, during the terms of office of my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister the Government acted in many areas to strengthen and extend individual liberties. I can give a few examples such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Data Protection Act 1984. There are also other examples.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I obviously misheard what the Minister said. Did he suggest that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was the responsibility of the present Administration? That would be mildly surprising, but it may be that I misheard what he said.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it would be plainly incorrect for me to say that. I mentioned the Equal Pay Act and the Data Protection Act. There are others such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Those are not indications or the product of an authoritarian government.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in 1975 we had a Labour Government.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I stand corrected. However, other examples prove the point I was trying to make.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will accept from this side of the House that we do not intend to propose a ministerial discrimination.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance.

213
My noble friend Lord Beloff pointed out that incorporation would not be a panacea, and that as the right of individual petition would remain, litigating matters in British courts first would only add to the length of time it would take for an eventual decision to be reached in Strasbourg.
That brings me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others relating to the length of time, which they deplored, before decisions in Strasbourg can be heard. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, also referred to the long five-year trek, as he put it, to Strasbourg. I assure noble Lords that discussions are currently taking place in the Council of Europe regarding the splitting up of the Strasbourg machinery. That is something in which we are very much involved.
However, it should not be thought that incorporation will obviate the necessity of providing for the individual right of petition to Strasbourg if applicants are not satisfied by the interpretation which judges in the United Kingdom place on the incorporation provisions. They would still have the right to apply to the Commission and that would lengthen the procedure which exists rather than shorten it.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to the case of the closed shop. I do not want to comment in any detail on specific cases that he raised, save to say that the Government have further extended individual freedom by giving ordinary trade union members the right to be balloted before industrial action.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, argued that if we accepted the Treaty of Rome provisions as part of our law, we should also accept the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. My answer is that the Treaty of Rome contains specific provisions. Those which have direct application are drafted in specific terms which would leave limited scope for different interpretation. On the other hand, the European convention sets out a set of principles in general terms. That leaves much scope for interpretation, as illustrated by the differences that arise even between the Commission and the court.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that I and others who argued in the same way are making a last ditch effort to prevent incorporation. I do not believe it is as imminent as the use of that term implies. There is no evidence that the public seek a written constitution. There is no great clamour for change, as my noble friend Lord Beloff pointed out. Over the years and centuries we have evolved a stable constitutional system second to none. It depends on delicate checks and balances. If the price of incorporation is a threat to the impartial independence of the judiciary and the ordinary working of the legislature, then I submit that that price is too high.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, this has been a very worth while debate, and I shall not detain the House for more than a moment. I do not propose to respond to the many interesting points raised in the course of the debate. However, I should like to thank
214
the Minister for the care of his summing-up, as I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the cogency of his summing-up. It is interesting how, by different routes, they ended up on the common ground of constitutional conservatism and institutional inertia—I am sure that they will not mind my saying that—and very well done, too.
I should like equally to thank my noble friends Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, Lord McGregor of Durris and Lord Harris of Greenwich for the eloquence of their support, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for his fated but gallant attempt to find common ground in the House on this issue. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for his careful judiciousness on an issue in which in many ways he played a prominent role over the years.
I should like to pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for the trenchancy of his intervention. He seemed at times to positively prefer the prospect of people rioting in the streets before we contemplated reform. I prefer reform to revolution. I particularly enjoyed his exposition of the virtues of intelligence as compared with the vices of intelligentsia. I found myself wondering whether one needs to have been a vice-chancellor to make distinctions of such subtlety.
The issues of the Bill of Rights and the incorporation of the European Convention will not go away. I believe that this afternoon your Lordships performed a public service in raising those issues again. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Land Use
5.18 p.m.
Lord Hampton Lord Hampton rose to call attention to the problems that arise in determining land use in Britain today; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name, there are a number of introductory comments that I need to make. It may be asked whether it is necessary to call attention to a subject so much in the public eye. Last week I had not anticipated that. We debated the Planning and Compensation Bill. Following this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will be asking a Question regarding the use of land on the site of the battlefield of Naseby.
Land is very precious today, and conflicting demands for its use often require careful consideration. I still clearly have in mind the bitter battle fought some time back as to which side of Okehampton a by-pass should be built. I look forward to hearing the Government's reply from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I believe it will be the first time that he has wound up a debate of this sort, just as it is my first time to open one. I gave him notice of a number of questions, and I hope that the House will bear with me if they already know the answers; I believe that the questions can be repeated with value.
I do not seek to be party political. I sincerely believe that my colleagues on these Benches talk very good sense. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, encouraged me to table this Motion. I am delighted that he, as a former distinguished chairman of the Countryside Commission, will be winding up for the party from these Benches and filling in some of the gaps that I leave. For example, I believe that he will be dealing with national parks. I am also pleased that my noble friend Lord Cobbold will deal with the difficulties concerning planning restrictions.
I should like to emphasise my use in the Motion of the words "in Britain today". In a short debate I wanted to cut out, so far as possible, a return to the disastrous effects of the felling of tropical rain forests and the problems involved in deciding whether or how to exploit the mineral resources of Antarctica. Finally, but by no means least, there is the shattering effect that the world population increase could have on the lives of every human being. We cannot and should not forget those problems; but I seek so far as possible to limit the debate to Britain.
There is also the use of the word "today". The Clerks suggested that I should leave out that word because one cannot determine anything except in the present, and Clerks in your Lordships' House are clever people. However, I asked for the word to be retained in order to emphasise how much more critical and difficult it is to determine present land use than in the time of, say, the Victorians only 100 years ago.
Recently a friend said to me in casual conversation that she believes the present situation of wars, terrorism, disease, population explosion and unwise use of the planet's resources is apocalyptic. A spokesman from Lambeth Palace said he thought that was nonsense. However, I still have a very real unease about the way, nationally, we are treating our homeland and on what we shall hand over to future generations. It is argued with some accuracy that market forces are too often allowed to bring immediate benefits but only at the cost of long-term disadvantage. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have agreed to speak today.
I shall deal first with the countryside. I have been well briefed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England —CPRE—both from London and from Worcestershire, my home county. I have also been briefed by the Country Landowners' Association. It is right to acknowledge the great influence for good that landowners and farmers have had on the countryside in the past. Long may that continue. As the CLA states:
"CLA believes that agriculture and agricultural policies are crucial to the future of rural society and rural land use".
I shall touch on farming, but I must leave that subject largely to the experts at this very critical time both at home and abroad. I live in a farmhouse but, as the lawyers so neatly put it, my land covers a third of an acre or thereabouts, be it more or less. When, after the gales early this year, I was asked if I had lost many trees on my estate, the questioner seemed injured when I replied that I had not many trees to lose! Mainly because of its effect on the countryside, I
216
shall also trespass once again on the transport debate because I believe some of what has been said on previous occasions needs repeating.
Finally, I shall turn to the question of whether derelict land in cities and towns should not urgently be considered for use to ease the housing pressure elsewhere. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will deal with that subject. My noble friend Lord Sandys neatly describes part of the cause of the ceaseless demand for new houses in the countryside as "the gravel drive syndrome". Simply put, many people who in the past were content to live in small terraced houses, with a bicycle at the back, now want a detached house with a gravel drive and parking space for perhaps two or even three cars. Urbanisation follows. I shall seek some alternative to reduce the pressure, while accepting that there is an urgent need for more low-cost housing to keep humbler folk in the countryside.
In Worcestershire, the CPRE is concerned that the Secretary of State did not accept the revised Hereford and Worcester structure plan and has made several amendments which have weakened control on major planning developments. In particular, the Minister imposed an increase of over 5,000 in the number of houses without giving any precise reason. It is felt that the loss of power of the county to plan over a wider area than that of the local authority is worrying. It seems that the new powers of the local authority to consider new villages, and the obligation to plan for more housing than realistically expected, will lead to an irrevocable loss of agricultural land. The CPRE's attitude in Worcestershire is that new villages should be away from green belts—otherwise another urban fringe will be created—and should be of around 500 houses, in keeping with other villages nearby, with easy access to a railway station if at all possible. A further anxiety is that regional authorities will be responsible for, and control, too large an area.
I shall just touch on the reduction in cereal grants to farmers and the array of alternatives to compensate: set-aside, development grants and grants for environmentally sensitive areas. I hope that others with personal knowledge will deal with the effects these will have. As a non-farmer, set-aside seems seriously flawed in that it is entirely negative. In a world where many go hungry, it has always seemed strange to me that our problem today is to avoid producing too much food.
There have been a number of developments in the countryside, often in the name of tourism. Some are undesirable in themselves, though most must have planning permission, but one of the dangers that can arise is that the enterprise goes bust and the buildings are subsequently put to an entirely new use.
There has been a great rush to apply for planning permission to build golf courses—quite a lot in Hereford and Worcester county. There is no objection to them per se, but with club houses, pro's shops, hotels, roads and parking spaces they can greatly change the nature of an area. Caravan sites are an

217
eyesore, and noisy pursuits such as clay pigeon shooting and grass track racing can disturb the peace over a wide area.
I now venture to re-examine some of the Government's transport policies because they bear so importantly on what sort of land we live in and, to quote the Prince of Wales, lest we,
"bequeath to our descendants a legacy of ugliness and insensitivity".
The motorists' needs or wants are only part of the problem. My wife and I used to take six hours to drive our children to Devon by the A.38, known then as "the longest lane in Britain". Today, using the M.5, we can cover the distance comfortably in half that time. That is a blessing. However, last year we visited the Wirral Peninsula where my parents lived during the war. I was depressed by the totally changed atmosphere; the vast new roads where, albeit, one could travel at speed on the acres of concrete and tarmac. Sentimentality, perhaps; but I sighed for the country lanes where I cycled happily to the farm where I worked during school holidays.
In a chapter on planning in the Liberal-Democrat Agenda for Environmental Action these words appear:
"We need to plan in order to reduce the use of cars, with the enormous expenditure of energy this involves".
I submit that the price is too high just to travel at speed. Less than two years ago the Government produced a colourful so-called White Paper, Roads for Prosperity, which proudly stated that,
"protecting and enhancing the environment will continue to be a major feature of the Government's road building plans".
The Government then announced a major new road building programme—£12 billion to be spent in 10 years. To critics, the two statements just did not add up. In reply, the CPRE listed at least 17 outstandingly beautiful areas that would suffer. I have with me a recent up-date, with a series of beautiful scenes but accompanied, alas, by the words, "at risk", "sacrificed", "under attack", "vulnerable" and "condemned". The CPRE also pointed out that the forecast of an increase in road traffic by the year 2025 of up to 140 per cent. would mean either, parked, the vehicles would need an extra area the size of Berkshire or, moving, a road from London to Edinburgh 257 lanes wide. Even the Secretary of State could see that this increase would be intolerable.
Now, in the summary of the recent White Paper on the environment, This Common Inheritance, we read on page 19:
"We can drive less, park more responsibly, use public transport more often, and cycle more, when it is safe to do so".
On page 11 it says:
"As travellers we can help by driving less and saving fuel, buying more efficient cars, sharing journeys to work, or using the train or bus if possible".
Therefore, the questions that I should like to put to the noble Viscount are these: first, can he briefly bring the House up to date on whether the policy outlined in Road to Prosperity has been up-dated and, if so, how?
Secondly, will the Government take on board the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Robson that the use of smaller cars would be advantageous for easier parking with less need for car parks, smaller fuel consumption and less exhaust emissions? A tax incentive would surely make sense. Thirdly, can the Minister say how many civil servants are concerned with road problems and railway problems?
The Government say that they propose to get rid of about 4,000 waste disposal sites by incineration and reclamation. That is excellent, but when will that happen? I now turn to cities and derelict sites. The CPRE highlights in its response to the Department of the Environment's review of derelict land policy, that the Government have been negative about the review group's recommendations for the prevention of dereliction and the problem of dereliction on private land. CPRE estimates that 55 per cent. of derelict land is in private hands. The Government have been very hard on local authorities owning unused land, but what will they do to encourage private owners not to leave land derelict?
Derelict land policy has important links with strategic planning policies that seek to encourage the regeneration of urban areas and protect the countryside. Perhaps I may suggest a way of tackling the problem of land use which needs to be explored more seriously. It is a way of preventing the emergence of derelict and badly used land. It is called land value taxation. The name is familiar to many people and the idea has long been around. I suggest that it is time that we seriously considered its merits.
The land market is crying out for reform; but, despite the dire effects of ridiculous booms and slumps in house prices on the rest of the economy, incredibly it has been overlooked. Land is very inefficiently used with large tracts left idle especially by speculators in cities. Developers sometimes wait for whole areas to degenerate so that they can build large projects which destroy the local community. Land tax encourages organic growth in a community because it becomes uneconomic to leave vacant plots standing for any length of time.
The effective use of available land will result in cities sprawling less which also eases transport problems as people commute less. It takes pressure off the countryside and surrounding cities. It becomes uneconomic not to extend a building to the height which is allowed by planning law so that one-storey shops, as in Tottenham Court Road, will want to make more economic use of their land by building upwards. Although we may like having a low skyline, we have to choose between spoiling more of our countryside or moving upwards a little.
I accept that this is a highly controversial point, but I know that in New York, for example, higher accommodation is higher priced. A land tax works by making owners pay a tax on the value of their land and not on the value of the buildings on it. If it was introduced, other taxes could be diminished in order not to increase the overall tax burden. Land valuation is much easier than buildings-plus-land valuation as two buildings near to one another will vary more in

219
price than the land on which they are built. So it would he simpler than the old rates system and could be updated yearly on a computer. The tax should be gradually implemented—that is to say, start at a low percentage rate and be gradually increased. When first brought in, people could estimate the value of their own land which would then be corrected when the valuers made their estimate and a rebate or a supplementary charge made.
A tax on land would provide an incentive to use it in a way which maximises the return that the owner gets on it. For this reason it would encourage building which in turn stimulates the whole economy. More housing and business space would become available so rents might fall. Because of the increased incentive to build it would be necessary for land value taxation to be part of a package with planning law so that buildings did not appear where they were not wanted. We would also have to be sure that the farmers did not suffer as the result of the introduction of this tax.
As I prepared this speech I realised more and more what a vast subject it is and how inexpert I am. It is a subject which is often brought up for discussion in one form or another. It is one which interests and concerns me greatly. I now look forward very much to hearing what other speakers have to say. I beg to move for Papers.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for bringing this subject forward for general debate today. It is of vital importance, particularly at the present time. I speak primarily as a farmer and agriculturist and it is in that way that I look on the land. The preservation of the countryside depends very much on its use and the use made of the land. That depends not only on agriculture, which still remains the most important element, but on the way in which those who live in urban areas treat the rural areas and how much co-operation can be sustained between those two interests.
As we heard today during Question Time, the GATT negotiations are going on. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, then hinted that I had been deeply concerned and associated with agriculture in the countryside since 1934. That is when I married the Minister of Agriculture. The industry was then at its lowest and most depressed state. It was rather as it is now. Looking back, it is amazing how the industry has recovered. That has been done by its putting itself in order through inventing machinery, the use of power, co-operating with other organisations, and developing selling organisations such as the Milk Marketing Board and the Meat and Livestock Commission, which also were concerned with marketing.
In addition, the mix of urban and rural dwellers began. Homes were built in the villages, transport was improved and people began to use cars. So the rural and industrial world began to get together. That was a long time ago. Today, thousands of people live in the country and work in the towns. That is a good development. But the need to use the land for farming
220
and rural activities remains vital. The use of land depends on what it will grow and what the public want.
It is uneconomic for farmers to grow crops which require much artificial manure or crops which are not suitable for our climate. However, much food is wanted and we can produce it better and more economically than elsewhere. I refer to dairy produce, mutton and beef from the hills and less favoured areas and vegetables and fruit of the pick-your-own variety. Underlying all production is the importance of keeping rural amenities to be shared and used by urban dwellers for holidays, weekends, sport, recreation, ramblers, and any amount of general use which fits in with the enthusiasm of the people who call themselves the greens.
These provisions are not easy to achieve; neither are they cheap. To let land go to wilderness costs nothing until you want to restore it to use. It costs enormous sums of money to restore land to the beauty with which it began. The subsidies that come to less favoured areas, which represent about 80 per cent. of the land in Scotland, Wales and northern England, are an investment which pays dividends not only in producing food, which is important, but in preserving rural areas for the pleasure of hundreds of thousands of people living in cities and towns who come to the country at weekends or for holidays and who want to live there. They enjoy it all as much as we do living there.
However, that cannot be done without financial support. Agricultural workers are worth proper wages. One could not pay them if one did not have some help. Farmers must have enough returns to enable them to bring up and educate their families. In the end, all that is shared and everyone benefits. The needs of rural areas bring employment through, for example, village schools, post offices, village shops, pharmaceutical services, doctors and many other amenities.
The demand for low-cost housing today is enormous and shows that people want to live in or near the countryside. Some transport for those who do not like cars is also needed, and village halls, where the community, both urban and rural, can meet and mix are of vital importance. All those things are part of the rural community. They are part of the preservation of land and part of the use of land.
We are discussing a subject which affects not only the land and the farmers but the whole population who come to the rural areas for the reasons I have suggested. It is up to the Government, supported by the farming industry, to see that that continues into the 1990s.
5.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am obliged to begin with an apology to the House. I have a long-standing engagement, a meeting in which I shall be in the chair, which was fixed nine months ago. It will me oblige me to leave at 6.30 p.m.; therefore I shall not be here for the conclusion of a fascinating debate. My noble friend Lord Dean who is to reply

221
from this Dispatch Box has torn himself away from shadow cabinet but may not be present at the very end of the debate. There is therefore an element of Box and Cox in our representation for which I apologise, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who introduced the debate.
There are many aspects of this vast subject on which one would find it tempting to speak. I say straight-away that I shall not speak on the rural aspects with which the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, dealt. In one sense the noble Lord is a century too late in introducing the subject for debate. If we had been debating it in this House 100 years ago we would be doing so not as a matter of interesting political or social policy. Members of your Lordships' House in those days owned most of the land in this country, as David Cannadine, in his wide ranging volume on the British aristocracy, made clear. Between them Members of this House and of another place held something like 70 per cent. of the land and a very high proportion of the wealth, both landed and industrial, although industrial wealth was a more important factor in the House of Commons. In that sense anything noble Lords had to say about the use of land would have been law instantly because your Lordships' ancestors would have had the power to determine what would happen to land in this country; and indeed they did.
As a response, my ancestors and my predecessors in the socialist movement in this century went by a very different slogan. In the words of the old song which we heard in socialist Sunday school, "God gave the land to the people". I still feel very strongly that we have retreated from the principle which ought to be foremost in our minds when we think about land use. Land is for the benefit of society, not primarily for the benefit of individual landowners, and the interests of society as a whole—the interests of all the people—should be the determining factor in deciding how land use should develop.
That, indeed, has been accepted as a non-party political point for many years, since the development of town and country planning in the garden cities in the early years of this century and from the Abercrombie plans of the war years through to the Silkin Town and Country Planning Act of the Attlee government in the 1940s. I am glad to acknowledge that we see it in the Planning and Compensation Bill which the House debated only last week. That accepts the value of structure planning and of the enforcement of effective planning and zoning laws rather than attacking it as some right-wing academics proposed in earlier years. I am pleased that noble Lords will have the opportunity to support structure planning and zoning when we debate this important Bill in Committee after Christmas.
Urban planning is however my main theme. It is clear that there will never be enough land in our urban areas to provide the homes, the space and the jobs that people want; the services ancillary to those jobs, whether retail, wholesale or of another kind; or the
222
recreational facilities that are necessary. Not only will there never be enough space: there will always be an excess of demand over supply. The land that is available will almost certainly always be in the wrong place. This will give rise to unnecessary and unpleasant journeys, particularly for those of us who commute to and from our places of work and to and from the places that provide the services necessary for a civilised life.
In an urban environment an important consideration is the quantity of land and, as an extension of that, the value of land. Another consideration is the way in which the different uses of land are interdependent. We must seek to secure that that interdependence is benign rather than malign and that people have the opportunity for a decent life in our cities. Without any disrespect to those who uphold the values of rural life, the vast majority of the people of this country live in cities and towns. It is they who feel most acutely the clash which is inevitable over land use and over the issue of the supply of land.
I turn from the issue of the shortage of urban land to consider its value and how we can secure that such land is used effectively at economic cost to our society. There are some extreme examples of how all governments, but this one in particular, take advantage of the difference in values of land in order to shape the way they want the economy and society to go. The classic example is the roads programme of the Department of Transport. Trunk roads both in urban and rural areas are planned not along the shortest and most convenient route but along the route which costs the least. They are planned on the basis that land which is used for recreational purposes costs nothing. Indeed the Department of Transport is quite open in saying that sometimes recreational land in urban areas not only costs nothing but costs less than nothing.
An example can be found close to where I live. I refer to the part of the North Circular Road which is to be widened at Henley's Corner in Hampstead Garden Suburb. As a child I used to clamber through the tunnel under the old A.1 which carried Mutton Brook. It is now three times as wide as it was then. I think I have lost some of the bravado I had as a child of 10.
It is planned to widen the A.1 even more. And that widening is to be carried out on public open space. It is to be done, the Department of Transport argues, not only because the land has no value but because the capitalised cost of the maintenance which the London borough of Barnet has to carry out is to be held against it. Roads go where they are environmentally least desirable because of the way in which the land is valued. I could give your Lordships many examples, but probably the most offensive is that concerning Ox Leas Wood in south east London where the east London river crossing is to run partly in a cutting rather than in a tunnel. It is an 8,000 year-old wood which provides an easy but not necessarily the most direct route for the crossing. It has been chosen because the wood has no value.

223
Professor David Pearce, who has been the environmental adviser to the Secretary of State for the Environment, makes the very point. He has stated that the problem with environmental protection is that the environment itself has no value; sometimes it even has a negative value. It is not true that the environment, or land which is used for environmental purposes, is a free good.
Professor Pearce proposed a series of taxes, many of them admirable, for the control of pollution. I do not dissent from that. However, it is not a solution for our urban land nor for the problem which I have identified. To some extent the solution will have to be the implementation of stronger planning controls. That is what we hope to achieve by way of the Planning and Compensation Bill. But it is also to some extent a matter of openness about land ownership. I welcome the fact that the land register became open only last Monday in England and Wales, thus reviving a tradition which started with the Domesday Book in the 11th century.
However, it is not just a question of planning controls; in the end it is a question of money, but not only money. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, referred to land value taxation. I listened with care to his arguments. I hope he is not thinking that that will be a solution to local government finance. It is clear that it will not be. I am not allowed by my right honourable friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose a development land tax, although I should dearly like to do so. It seems to me that that is the only rational solution to the problem. Indeed, my right honourable friend will not allow any of us on these Benches to propose new taxes for very obvious reasons.
It is clear that the taking of private profit from land development causes great distortions in land use and has been the main contributor to the distortion in the development—sometimes unplanned and often very undesirable—of our urban areas over the past 40 or 50 years. What is required is a combination of reform of the value of land together with continuing reform and strengthening of the planning process. The debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has been of enormous value. I am most grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to comment on the issues involved.
5.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I greatly welcome this debate and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for introducing it. The more I have reflected upon it, the more complex and urgent the issues seem to be. Gone are the days when Mark Twain could say to someone asking for sound advice concerning investment that they should:
"buy land, because they aren't making any more of it".
Every day we see new parcels of land becoming available for development through the closure of mills, mines and long-established factories.
Given that we are living in a time of considerable change, there can be few places which demonstrate this fact more vividly than my diocese of Bradford.
224
Not only am I concerned with the industrial city of Bradford—facing as it does all manner of problems and possibilities—but the diocese also stretches north through the incredibly beautiful countryside of the Yorkshire Dales, where we are confronted with a whole host of other issues relating to our use of land.
It is in the Book of Proverbs that vie find the verse:
"He who works his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment".
I fear that we are often in the world of fantasy when speaking about land. The problem is that one man's fantasy is very often another man's employment, and the hopes of one group of people are the fears of another.
Like many northern cities, the city of Bradford is coming to terms with the decline of its major industry and is looking for new ways to diversify and develop. It is essential that it should maintain its industrial base. I am conscious of the large number of people who look to it for employment and for a market for their goods and services.
It is essential that cities such as Bradford have a coherent and comprehensive economic strategy. I am persuaded that the availability of land is a crucial factor in any such strategy. I speak as a theologian and therefore my ignorance of such matters will no doubt reveal itself. But surely what is needed is some form of land bank; that is, areas which have been designated and developed for industrial use, with roads and services already in place, and which are ready to welcome the would-be developer. At a casual glance, the figures of land available for development in the city seem reasonable. However, closer scrutiny reveals that much of it is fragmented and tied to various owners and intentions. There is little use in any such list of available land if there is not, alongside it, information about ownership and intention.
I am also aware of the conflict of interests that can occur on the edges of our cities with regard to green belt policies. I know of industrial interest in an area on the edge of our city which would bring, a thousand jobs to the community. It is within two miles of a large housing estate —where I spent two days last week—where there is a very high level of unemployment. However, the desired site is in the green belt—though such a description hardly gives a true picture of the space.
How do we reconcile the conflicting demands for employment (bringing with it dignity and purpose) with the equally important need for preventing undisciplined urban sprawl? In the age of the motor car, and in situations of industrial decay on the one hand and the new possibilities on the other, it seems to me that we need to look again at our use of land—not in order to shut out our open spaces, but in order to ensure that the people in our communities can live with self-respect, and earn a living for themselves and their families, and that the general economic climate within the community thrives.
I fear that potential investors may well be turned away from some of our cities because we have not fine-tuned our strategies to be sensitive to the

225
multidimensional needs of the community. Therefore, I see a real need for industry, land and transport to be considered together. I am concerned that employment should be available within our cities, for I am only too aware of the real distress and hardship that prolonged unemployment can bring to our communities.
I move north through my diocese and find that there are problems relating to land use in almost every village. What is appropriate development in rural areas? What is the balance between the farmer and the conservationist; between the rural image and the need for employment; and between essential housing for local people and luxury developments for the retired, the commuter or those wanting second homes? In my diocese there are number of buildings which are no longer needed. They are former hospitals or schools which are set in lovely countryside. What should they now be used for? I know of a whole range of enterprising schemes that have been explored, all of which have failed for one reason or another to obtain the necessary planning permission.
A recent report said:
"It is apparent that beneath the surface of an idyllic illusion the social and economic fabric which sustains the Dales is in serious decline—loss of employment opportunity, lack of training, migration of labour, poor earning potential, lack of housing, loss of diversity in industry, lack of employable workers, degradation of communities and lack of social services are some of the issues to be faced".
Hill farmers are under special pressure at the moment because their subsidies are being threatened. We need to realise that any major changes would have a serious effect on our rural communities, because in the Yorkshire Dales sheep farming has an unbroken tradition stretching back to the monks of the 12th century. It is a way of life which has shaped the character of the area. I doubt whether they would agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that people in the cities have needs of greater urgency.
Many people—the tourists who flock to the region —may be aware only of the lack of car parking space or toilet facilities, but I can assure the House that behind such apparent inconveniences there are vociferous interest groups.
I am also aware that within agriculture we need to be thinking on a European level. That dimension may need also to be fed into the discussions about land use that are taking place in many quarters.
I am conscious that I have approached the subject very much from a local perspective. The use that we may make of our land is something with which I am confronted every day, but I believe that what I have been saying has also a much wider perspective. I have tried to suggest that we need to be people-centred, for if we exclude people and impoverish them by our failure to use land creatively, we are building up a store of trouble for ourselves. Failure to provide appropriate housing and employment is a sad form of impoverishment and exclusion.
There is also a bottom line beyond that which concerns our stewardship not merely of the land but,
226
more than that, of the earth and the created order. If we continue to plunder the planet at the rate we are doing at the moment, before long it will be unable to sustain us. I have heard of people saying such things being written off as incurable romantics, but nothing could be further from the truth. The romantics are those who believe that we can just carry on, and that "everything will turn out all right in the end". All the evidence suggests that it will not be so.
I have only to look around my diocese to see that enormous problems are raised by our use of land. Just a few moments of reflection reveal some major areas of confusion and contradiction. If that is true in one small diocese, then how much more true must it be for our nation as a whole. I look forward therefore to more work being done on the subject, for it is sorely needed.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I wish to take his statement literally and talk about problems arising from determining land use. I should like to speak about a specific planning application and to try to draw some conclusions from it. I make it clear to the Minister that I am not asking him to answer any questions about the application. I shall speak about why things happen and what we hope might happen in the future.
Of all applications in rural areas, most developments are, one way or another, at least reversible. There is one that is irreversible—mineral extraction. Whatever happens when minerals are extracted, there is a fundamental and inevitable change to the landscape. That may be why such applications are dealt with by the county council with advice from the district council, rather than is the case for most other planning applications where the procedure is the other way around.
I had the privilege—it seems now many years ago —to be chairman of the county of Norfolk planning and transportation committee. It was my responsibility to take the county structure plan through its first public examination. I admit that my knowledge of planning laws has become a little rusty. Whatever the shortcomings of that structure plan, with its updates and recent submission it is probably one of the greenest structure plans in the country. It is one of which I am proud. It states:
"In controlling the scale and location of all development, the County and District Councils will seek to protect and conserve the quality and character of the countryside and the landscape setting of towns and villages".
The application that was before the county earlier this year was to extract 1.67 million tonnes of sand and gravel from 44 acres of good, grade two and grade three agricultural land to the south of Holt in north Norfolk over 16 to 20 years. That extraction is to be to a depth of 26 feet and would involve at least 38 lorry movements per day on C-class and unclassified roads.
Holt is a pleasant country town some four miles from the sea. It is a heritage coast to the north, and the land between the sea and the town is an area of outstanding natural beauty. The town itself is a

227
conservation area. To the south of the town is a relief road—it can hardly be called a bypass—built on an old railway line which leaves a section of the town, including the police station, the fire station and some 100 dwellings separated from the rest of the town. To the south is a country park, owned and run by the district council, which attracts 60,000 visitors per year. South east of the country park is the Holt Lowes SSSI.
To the west and south of the town runs the River Glaven whose valley has been designated a rural conservation area. Such an area is one to which the district council must not just afford protection but must positively enhance. Within that rural conservation area, and separated from the country park by a mere B-class road, is the application site. Permission to develop it was refused in 1960. There is no proven need for gravel in the area. There are 10 active sites within 25 kilometres of the proposed site, one of which is in the hands of the proposed developer.
There is 10 years' worth of sand and gravel available in the locality. The county council has granted consent so that in the county as a whole some 13 years' worth of sand and gravel is available. Objections to the site were received from the district council (in its advisory capacity), the town council and the parish councils of the neighbouring parishes through which the lorries would inevitably pass. There has been an objection from the Holt Society. The Countryside Commission said that it was concerned, as were the Nature Conservancy Council and the Norfolk Naturist Trust, about the hydrological implications for the SSSI which borders the site. There were but two letters of support, one of which was from a haulage contractor. There were 112 letters from local residents and a petition containing 1,729 signatures was received by the county council.
The main issues were highway safety; the loss of amenity, due to dust, noise and dirt and so forth; loss of enjoyment of the country park; the impact on wildlife; intrusion and damage to the landscape; and danger to children because of the proximity of the town. The planning committee decided to make a visit. This was obviously in a blaze of publicity, after which there were additional comments from the Norfolk Society which is the county branch of the CPRE, the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalist and various further letters from parish councils nearby. A letter was sent by the developer to each member of the committee personally.
The matter was put to the committee earlier last month, on 2nd November, with a firm recommendation from the officers to refuse the application on the grounds that the site was in a rural conservation area; it was too close to the town and would be detrimental to the country park and the enjoyment and peace thereof. The committee passed the application by eight votes to six, across party lines and denied that it was contrary to its policy.
When the district council advertised certain amendments because the area was in a rural conservation area, there were many more objections.
228
When I put my name down to speak in this debate the county council had not met. It met again last Friday and changed its mind.
That is not planning; it is awful. No doubt the saga will continue and there will be an appeal. The whole affair is symptomatic of the extreme pressures put on planning departments and committees, especially if they change their minds (albeit correctly) at the last minute. It would undoubtedly lead to a legal challenge with all the expense that that involves. Somehow it should be avoided.
Perhaps we could identify certain applications—such as where the county and district disagree—on which the Secretary of State could ask for a cooling off period. In theory, last Thursday the development company could have been issued with permission to remove 1.67 million tonnes of sand and gravel and nothing could have stopped them.
Does the Minister think that a cooling off period is possible in conditions such as when the county and district councils disagree? If a decision is contrary to the new county structure plans and the new district area plans when they are in place, there should be a strong case—whether the application is approved or refused—for the Secretary of State to examine it. After all, the position last Thursday was that the Secretary of State, in theory anyway, did not even know that such an application existed. So how could he call it in? If it had been agreed, I can see no way in which, if the county agreed that it was not contrary to its policy, the Secretary of State could call it in.
Perhaps the Minister will advise me also on this. I see nothing in the Planning and Compensation Bill which is before the House which will alleviate the situation. The calling in of such an application by the Secretary of State would still be democratic, especially if a local inquiry is held. Or would it?
6.14 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble friend Lord Hampton for initiating the debate on this important subject. In supporting him, I should first mention that I am an active member of the Historic Houses Association and also the owner of a historic property in the home counties that is open to the public.
I wish to raise only two issues, the first of which concerns our villages and was touched upon by my noble friend. Villages are an important part of the fabric of this country, but their character is changing. The existence over many years of very strict planning laws, particularly in the metropolitan green belt but also in other parts of the country, has forced up house prices to the extent that the children of the traditional inhabitants of our villages cannot afford to live there when they grow up. They are forced to move into the towns and cities.
Village houses are acquired by commuters or, if they are further afield, as second homes for city dwellers, people who generally have less connection with the countryside. This cannot be described as the free market at work because it is not a free market, it is a fallout from strict planning control and land use

229
policies. Longstanding family connections and links with the land are broken. The character of the village changes and diversity of population is reduced.
I know that various ideas have been suggested to deal with the problem, but so far without much success. A scheme is needed that permits limited low-cost housing to be built in villages which would be available only to those who can demonstrate a particular residential or family connection with the area.
I do not advocate uniform council estates. Too many of these already mar the appearance of our villages. Any such building should blend into the existing surroundings, using traditional building materials. Good design is paramount, but new ideas and imagination will be necessary if the cost of the accommodation is to be kept low. It seems to me illogical that villages which have been living organisms and part of our history for so long should be frozen for all time at this moment in history because of the inflexibility of our planning legislation. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give us the Government's view on this important topic.
The second point I wish to raise directly concerns the preservation of the heritage. I believe that special consideration should be given to planning applications for development that are sensible in character, where the benefit of the development (the development gain) is irrevocably linked to the endowment of a maintenance fund or private charitable trust that has been established for the restoration and preservation of a historic property. This might apply to any heritage property that has been designated as of outstanding interest.
It so happens that the heritage property for which I am responsible owes its survival to such an arrangement, thanks to the far-sightedness of the local authority involved. The council accepted the argument that the restoration of the heritage property represented very special circumstances which justified the granting of planning permission for two small residential developments, provided that the proceeds of the sale were used to endow a private charitable trust whose principal object was the maintenance and preservation of the property. The chairman of the district council, the mayor of the local town and the chairman of the parish council are all trustees. This arrangement has worked extremely well. In mentioning it in this debate I venture to suggest that the precedent might be accepted as a policy principle to be applied in other similar circumstances. I know that it would be welcomed by all those who face the enormous liability of maintaining our national heritage.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for initiating this debate, which has covered a wide range of subjects. Without being impertinent, perhaps I may express my thanks
230
to the right reverend Prelate for his contribution, which covered a vast subject succinctly. I found it most interesting.
I have one special concern: the gap that there appears to me to be between those of us who have always lived in the country and people who have recently moved from towns and cities, especially now that the green issue is to the forefront of everyone's mind.
Some people fail to appreciate that the countryside has to be managed. Fencing is needed to keep livestock in rather than to keep walkers out and some areas need to be sprayed at times to control weeds. Some dead or dying trees will need to be felled. However, those who manage the countryside are often criticised for undertaking such measures. Some twitchers complain if one fells a tree that has been used by a certain bird. I am sure noble Lords know that a twitcher is a bird watcher. Some trees are felled to enable more light to enter the woodland. This encourages wildlife and it allows nettles to flourish. Nettles are good for butterflies. However, these measures are often not understood by city dwellers. They complain about nettles and the fact that they cannot walk through mud.
Those who manage woodlands try to allow light to enter them but seek to leave enough cover for badger and deer to shelter in. Badger and deer abound in Dorset and Wiltshire. Even more important for woodland management is the planting or replanting of trees. I am a very small landowner but I have planted some 600 oak and cherry trees in the past three years. My neighbour, however, prefers softwoods. Again, one has to explain to visitors the need for shelters to protect trees from predation by deer. I agree that the shelters are rather ugly but they are necessary.
Those noble Lords who listen to "The Archers" will be familiar with the character of Mrs. Snell. There are many such characters around. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will encourage a better understanding between town and country dwellers, perhaps with the aid of an ongoing campaign. Such a campaign is needed to explain the problems which face landowners who do not always receive the encouragement that they deserve.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, the compass of this debate is wide and I am glad of that. It admits discussion of both the general and the particular of land use on every scale from a national park to the public conveniences that have already been mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, first, on securing this debate on an important subject and, secondly, on not being tempted to narrow his terms of reference.
The total problem of land use is the sum of many individual cases—we heard reference to one particular case just now —but the generality of the matter is surely the fact that Britain's boundaries are rigid and not elastic. Also, apart from a demand for change of use within established areas there is a continual demand—this is more serious—for change of use and

231
a change in the national ratio of what might be called undeveloped land to developed land, whether in town or country.
I believe the pressure to gobble up undeveloped land comes —I am trying to think analytically—mainly from the combined pressures of domestic use, industrial and commercial use and roads. At one end of the age spectrum young people, especially newly weds, no longer in the main start by sharing the family home but rather expect one of their own. That is commonly a new home for mortgage reasons. Such a home requires new land. At the other end of the spectrum, many older retired people expect to live in a house that is specially constructed for the elderly, often on small estate developments. That too requires new land. With an ever-increasing incidence of house ownership, those of middle age increasingly want a house rather than a flat. That requires yet more land.
In industry and commerce current statistics show that the level of new company formation far exceeds that of bankruptcy and liquidation. Those new companies prefer in the main to operate from premises on new light industrial estates because older declining manufacturing industry sites are inappropriate and are costly to modify. Therefore they remain derelict. Such industrial estates take up new land.
In answer to a question asked some two weeks ago in your Lordships' House it was stated that of some 13 million people in employment, some 8 million work in service industries. That figure is rising. Service industries commonly require offices so the figure for net total office demand steadily rises. To meet this demand new land must be acquired or—this is often controversial—existing and familiar buildings must be modified.
The increased mobility of a car-owning society, and indeed the expectations of those who do not own a car, means that mainly new land is taken up for roads and motorways. This matter is right on the doorstep of noble Lords at the moment. To use the terms of naval gunnery, this debate is bracketed, yesterday and tomorrow, by the Committee stage of the New Roads and Street Works Bill. The first part of that Bill inaugurates the injection of private sector money into road building to increase the net number of roads built.
Yesterday it was announced that the M.25 is to become four and partly five lane. That involves taking up more land. As an aside, I urge better public transport and less emphasis on new roads which are a self-fulfilling traffic producing prophecy. The driving force for the problem of land use by roads is largely a national trend towards increased leisure time. For those in towns and cities a change is as good as a rest. That change is usually taken by getting away from it all to somewhere different and preferably open.
At this point I wish to change tack from the use of new land to problems that arise from the change of use of established land. Most of us, especially after we have taken a trip elsewhere, are reassured in some mysterious way by the familiarity of our local landscape when we return home. However, that
232
reassurance is eroded if our local landscape, whether village, town or city, keeps changing. The development use of countryside erodes the refreshment afforded to city dwellers by a change of view and atmosphere. When it happens in our home area, whether in city, town or suburbs, it erodes the confidence we all obtain from a feeling of continuity engendered by the sight of a familiar scene when we return home. However, we must not Forget the many country dwellers who live in the country mainly because they like it. New land use alters and takes away from their natural resource, thus devaluing their perception of the quality of their own lives.
In a real world most policy, whether national or local, can only hope to satisfy most of the people most of the time. There are some 60 million individuals in Britain. Each has an individual priority list. Some people are sedentary, some athletic; some have children while some do not. Some are brutal while some are aesthetic. Land use therefore has to suit a spectrum from the nostalgia merchants at one end to the followers of an unfettered free market at the other. However, a clearly indicated centre of gravity is a strong national characteristic of conservatism along with suspicion of the new and the unknown. Consequently most of us prefer only gradual change.
All the land uses that I mentioned in my opening remarks involve relatively abrupt change. We have a deep feeling that cities are changing faster and faster and that the countryside is disappearing. If pressed into a corner, we might admit that a motorway can be beautiful and that a new building can be stimulating, but our deep-seated intuition still leads us to believe that the momentum of land use is damaging amenity and making Britain unrecognisable.
I believe that government policy in this complex field is directed to endeavouring to give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number. At present we organise things in such a way that the Government issue regular guideline planning policy notes which are in fact mandatory and include land use. County authorities are obliged to construct and issue structure plans for their areas which indicate in fair detail the designated use of all land within their area of authority.
The majority of land use proposals pass through peacefully but if there is sufficient opposition—this may of course include opposition from a county authority—a public inquiry may be held before an inspector. Ultimately the Secretary of State may arbitrate personally. That is now the position for county authorities but since the abolition of the metropolitan authorities there are no parallel structure plans corresponding to their former areas of jurisdiction overall. Rather, each sub-area within the former metropolitan authority issues a new measure which is called a unitary plan. Therefore there are 33 borough unitary plans for London. Alas, those are not co-ordinated with each other. That is a grave shortcoming. However, I understand that the three principal political parties managed to agree a unitary plan for London as a whole last year but Secretary of

233
State Ridley refused to accept it. Can the noble Lord who is to reply say whether there is any further news on an agreed unitary plan for London as a whole?
The problems that arise in determining land use may first be addressed by any interested party by seeking to inform, lobby or otherwise harass the DoE about views held. Thus we may seek to influence the departmental guidelines which together with local dialogue crucially influence the construction of structure and unitary plans. All land use is designated in some detail and while an unwelcome development may be appealed successfully the likelihood is that it may never even get on to the drawing board if an initial chink of a possibility does not exist in a structure or unitary plan. Lobbying town or county hall planning departments and councillors is the other means by which we may seek to influence land use policy.
So much for strategy. In terms of tactics a main plank to ensure satisfaction in most land use must surely be to make better use, or indeed in many cases some use at all, of what is already held under development so that we do not encroach on free land. There are perhaps two categories of developed land —that in current but perhaps inefficient use and that which is effectively derelict. We may be able to capitalise on the former—current but inefficient use —either by rebuilding more efficiently within current building lines or, more controversially, by building higher on the same site, or both. Depending on the scale, due attention may have to be paid to the halo effect on such aspects as public and private transport provision, shopping facilities, and so forth.
By far the most hopeful zone for improvement is the bringing back into use of land which is effectively derelict, sometimes having been derelict since the last war. One thinks of the huge Coin Street site on the South Bank where development is now at last under way but which lay derelict for 40 years. Such land is often held on a temporary licence for uses such as car parking, a common excuse being that the local authority is safeguarding it for some grand future development which it seems never to be able to afford. I live next to one such site in the republic of Islington, as we lovingly call it.
In other cases land tenure is by public, quasi-public or commercial bodies. For example, British Rail has vast landholdings arising from past operations when the network was much larger and goods traffic much greater. It clings on to the land grimly, only releasing a little here or there to balance its finances. Why? Is it lost in dreams of a past that will probably never return?
Our island may be sceptred but it gets no bigger. A legislative carrot and stick is long overdue to release our enormous stocks of derelict land for new uses. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any proposals—whether called incentives or penalties—for making that happen. For example, do they envisage some form of derelict land tax of the type already mentioned? If not, what do they propose?
234
Finally, of the land uses that I mentioned in opening, only new roads will not benefit greatly from land use gained from any of the measures that I have just mentioned. However, I question again the implicit assumption that Britain needs more and yet more new roads. They only encourage more vehicles of all types whose occupants or loads would be far better catered for by spending funds already allocated for road building either on improving public transport and a return of some freight to rail or canal, or, at worst but with minimum use of land, upgrading existing roads as has so successfully been done in recent years with the A.l.
In his poem "Jerusalem" Blake, referred to England's green and pleasant land. The green and pleasant part is shrinking like ice melting in the sun. As custodians we owe it to future generations to apply a dose of the fridge if they are not to say of us, "They had so much and look what they did with it".
6.34 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, we should all be deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Hampton for introducing this debate on a subject which is of very great interest and concern to each and every one of us. As we have already heard from the wide variety of speeches on a number of different aspects of the subject in this short debate, decisions regarding land use affect each and every one of us in all manner of different ways. Therefore it is a very important subject.
When I saw the subject on the Order Paper, I thought that I might be faced with the serried ranks opposite of the Peers who own most of the land in Britain. I make no criticism of the fact that only some of them are here. If that sounds a rather barbed remark I should say at once that I believe that the great landed families in Britain who have handed down their estates from generation to generation have done an extremely good job for us. They have preserved and protected land which might otherwise have become totally despoiled. I do not say that they have always done so from the best possible motives. They have preserved the heather in order to ensure that the grouse remain there. I am not bothered about the grouse, but I am delighted that the heather is still there. For whatever motive, they have preserved the land.
One of my anxieties is that there has been such a shift of ownership of wealth in Britain wealth and land are now in different hands. When I hear of huge estates being bought by snooker players and footballers, I wonder whether they will exert the same degree of energy and care in cherishing their landholdings or whether they will do what their financial advisers tell them to do; namely, to extract every penny out of that land. The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, reminded us that that may mean extracting all the gravel or limestone or whatever mineral happens to be in the land. We are faced with very serious problems.
Land is a resource which in Britain is in extremely short supply. It is also a resource which is under

235
increasingly heavy demands. Those are related in part to population. In this country we do not at present suffer from great population growth. The next census will probably show that the population in Britain is more or less stable and that there has been only slight growth. I would go so far as to say that if every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy at the time of conception our population would probably be declining very slightly. That is a different subject.
We suffer from a maldistribution of population. There is a concentration of population in the South East as a whole and in major conurbations such as those in the East Midlands, West Midlands, North West, North East and the old West Riding of Yorkshire. Great efforts have been made to move some of the population from London and the South East but they have not been very successful. It is the concentration of numbers in the South East which causes the difficulties and with which the underground and public transport systems cannot cope. They were not constructed to deal with the numbers which now use them.
I do not believe that any noble Lord has any immediate suggestions as to how we can reduce those numbers at a stroke. We cannot. However, we can perhaps reduce them gradually by providing the right incentives for people to move. The Government have tried o set an example by moving parts of government departments into the regions. The DHSS has extensive offices in Blackpool and its computer division in Newcastle. The Inland Revenue has people all over the country in such places as Bootle in Merseyside.
However, that is not the way to depopulate areas such as London. Regionalisation is not achieved by shifting the typing pool from the Department of Transport 30 miles up the Thames. One has to shift a handful of people—but important people. If the headquarters of the National Health Service, instead of being in Richmond House as they now are—they were at the Elephant and Castle—were in York, in no time at all the pharmaceutical companies which supply drugs to the National Health Service would also find it wise to have their headquarters in York. The people who build hospitals would find it wise to have a presence in York. Therefore, the Government should shift not whole departments but a few important people. If the decision-takers are moved other people will move with them. That applies not merely to the South-East but to other parts of our country as well if the population becomes too heavily concentrated in small areas.
So there we have it. Land is in increasingly short supply and under constant pressure. Some of your Lordships have dealt with various aspects of this subject and I should like to talk about the recreational use of land; in other words, the use of countryside land. I had the honour some years ago of being chairman of the Countryside Commission, a body which is charged with the responsibility of enhancing the natural beauty of the countryside and also with promoting access to it for informal outdoor recreation. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies, has said, rightly, that once one starts doing that, one
236
produces conflicts. But there are always conflicts. There is a major conflict between the people who live and work in the countryside and those who seek to use it for informal recreational purposes. Somehow we have to find ways of resolving those conflicts, and I believe those ways can be found.
There is also a conflict in each and every one of us. When people go off for a day, or longer perhaps, to visit one of the national parks most tend to think, when they get there, that there should not be anybody else there. Life is not like that. When I was chairman of the Countryside Commission, I was fortunate enough to visit Hungary and was taken round some of the nature parks there in a vast area. It was a wonderful place and I was taken round by their Minister of Tourism. There was a wonderful information centre and horse-drawn carriages took visitors to the hides to look at the wildlife and so on. I said, "This is marvellous. Can ordinary people come here?" The answer was, "Oh yes, with permits." I hope that the day when people will have to get a permit to visit Exmoor or the Peak District is a very long way off, but I think we should be under no illusions about the kind of pressures under which these sensitive areas of our countryside are placed.
While I was chairman of the Countryside Commission I was visited by the deputy director—I believe that was his title—of the Yellowstone National Park in the United States. That is a vast place, as your Lordships may know. He was telling me about his catering problems and he said that they had to cater for X number of people a year. Of course I know that they do a great deal for their visitors and provide all sorts of things: they are not for people who just happen to visit. However, I had to tell him that the figure he quoted was almost exactly the same as the number of people who pour into the Peak National Park on a fine Sunday in August—and he thought he had problems!
This is the difficulty. People now need to spread leisure time. I remember that when we were debating the Shops Bill some time ago I said it was a pity that Sunday was not a moveable feast, and I asked why was everybody's day out on the same day of the week. Perhaps it might be helpful if the rest day for people could be a variable day. I do not know what the right reverend Prelate would say about that; but if we could do something along those lines to spread the load in some way, that might be helpful.
As things are, people arrive in an area of natural beauty, as I have said, and they think nothing else should be happening. But there is a conflict. These are all people who believe that they should be entitled to all the fruits of the countryside. They want food from the countryside and they want water from the countryside—much of it in the national parks. They want timber; they want minerals like limestone, and so on. They want various other things: they must have those. But they think nothing should be happening when they actually get there themselves into the area.
People must come to terms with the position and we must ask ourselves how we can deal with this. Somehow we must try to spread the load. Some time

237
ago a market research survey was carried out by professional people in great detail, and extremely effectively, into the recreational activities of ordinary citizens. After questioning literally thousands of people, it was discovered that rather more than 60 per cent. of ordinary people—nearly two-thirds—opted by choice to spend one day a month in some kind of informal outdoor recreational activity in the countryside—not just a visit to aunty because it was a duty, but a recreational visit. That number is more than the numbers who watch football: it is more than those who take up angling and go fishing. It is a huge number. How can we provide for them? We cannot create new national parks, but we can try to spread the load.
We have tried to do that in this country. I am particularly proud of one project which has developed so well—I think that the right reverend Prelate will know of it—Groundwork. In 1979 the Countryside Commission took a policy decision. The national parks by that time had grown to such an extent that they were largely capable of looking after themselves. Therefore it was decided that the commission should devote more of its energies to trying to create enjoyable countryside amenities close to the homes of the millions who sought them. We had already done that with country parks such as the one in the Wirral which my noble friend knows which attracts many people at weekends who would otherwise pour into Snowdonia. And Snowdon is being worn away. The mountain has to be closed every year while they shovel away all the litter and indeed all the excreta from the mountain. Some of the mountain paths are being worn away. I live near the Langdale Valley and the footpath there is like a main road. The footpath gets wider and wider every year. Somehow we have to spread this load.
Groundwork was an attempt to use the kind of techniques developed by the Countryside Commission, providing footpaths, and having provided them, believing that people will keep to them and rather than walk through cornfields; providing stiles so that people will climb over them rather than breaking down dry-stone walls and so on; providing car parks on the assumption that if there is a car park people on the whole will use it rather than drive into a field and destroy crops. We should apply those techniques to the whole of a freestanding urban area.
The first area that was chosen was St. Helen's at Knowsley. It was an immense success, and as a result of that the then Secretary of State, Mr. Michael Heseltine, extended it. There was a huge meeting at Hey Hall in Lancashire, where we had representatives of all the local authorities in the North-West, Cumbria, Lancashire and Derbyshire. Six new Groundworks were established and now they are all over the country in Wales and various places, establishing greenways, linking the countryside with the urban areas, providing enjoyable countryside close to the homes of the millions who seek it. That is doing at least something towards trying to resolve the conflict with which we are all faced.
238
There is so much more to say but I cannot say it all. However, among the occupants of our national parks in areas of outstandingly beautiful countryside is the Ministry of Defence. I am not entirely sure that the Dartmoor National Park is the right place for firing ranges: there are three of them in Dartmoor, one belonging to the Ministry of Defence and the other two being leased to them. The leases are up this year and I hope that some of that kind of activity might stop there and perhaps go on somewhere else. I was taken to the area by General Acland and he said what a wonderful thing it was that the Ministry of Defence had a place in the national park because it had kept it free from this, that and the other. I began to think that perhaps no national park was complete without a Ministry of Defence presence and why had the Lake District not got one?
However, sooner or later the Ministry of Defence and similar bodies must look at the way in which they use land in national parks; and, as other speakers have said, so must other public bodies. Public bodies own an immense amount of land in our national parks and they do not always use it with the care that they should. I will end by saying that land is in short supply and in ever-increasing demand. It must be cherished and protected. At the moment there are too many people without sufficient integration taking place between them. We have seen government department after government department involved in this; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, has said, there are conflicts over planning decisions, which can differ from one place to another. Everybody agrees that there needs to be some kind of integration. In the fullness of time I should like to see a land-use ministry with overall control, instead of decisions being left to a whole variety of different bodies and departments. As the right reverend Prelate reminded us, I think it was Mark Twain who said:
"Land, yes; they don't make it any more."
That is true: they do not make it any more and as time goes on we shall find that we have less and less of it.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, may I first apologise to the House and to the noble Lord who initiated this very interesting and important debate for not being able to hear his opening speech. The debate, concerning perhaps one of the most valuable commodities that the nation owns, has been extremely worth while. How that commodity is redeveloped is of interest not only to us but also to our children, to their children and to succeeding generations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, spoke forcefully about the rural community and the support that it needs to retain a cherished and worthwhile identity. She referred to the difficulty that farmers—a vital component of that community—are experiencing and the need to attract new employment to make rural areas self-sufficient and free of the need to appeal for financial support.
I was interested in her remarks regarding the desirability of low cost housing. It is not the first time that the subject has been mentioned in your

239
Lordships' House. I do not wish to raise the old issue of the sale of council housing. That policy has been widely accepted. In rural areas, however, the policy has been demonstrated to be shortsighted. I know that Conservative Members in another place receive letters on the issue. There is no way of dealing with the problem because much of the low cost housing in those areas was local authority owned. Irrespective of party, however, we should try to provide some assistance, if necessary financial, to encourage people to provide low cost housing. Otherwise those areas will wither and eventually die.
My noble friend and colleague, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, apologised because he had to leave. He spoke about the use of land and who owned it. He said that at the turn of the century the members in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords owned 70 per cent. of the land. That is a great deal of land. I have always taken the view—perhaps it is a rather ancient one politically—that if anything belongs to the people of a nation it is the land. I believe that in most cases the needs of the community should prevail above the needs of the individual.
One activity that I do not like to see continuing —we were promised that it would end about two years ago—is the persistent and increasing promotion by developers of private Bills in order to bypass planning procedures. I understood that there was a proposed all-party agreement that that procedure would stop. Unfortunately the ex-Prime Minister was the one person who vetoed the agreement. It was a tragic mistake for people to be able to bypass local planning committees. For all their faults, the committees tend to mirror the wishes and aspirations of the people in their areas.
I was interested to hear the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford. I do not know whether he knows this, but for six years I lived at Gildersome near Bradford. I know the area about which he speaks. Perhaps I may pay tribute to the community of Bradford. The city is a phoenix that has risen from the ashes. It was in dire straits some time ago. The mining and woollen industries have been almost savaged out of existence in the past 10 to 20 years. Nevertheless, through the tremendous efforts of the community, progress has been made to make the city as attractive as it is becoming again. I now live on the other side of the Pennines—the enemy in cricket terms—but I visit my friends in Yorkshire quite often. I can pay no higher tribute than to say that the community of Bradford has done an extremely good job.
Bradford still needs help, as do most other big cities. However, the rural areas close to Bradford have an interdependence which needs recognition. The right reverend Prelate did not need to apologise for putting forward a local aspect. Most of us are the products of the locality from which we emerge. I make no apology for it. I take my name from Beswick which was, until slum clearance in the mid-1960s, the most densely populated area in Europe. It was a grid-iron of terraced houses with a mass of people working at factories very few of which were in Beswick but many
240
of which were on the periphery. When I was a young boy I recall thinking that it was marvellous on the Friday that we broke up for the annual holiday from school to be taken in a tramcar to Heaton Park. It was the only green I saw in those days.
We have to try to achieve an understanding between people in urban and rural areas. If we are not careful a form of apartheid begins to develop. There is a reluctance in some areas to welcome people from elsewhere. I recall some years ago when Manchester had a massive slum clearance programme. It was intending to buy land in Cheshire. That was opposed by a Member of your Lordships' House—not a member of my party—who won the case. Manchester was unable to build overspill housing in that area. However, the noble Lord did not grumble about having his chemical factory in Manchester which provided him and his family with a lucrative living. That is one issue about which we have to take care.
The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, spoke about the extraction of gravel. That is not a problem relating only to the location about which he spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will be aware that there are grave reservations about proposals for extraction in the Peak District which is not a wc rld away from where he and I come from. Such issues have to be handled carefully. People should not be allowed to ravage and rip out just as they wish. We must be careful to balance the desires of the community with the reasonable desires of others.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, spoke briefly about the important subject of tree planting. For my sins, I have planted a few trees in my not too large garden. I do not know what the greenhouse effect means other than that, in simple terms, if one wishes to retain any semblance of our existing world, it is essential to keep planting trees. I suppose that everyone who participates in such action is making a small contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, described how children brought up in rural villages were being forced out because of the diminishing supply of housing that they could afford. Much of that housing is being purchased by city people as second homes. One can well understand the resentment. We should carefully consider the issue and try to build homes so that people can remain in such communities. Otherwise, as I know from what has happened in Yorkshire, once the drift starts and generations move away, they do not return. A community may wither and almost disappear.
The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, spoke correctly about the changing demands of society on the land. My children, for their own reasons, wished to be independent as quickly as possible. That has meant providing them with somewhere to live. It involves extra space. Let us consider the situation in Liverpool and Manchester. When those cities began their clearance schemes they had to move a quarter of a million people. Those people had to go somewhere. That explains the many overspill estates on the periphery of Manchester and Liverpool. Some people are surprised when I tell them that Manchester is the

241
sixth largest city. It was once the second largest city after Birmingham. Leeds now has a quarter of a million more people than Manchester. That is because people have had to move away.
People are trying to understand the desires of others. They are coming together by agreement in preference to compulsory purchase orders, planning applications and the calling in of inspectors and Secretaries of State to referee. If mutual consent can be achieved that is far better.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, about the London experience. I shall not digress to talk about the abolition of the GLC. I was originally opposed to the metropolitan counties. As the ex-leader of Manchester City Council I was a unity man. However, I formed the view that they were doing a useful job and taking a strategic look at what was happening. I am sure that some of the delays and instances cited by the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, would have been avoided and decisions would have been reached quicker.
I do not know what Mr. Heseltine has in mind because I have not seen any statements. However, there are rumours in the press that we may be subject to another reorganisation of local government based on unitary authorities. That can mean only one thing: some of the county councils will have to go. I urge caution about resorting to that decision. We must bring into existence organisations that can take an overall look at an issue and achieve agreement without going to court. There is nothing worse for stopping land development than the protracted decision-making that must be undergone in order to resolve a contentious issue. I hope that those issues can be resolved by the setting up of such organisations.
I have spoken for 12 minutes and I have tried to cover some of the points raised. Again I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for initiating the debate. The subject is most interesting and will not go away. We must continue to talk about it for a long time. It will grow in importance and will need our constant attention and watchfulness.
7.2 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for raising the subject of land use. We have heard contributions from noble Lords about a great variety of issues under this broad heading. I believe that the common theme underlying all these contributions has been the need to protect what we value most about our land while finding enough space for all our needs.
Those needs are both diverse and changing. For instance, as economic growth brings new prosperity we are seeing new trends in leisure and more people wanting to use existing facilities. Increased agricultural productivity means that probably for the first time in history we now need less farmland than we used to. The challenge is to respond to these trends in ways that protect and enhance the character of our environment and protect our rural communities.
242
It is a central part of the Government's thinking that growth and protection of the environment must go hand in hand. Without growth we should be unable to afford to protect our surroundings; indeed, without regeneration they would fall into sad disrepair. On the other hand, without environmental protection there is a risk that by raising our standard of living we may reduce our quality of life.
The essential mechanism in all this is of course the planning system which has been in more or less its present state since 1947. What do we have to show for this long-standing regulatory regime? The benefits that the planning system has brought are sometimes overlooked so perhaps I may briefly review them. The sprawl of our settlements has been significantly constrained. Since the Second World War the spread of our cities into green fields has been considerably reduced thanks to long-standing green belt policies. On a much smaller scale, ribbon development on roads emanating from villages and small towns has been significantly restricted. Within our towns we have seen the planning system limiting the density of residential development. The designation of conservation areas has preserved the character of some of the more treasured areas of towns, cities and villages.
It is not just a question of planning, though. The Government are taking a very active role in seeing new amenities developed. I am particularly encouraged by the initiative being pursued by the Countryside Commission in co-operation with the Forestry Commission. They are working together to encourage the planting of community forests. Not only will these provide commercial forestry opportunities but they will offer a chance to improve the landscape of the urban fringe, provide new habitats for wildlife and give us new recreation facilities. We are also considering the Countryside Commission's proposal for a new national forest in the Midlands. I could make similar points about our use of grants in agriculture, our promotion of sites of special scientific interest and other wildlife measures, or our initiatives for regeneration in the inner cities. However, I must move on to deal with some of the specific points.
First, I shall briefly review the situation in respect of county structure plans. Our proposals for the future of these plans are set out in detail in the Planning and Compensation Bill to which your Lordships' gave a Second Reading last week. I do not intend to go into great detail about the Bill as much of it was outlined last week and we shall soon discuss the Bill in Committee. I shall summarise some of the important points that have been raised today. We intend to retain structure plans as an essential strategic element in the development plan framework. We also intend to allow counties to adopt their own structure plans in future—that is after due public consultation—rather than have to submit them to the Secretary of State. These proposals have been widely welcomed.
Our decision to retain county structure plans does not of course mean that we want things to carry on unchanged. The present system has been slow and cumbersome. Many plans contain too much detail—detail which ranges well beyond the scope of strategic

243
land use policies. Self-adoption of plans by counties will be a major step towards reducing delays. We gave advice earlier this year on what we regard as the proper scope of structure plans—the key strategic issues. That advice will be further strengthened in the implementation of the new legislation. Our proposals for the comprehensive coverage of local plans will help here by ensuring that detailed development control policies are embodied in local plans where they belong rather than in the county structure plan.
Self-adoption of structure plans will not of course mean that counties can simply go their own way. They will be expected to have full regard for national and regional policies. We are currently expanding the coverage of regional planning guidance. Once it is in place counties will be expected to have regard to it in drawing up and revising their structure plans. The Secretary of State will have full and flexible reserve powers to intervene if necessary.
Several noble Lords have argued that the scope of structure plans should be extended to embrace transport, energy use and other broad environmental issues. To the extent that these issues have land use implications it will be appropriate for counties to address them in structure plans. One example would he the interactions between land use settlement patterns and transport patterns and their implication for energy consumption. But there are major problems in using structure plans to go beyond land use to formulate policy on wider resource management issues.
As regards the question of whether structure and local plans should be treated as the primary consideration in planning decisions it is important that we should guard against over-rigidity. It is true that in one sense a development plan is the first material consideration in relation to any planning application, though not the only one. The existing legislation already recognises this and, as the Department of the Environment's recent guidance has emphasised, the Secretary of State will be guided by development plans in his decisions on appeal. But plans cannot be expected to anticipate every need or opportunity for economic development that may arise. One of the strengths of our planning system is that it permits a greater flexibility in the individual case than more rigid zoning systems found in other countries. I believe that it is important that we retain that flexibility but within the context of the considerable weight that needs to be given to the development plan framework.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised the subject of waste sites. There are 4,000 landfill sites in Britain which take about 90 per cent. of our waste. Landfill is often the best practicable environmental option for the disposal of all but the most difficult and dangerous wastes. Generally speaking, we have adequate landfill resources for the waste that we generate, but the sites are unevenly distributed throughout the country. There is in particular, and unsurprisingly, a shortage in metropolitan areas.
Many noble Lords mentioned housing which is an important point. One of the key aims of the
244
Government's policy is that the planning system should continue to make adequate provision for new housing requirements including those of local people. In doing so, full account must be taken of the need to protect the environment in both town and country. We shall shortly be issuing revised planning policy guidance on housing which will reflect not only this Government's commitment to protecting and improving the quality of our environment bu t also the need to ensure that the planning system plays its part in providing the housing which people need.
The revised guidance will incorporate and expand on our planning initiative to encourage the provision of low-cost housing for local needs. Under this initiative, planning authorities may exceptionally grant planning permission for low-cost housing for local needs on land which would not normally be released for residential development. A key element of the initiative is that, before the authority gives planning permission, it must be satisfied that arrangements have been made to ensure that the housing will remain low-cost for the foreseeable future.
The present initiative is tailored to the circumstances of rural areas, as it is in these areas that there is greatest potential for using suitable small plots of agricultural land with relatively low land values. In urban areas the same situation does not apply, as sites which are suitable for low-cost local needs housing are also likely to be suitable for a number of alternative land uses attracting high land values. The department has recently commissioned a research study to assess what progress is being made under the initiative, and to identify any problems being encountered in implementing it.
We recognise that in both urban and rural areas it may be desirable that new housing on a substantial scale should incorporate a reasonable mix of house types to cater for a range of housing requirements. It may therefore be appropriate for local planning authorities to seek to negotiate with developers for the inclusion of a proportion of low-cost housing in a larger development. But policies should be reasonably flexible and should leave room for all other material planning considerations to be taken into account.
I now turn to roads. The Government are spending substantial sums on minimising the environmental impact of new roads. Statutory environmental organisations are consulted from the earliest stages of a scheme's development, when the Landscape Advisory Committee considers a scheme. By-pass schemes themselves improve the local environment by redirecting traffic to more suitable routes. All trunk road schemes are directed to avoid areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest wherever possible. The Government are committed to ensuring that in National Park areas no new trunk road is built or existing road upgraded unless there is a compelling need which cannot be met by any reasonable alternative means.
The results of joint studies between the Departments of Environment and Transport will be used to issue planning guidance to local authorities.

245
The aim is to guide new development to locations which will reduce the need for car journeys and the distance driven, or which permit the choice of energy efficient transport. But the Government do not believe it is appropriate to curtail personal freedom to travel by car. They believe in balanced investment across transport modes, allowing the traveller freedom of choice.
Like other major projects with potentially significant environmental effects, motorway proposals are subject to environmental assessment. An environmental impact statement must be submitted to the planning authority, allowing full analysis of the environmental effects of the proposal. Environmental assessment gives planning authorities, and other public bodies which have environmental responsibilities, a better basis on which to make decisions. For developers, the process should draw their attention at an early stage to the environmental effects of their proposals so that, for example, they can amend their designs or incorporate new measures.
Roads are not just used by cars. They are used by buses, coaches and heavy lorries. Because of the increased demand for all forms of road transport, many UK roads are now heavily congested. Providing more road space will allow greater fuel efficiency and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
To reflect those trends, the Government have increased substantially spending on roads. In real terms, capital spending alone is over 60 per cent. higher than in 1978–79. Provision for the next three years is 50 per cent. higher in real terms than provision for the last three. Work is planned to start this year on some 45 motorway and trunk road schemes. Work is under way on a further 74 schemes, at a works cost of over £1·5 billion.
This trunk road programme represents the proposed work to be undertaken and paid for by central government. Work on local roads is the responsibility of local government. Efficient local roads systems are as important for the delivery of goods and services as an adequate strategic network is for the economy as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned the threat posed to attractive landscapes by that programme. At this early stage of the programme potential routes are drawn broadly. I have every expectation that the eventual routes will minimise adverse environmental impacts of that kind. The road programme and its traffic forecast reflects the Government's basis for action. The programme is not intended to meet all demands. Failure to provide for the extra capacity would be disastrous.
Therefore, we are providing new roads but we are also looking at public transport, particularly in urban areas. The Government are encouraging greater use of public transport by supporting high levels of investment. For example, planned investment in British Rail over the next three years is over £4 billion. The figure for London Regional Transport is up to £3 billion.
246
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned incentives for smaller cars. I agree with him on his comments about the value of choosing a less polluting means of travel. As regards his comments on incentives, the White Paper clearly stated that the Government would examine the need for fuel and vehicle tax changes to encourage greater economy.
I should mention also that outside urban areas the deregulation of bus services has increased passenger choice and bus mileage. Buses continue to be the main form of public transport and the increased provision of bus lanes and other bus priority measures can bring about advantages in economic terms. Such measures also make bus services more attractive by making the journeys faster and more reliable.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has also been asked to consider light rail schemes for certain areas. He has already approved grant aid to the Manchester Metro and, subject to various assurances from the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority, he hopes that the Sheffield Supertram will be the next light rail system to go ahead.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the other points raised. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on matters of taxation I must defer to a higher authority; in my case, my right honourable friend the Chancellor.
As regards the question of making good use of urban land, we have had considerable success in that area. In addition to our derelict land reclamation programme, nearly half of all new houses built in England over recent years have been on vacant or recycled land in urban areas. The figures for London and the South-East are even higher—58 per cent.
We have had to strike a balance. Forcing too much new development in urban areas can result in town cramming, something which now concerns many suburban areas. We recently issued draft policy guidance on sport and recreation. That stresses the need to achieve that balance and protect urban open spaces which all communities need for pleasure and recreation. Local authorities must do that through their development plans and effective planning control.
Like all noble Lords I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Walpole. I am glad that he does not expect me to respond in detail to all the points that he raised. I cannot say very much. I understand that the matter to which he referred is the subject of appeal. Nevertheless, I found it extremely interesting.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I did not expect the Minister to respond on the application matter. That is the point; he cannot. I suggested that in similar cases there should be a cooling-off period after the decision has been made. I cannot see that anywhere in the legislation, and I was hoping to see it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there will be an opportunity to raise those points when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, spoke about derelict land. We already spend some £70 million a

247
year in England on the derelict land grant. We are currently exploring measures to release more land, including placing more responsibility on those who create dereliction to put it right. The noble Lord also spoke of structure plans in London and other major cities. It is true that there are no structure plans in the main metropolitan areas, as there are in shire counties. However, we have arrangements to ensure that strategic planning issues in those areas are considered as a whole.
The Secretary of State issued strategic planning guidance for all those areas, including London, to provide a framework for unity development plans now being prepared by individual boroughs and districts. Moreover, Part 1 of each unity development plan is expected to address structural issues as they affect each individual borough or district.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, spoke of national parks. Perhaps I should remind him that the management of national parks in the first instance is for the Countryside Commission. However, the commission instigated a review of all matters affecting national parks. That will be conducted by a committee chaired by Professor Ron Edwards. The committee is expected to report to the commission in early 1991, and the commission will then make any recommendations to the department. It is for the commission to investigate, for example, proposals for new parks. The Secretary of State will look at any proposals it brings forward sympathetically. I understand that at present the commission is not considering any candidates.
I recognise that the weight of the number of visitors can be a problem. The Countryside Commission and parks authority put tremendous effort into managing the inflow of visitors to ensure that their impact on parks is limited. They also spend a good deal on maintenance. That is a particular problem with long distance footpaths. The introduction of charges is no doubt something that the review committee will be considering. We must wait and see what it recommends. I remind the noble Lord that the very size of the parks will make it extremely difficult to collect charges except in localised areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, also mentioned Dartrnoor. The forces use the land within Dartmoor and other parks, and did so long before the parks were created. I know that there are sometimes conflicts between the military and civilian uses. That is inevitable. The Ministry of Defence does its best to limit the impact of its operations on the parks. The Dartrnoor Steering Group, which consists of the MoD, the park authority, the Duchy of Cornwall and other local groups, has done much to help reconcile the various interests on Dartmoor.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, mentioned Private Bills bypassing planning procedures. Following the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bills, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport published last summer proposals for a new order-making procedure to replace Private Bills for most development projects.
248
However, initially in the transport field further progress depends on our finding the time for the necessary legislation.
At the beginning of my remarks I said that land use is a wide subject. I attempted to cover as many points raised by noble Lords as possible; I probably have not covered them all. There is a limit to the number of subjects to which one can do justice without taking excessive time. I have no doubt that noble Lords will return to many of these issues at a future time, and I look forward to that.
The Government set out their principles in the Environment White Paper. They are most notably clear commitments to protect our environment through the planning system; conserving our wildlife habitats and extending protected areas of natural beauty. The debate provided a useful opportunity not simply to consider individual matters, but also to look at the great range of actions that are required and that are being undertaken by the Government. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for giving us the opportunity for debate.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Hampton; My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. I thank all noble Lords who took part and raised so many different and important points. The noble Viscount was extremely courteous in answering my questions. He will not be surprised to learn that I am not entirely satisfied by those answers. I do not propose to prolong the proceedings by further analysis. It remains for me to beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Naseby: M.1-A.1 Link Road
7.26 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, even at this late stage, they will reconsider their decision to route the M.1-A.1 link road across the battlefield of Naseby and will instead adopt the southern route avoiding this historic area.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper perhaps I may express my warm thanks to those noble Lords who have agreed to take part in this debate.
It is curious that we in this country pay so little attention to the sites on which some of the great battles of our history have taken place. Of course some of them, like those of the Wars of the Roses, took place so long ago that we no longer know where exactly the fighting took place. But other more recent battles we know about with reasonable accuracy.
Elsewhere battlefields are regarded as a very important part of a nation's heritage. In the United States their Civil War battlefields are beautifully cared for and painstakingly preserved. At Gettysburg a visitor is helped by plaques and markers to understand just what happened. He can stand on the ridge held by Union troops and see precisely where Pickett's charge

249
began and ended. The whole scene is clear, vivid and impressive. I believe that it attracts around 1 million visitors a year.
By contrast, we in this country neglect our most important and significant battlefields. It is about one of these, that of Naseby in Northamptonshire, in the very middle of England, that I want to say a few words tonight. I have a personal interest in this because a few years ago I wrote a biography of Thomas Fairfax, who commanded the parliamentary forces—the freshly created New Model Army—on that day, Saturday 14th June 1645. Fairfax, helped by Cromwell, Skippon and Ireton, confronted his sovereign, Charles I, who was supported by the two palatinate princes, Rupert and Maurice. The resulting conflict was the decisive battle of the Civil War and established the supremacy of Parliament. By any reckoning it was one of the most important and significant battles in our history.
It is almost miraculous that the land on which the battle was fought, just north of the village Naseby, has survived for nearly 350 year largely unchanged and unspoilt. School children, those interested in our history or tourists can still see for themselves just where the battle took place. Unhappily, that uniquely historic site is now threatened with destruction by the building of a new motorway, the M.1-A.1 link road.
The argument about where the road should run has been going on since 1972 when the decision to build it was originally taken. The Department of the Environment originally appointed Freeman Fox, consulting engineers, to produce possible corridors for the road. They produced a proposed route south of the village, deliberately avoiding the battlefield to the north. Three months later the two local authorities concerned—Northamptonshire County Council and Daventry District Council—suddenly designated the area through which the southern route would pass as being of high landscape value, ignoring the outstandingly beautiful country north of Naseby, recognised as such by eminent authorities like Dame Sylvia Crowe and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England.
Northamptonshire County Council argued, no doubt for its own good reasons, for a northern route through the battlefield. Letters of protest were published in the press from Dame Veronica Wedgewood, Sir Arthur Bryant and others, and the Society for the Preservation of the Field of the Battle of Naseby was formed. This society has fought valiantly against the plan to wreck the battlefield.
A public consultation exercise took place which showed overwhelming support for saving the battlefield. In August 1975 the then Labour Minister of Transport, Dr. Gilbert, announced:
"At Naseby the Minister considers that whilst all other factors are very evenly balanced the historical significance of the area is of overriding importance and he has therefore decided that the link road should follow the southern alternative past the village".
I am quite sure that that was the right decision.
In 1976, however, things began to go wrong. Freeman Fox was dropped and the scheme was transferred to the responsibility of the county council working with the Department of Transport's eastern road construction unit which maintained that it was not restricted to the Minister's preferred route and would consider any alternative. It also put out misleading information about the effect of a northern route on the battlefield and alleged that bad soil conditions within the southern corridor had forced it to plan instead for a road running north of Naseby.
In 1979 the Conservative Government came to power and in 1982 the new Minister of Transport, Mrs. Chalker, said that circumstances had changed and bad soil conditions had caused the department to abandon a southern route. Some of your Lordships asked for details of that in this House in July 1982, but it emerged that the suggestion that soil conditions in the southern corridor were unsatisfactory was groundless. The department then shifted its ground and claimed that a northern route was cheaper, shorter and less damaging to the landscape, though that was not the view of experts like Dame Sylvia Crowe.
The department next produced exhibits setting out its plans which showed the battle area as a tiny hexagon, little bigger than the size of a football pitch. That was totally misleading because the battle involved about 21,000 men, many of them mounted. The department also suggested, incorrectly, that a southern route would almost touch the village. Throughout the proceedings the Department of Transport appears to have been far from evenhanded, to have given out misleading information and to have constantly attempted to belittle the importance of the battlefield. Indeed, at the inquiry the chairman of the Cromwell Association asked a representative of the Department of Transport a hypothetical question: "Can we assume, for the purposes of argument, that your road would totally destroy the battlefield; what then would be the position?" The reply was, "It would make no difference at all". It is that indifference to the importance of the battlefield that objectors have been struggling against for the past 18 years.
A full inquiry was conducted at which a number of distinguished historians gave detailed evidence. All of them agreed that a road running north of Naseby would do irrevocable damage to the battlefield. The two Ministers at the time, Mr. Peter Bottomley and Mr. Paul Channon, concluded on the basis of the inspector's report that the choice was a hard one. They said that they were in,
"no doubt of the significance that rightly attaches to the site of such an important battle in the history of Parliamentary democracy as a place for visiting, study and interpretation. On the other hand they have to consider the environmental arguments".
They also noted the preferences of the local councils. Their decision was:
"With these considerations in mind the Secretaries of State have decided it is not reasonable that the whole area involved in the battle should be regarded as sacrosanct, as something to be preserved in its present form at all costs. With much

251
regret, therefore, they conclude that the Link Road should follow the published route north of the village. They do not believe in any case that the route will have the devastating effect on the battle area as a whole that the objectors evidently fear".
That was the key decision. It is my contention that it was wrong and that the battlefield should be protected.
It is true that the line of the proposed road will not run through the centre of the area where the opposing forces were first drawn up—the area between Mill Hill, where Fairfax and Cromwell drew up the parliamentary forces, and Dust Hill, where King Charles I stood with his troops. However, it will run through the areas where Cromwell's five regiments of horse were drawn up, where Prince Rupert's impetuous charge took place and where the parliamentary infantry were at first driven back. A large four-lane modern road on this alignment, with three massive overbridges across it, will destroy for ever the value and significance of this historic site.
Incidentally, I am surprised that English Heritage has not been more active in seeking to preserve this historic site. I have been told by its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who unfortunately is unable to take part in this debate tonight, that,
"English Heritage's responsibilities and authority do not cover landscapes as our locus is entirely the man-built environment".
He added:
"Naturally this is an unsatisfactory situation and that is why we are pleased that in the recent Government White Paper on the environment it is suggested that in future battlefields should come under our aegis".
However, the National Heritage Act 1983 states in Section 33(1) (a) that it is the duty of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission—that is, English Heritage—
"to secure the preservation of ancient monuments … situated in England".
Section 33(8) of that Act defines an ancient monument as including any site which in the commission's opinion is of historic interest. I gather that English Heritage regards a site as not including a landscape, but if Naseby is not a site of historic interest, what is? The preservation society cannot understand why English Heritage was not represented at the two public inquiries, does not seem to have made representations about the threat to the battlefield to the inspectors or the Ministers and said in only one letter that,
"It … regrets the disturbance which may be caused to the site of the battle of Naseby".
It has clearly been very damaging that English Heritage has taken the view that it was inappropriate for it to intervene. Had it felt free to do so, we might not have needed this debate tonight. As it is, since the original decision by the two Ministers the plans have been altered in that three large and intrusive overbridges will be constructed on the road to carry side roads across it. This has resulted in a second public inquiry this year in which the society once more argued in favour of a southern route. Throughout the proceedings the society has brought together a
252
formidable weight of historic and landscape expertise in support of its position. By contrast, the Department of Transport has been unable to find any historical witness to support its contention.
The society challenged the public inquiry report in the High Court. This challenge failed as the court held that it had no power to overturn the Ministers' decision, but Lord Justice Bingham concluded:
"If the issue before this Court were whether the appellants had established a formidable case for preserving the battlefield as it now stands, I would for my part have no hesitation in concluding that they had".
It is that formidable case that I think should be decisive in this case and not the decision by two Ministers now no longer in the Government that it would be unreasonable to regard the whole area of the battlefield as sacrosanct. The society considered an appeal to the European Court, but that court cannot intervene because the requirement on member governments to make an environmental impact assessment came into force after the decision in this case was taken.
The grim conclusion was that,
"The Commission cannot on the basis of directive 85/337/EEC stop any member state from destroying its environment if it so wishes".
However, we do not need to destroy cur environment or to wreck this unique historic site. The southern route is still available. The cost would be little, if any, more. It would be in a deep cutting; it would not damage the environment more than the northern route and, above all, it would not touch the battlefield.
Since 1985 we have all become more conscious of the need to preserve all aspects of our environment if we possibly can. In their own recent environmental White Paper, This Common Inheritance, the Government say that they are now,
"asking English Heritage and the Countryside Commission to develop their educational programmes, SD as to make the public more aware of how the countryside, and historic landscapes, have evolved. It has invited English Heritage to prepare a register of landscapes and sites (such as battlefields) which have historic significance but where there are no longer any identifiable remains … through this register the Government, local planning authorities and others will be alerted to the significance of these sites when considering development plans and applications for planning permission".
In the light of that, which I welcome, and of the fact that since last week we have a new Prime Minister and new Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment, I hope that the Government will be prepared to think again. Why destroy this battlefield when a practicable and reasonable alternative exists? As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said in this House last year, to do so would be an appalling example of vandalism.
We live in a small, precious and vulnerable island. We should at the very least preserve the historic sites that we have. The Department of Transport seems utterly insensitive to these things. I think that left to itself it might plan a motorway through the close of Salisbury Cathedral or a roundabout around York Minster. We must look to Ministers to take a more enlightened view. It is not too late to put right a

253
grievous mistake. To move the route south of Naseby now and save the battlefield would be welcomed by everyone interested in our national heritage and would earn the Government the thanks of this generation and future generations.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it must be very rare for an incoming Minister to be presented with an opportunity, by a stroke of the pen, to immortalise himself as the man who saved the reputation of his department. If the right honourable gentleman in another place who has become the Secretary of State for Transport will take the trouble to read the very persuasive case that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has put before us, and agree to this proposal, he will be able to liquidate the reputation of the Department of Transport as philistinism incarnate.
It is a curious story that we have had put before us. It raises some interesting issues. I have been told by those acquainted with the area, which I am not, that there is no pressing evidence that such a road was ever necessary and that if the inhabitants of the area north and south of the battlefield had pooled their efforts and made a case against such a road they might have been successful. However, that is hypothesis.
What I can say is not hypothetical, having followed the argument and read some of the documents and having seen some of the maps concerned, is that the county council seems to have behaved in an extraordinary way for some elected persons holding planning authority. I am told and I have read that they have now put on the alleged battlefield various markers which do not correspond to the views of the historians who are competent to tell us how the battle was waged. By doing so they have managed to suggest that the battlefield was somewhere else. The road, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out, would undoubtedly ruin the battlefield.
On some occasions historic monuments were moved. Temples in Egypt were moved in order to avoid the flooding of the Nile. This would certainly be the first occasion on which a battlefield was moved by a county council in order to enable it to pursue its favourite road project. The noble Viscount who is to reply used to speak on behalf of the Department of Education and Science. It is again extraordinary, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out, that a government who have insisted on the central importance of British history in the national curriculum should be indifferent to an event which, as the noble Lord pointed out, played a cardinal role not merely in the development of a war but in the future of our political institutions.
There are extraordinary paradoxes in this and an extraordinary feeling that we have not been told the full story as to why the county council, against the advice of those concerned with education, historians and qualified surveyors, should persist with a project which seems to have no justification at all that it is
254
prepared to explain. It is trying to divert attention from the damage to the battlefield by pretending that it happened somewhere else.
The presence in the Chamber this evening of the leading historian of that period, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, obviates my having to say anything more on the subject, and I gladly yield the floor to him.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for introducing this Question. He and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, have between them put the case so well that they have not left me with much to say. Let us suppose that we have in front of us a proposal to take the original death warrant of Charles I or an original text of Magna Charta and destroy them as part of a project for recycling old paper or even parchment. I think that, quite rightly, your Lordships would express a good deal of indignation.
However, historical evidence does not take only a written form because it may take a physical one. It may be just as valuable and significant in the physical form as it may be in the written. For a while during the 1960s the study of war was somewhat out of fashion. People felt that it was something that they disliked and therefore they did not want to study it very much. But it is a capital mistake to think that it is our job to like or dislike the past. Our job, whether we like it or not, is to understand it.
During the past 20 years there has been a considerable revival of military history associated in particular with King's College, London, which is my own college. That has been very largely concentrated on logistics and money. Unlike modern major generals, military historians do know what is meant by commissariat. Although that has been a very valuable and important trend, it is nevertheless important that there may still be occasions on which the whole course of a war is actually determined in a few minutes on a field of battle.
Historians, like Ministers, are very rightly wary of answering hypothetical questions. So I am not going to say that if King Charles had won the Battle of Naseby he would have won the civil war. I cannot assert with any confidence that he would not have done. There was a moment in the middle of that battle when the parliamentary foot soldiers wavered and were on the verge of breaking and running. It is at least a possibility that if the events of those few minutes had gone the other way the whole course of the war would have been different.
We cannot understand the war without understanding the battle; and we cannot understand the battle without understanding the ground. The great Victorian historians, and S.R. Gardiner in particular, never wrote the history of a battle without walking across the ground covered by the battle itself. That is a good tradition. I have done that on the rare occasions when I have had to write about a battle, which as a parliamentary historian I fortunately do not have to do very often. But you cannot do it if the battlefield has been destroyed.

255
We may think that the story is known and that it is not going to change. That is not the case. The historical story does change constantly in response to the asking of further questions. It is not the Battle of Naseby but the Battle of Marston Moor in which the whole story has been changed within our working lifetime by the exercise of aerial photography. That demonstrated that the water course which divided the two sides has moved a considerable distance since the time of the battle. Let us suppose that that battlefield had been destroyed. It would have been quite impossible for that to be discovered. We would have been left with the wrong story with no prospect of ever being able to correct it. It might be the battlefield of Naseby next time, so there is here something that is important not only on heritage grounds for tourists, but also as a serious point of academic study.
I appreciate that the academic interest is only one among many involved in this matter. I agree with the Secretary of State, Mr. Channon, who argued at the time that the academic interest in this matter should not be sacrosanct. In a reasonable political universe, where we are dealing constantly with competing claims, little should be sacrosanct. I think, though, that it is a claim which, other things being equal, deserves a serious hearing. It was my first objective when investigating the subject to try to see whether other things were in fact equal.
I think that Dr. Gilbert in 1975 was right that the other issues were more or less evenly balanced. I accept that there is a case for a road. The carriage of goods from the industrial midlands to the east coast ports is a matter of economic significance. I was prepared to investigate whether the use of the northern or the southern route would make a significant difference either to the cost or the distance involved. Any difference with regard to distance is minimal. Since it depends on quite small points of how the loop of the road is planned, it may be slightly shorter or slightly longer on the southern route; but either way there will be no great difference. There is no strong argument in terms of saving distance.
What was said at the 1984–85 public inquiry seems to be correct in that there is no significant argument on grounds of cost; or at least that seemed to be correct until very recently. We are now told that three massive bridges are needed over the road on the northern route. That must change the financial arithmetic. It must make the northern route more expensive. What we are now being asked to accept is the destruction of a historical site of great importance, not for the sake of an overriding public interest but for the sake of an unnecessary waste of public money. I hope that that can be prevented.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we must all be grateful to my noble friend Lord Moran for initiating a debate on this important subject, and for putting his cast iron case so clearly and so forcefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested that a new road might not be necessary at all. He may possibly be right. Nevertheless, we must give the Government the
256
benefit of the doubt and for the purposes of this debate at any rate start from the assumption that a new road connecting the A.1 with the M.1 is indeed needed, not withstanding the well established maxim that new roads usually generate new traffic beyond their capacity to handle. I should add in parenthesis that any new road connecting with the A.1 will be positively useless and will make matters worse unless the Government act quickly to get rid of the terrible bottleneck near Alconbury, where the M.11 extension, which carries so much heavy lorry traffic from east London and the east coast ports, funnels into the A.1.
But assuming that we agree with the principle of a new road, where is it to go? If a similar debate had taken place two or three years ago, I would not have put down my name to speak. At that time the word "Naseby" simply meant to me yet another Civil War battlefield, many of which almost totally lack either atmosphere or sense of history, at least to those who are not specialists in the subject, possibly because the impact of the late 20th century has destroyed any atmosphere there might formerly have been.
Moreover, the part of England in which Naseby is located is not noted for its remoteness or by and large, for its scenic beauty. However, about 18 months ago my wife and I decided to make a long detour on our way North to see what all the fuss was about. We were immediately completely converted to the point of view put forward by noble Lords who have spoken in the debate so far. Partly perhaps because Naseby is rather isolated and difficult to get to, partly because there are few if any 20th century intrusions, the site is extraordinarily atmospheric, albeit not to the same extent as Culloden, which must surely seem poignant and haunted even to someone with almost no knowledge of the history of the highlands. Nevertheless, Naseby exudes an almost tangible sense of the England of 345 years ago. I strongly urge an alternative route upon the Government, the more so since I am very conscious of the way the once peaceful and in parts still beautiful Oxford canal has been ruined by the M.40 extension from Oxford to Birmingham, even before any traffic other than construction traffic has run along that motorway.
I have a specific question for the Minister who is to reply. A former Conservative Transport Minister, who is not in the Government now and has not been in the Government for several months, made a most extraordinary, even shocking, declaration rather more than a year ago in connection with the Naseby controversy, as it so happened, although he could have made a similar comment about other road "improvement" schemes. The Minister in question was reported as saying in effect that those who persisted in resisting road improvement schemes had blood on their hands, in that every day road improvements that were deemed necessary by the Government were delayed by objections the more likely it was statistically that people would be killed or injured in consequence. Apart from the fact that that was a "guesstimate" with no factual support, it was a shocking thing to say and an appalling example of moral blackmail.

257
I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that every individual, if he so chooses, is entitled to object, responsibly and within the law, to bypasses, motorways, outer ring roads, road widening schemes or whatever, and is entitled to do so not only legally but morally, irrespective of whether his or her objections are based on a historical, aesthetic or environmental viewpoint or, slightly less altruistically, stem from what we now call NIMBY—not in my back yard—considerations. It takes a strong man or woman to stand up to moral blackmail applied in the full glare of publicity. If individuals are to be frightened off making legitimate objections to road schemes in this way, one might as well scrap the planning process altogether and automatically rubber stamp every government scheme.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on one matter because I happen to live only four miles from Alconbury. The congestion on the A.1 is serious at times and we need an A.1-M.1 link. Let no one doubt that.
Having represented Huntingdon in another place for 34 years until 1979, when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister succeeded me as local MP, I too am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has raised this matter. I know the battlefield of Naseby. It seems to me that an overwhelming case has been made against building a motorway across it. That case has been so well made that I can be brief but I would venture to summarise the matter by saying that the historical, environmental, financial and practical reasons for choosing the southern route are overwhelming. It is to me astonishing that those who were responsible before last week should have made an obviously wrong decision, as has been said.
I found it rather significant to discover that the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, is president of the society for the preservation of this battlefield. It makes one wonder what an outcry there would be, not only in Europe but in this country, if it were decided to build a colossal motorway with three bridges across the battlefield of Waterloo, which the Belgians have done so much to preserve, and have done it so well.
I merely wish to add to what has been said about the historical importance of the battlefield of Naseby and to bring the matter up to date, now that Huntingdon has produced our first leader of the nation since Oliver Cromwell. In passing, I should like to point out that our Prime Minister has a deep sense of history.
Oliver Cromwell would not have become the nation's leader if the New Model Army—which he trained, although Fairfax led the army—had not won the Battle of Naseby in 1645. Both the Parliamentarians and the Royalists had well-trained, efficient and brave armies. Until the Battle of Naseby, the Royalists had been victorious in most of the fighting. However, the Parliamentary Party won an overwhelming victory at Naseby and the war took a decisive turn. Although the war did not end until the
258
Battle of Worcester in 1651, Cromwell was never defeated in battle after the battle of Naseby; neither, incidentally, was he defeated in politics.
Towards the end of his life in 1658, Cromwell tried to unite the country as much as he belatedly could, having previously imposed divisive policies upon it. I hope that I am not saying anything irrelevant to the debate when I say that I believe our new Prime Minister will do much to unite the country, just he has already succeeded in uniting the Conservative Party.
Let us hope that what has been said in this debate will add to that unity by the new Secretary of State for Transport and the new Secretary of State for the Environment getting together to reverse the wretched decision to build a four-lane motorway with three bridges right across the middle of the battlefield. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, that will add to its cost. There is no doubting the fact that these bridges will be built right across the middle of the famous battlefield. I have been there, and I can assure your Lordships that that is the case.
There is power to reverse the decision which has already been taken; all that is needed is the will to do so. Therefore, I hope that when my noble friend Lord Davidson responds to the debate, he will not just repeat to the House the departmental advice which he has been given. I earnestly implore him to assure us this evening that he will bring to the attention of both Secretaries of State concerned the very strong arguments which have been put forward by your Lordships this evening for reversing the decision which has so far been made.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate. There have been contributions from distinguished academics and strong representations have been made to the Government from both sides of the House. We have had a fascinating re-run of the civil war and a remarkable, philosophical speech from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who has a very distinguished academic role in relation to the matters we are discussing.
The whole House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for introducing the debate. His eloquent and factual speech represented a powerful indictment of the decision which has been made. He contrasted the situation—if that decision is upheld—with the practice in other countries. Other noble Lords also mentioned that aspect. The noble Lord takes the view that the Department of Transport has been both indifferent and insensitive to representations made over a long period of time. Those views have been supported by many noble Lords today; they have also been supported by distinguished parliamentarians elsewhere, not least the former Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, Mr. Michael Foot, and many others. I dare say that if other noble Lords could have been present this evening, they would have wished to present the case in a similar way.
Such representations have not only been made from Parliament. They have also been made by the CPRE, by the late Sir John Betjeman and by

259
distinguished historians, reflecting the views so eloquently presented tonight by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Could there be a more powerful and eloquent witness than the former Member of Parliament for the area through which this battlefield passes than the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord will forgive my intervention. Naseby is not in the Huntingdonshire constituency; it is in a Northamptonshire constituency. However, I happen to know the area of Naseby and I have ridden around the battlefield.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is good enough for me. Apart from the the main point of issue, one needs to consider also the credibility of the Government's assertions in their White Paper. In my view, an overwhelming case has been made out for the Government to reconsider their decision.
I have no doubt that the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, can say that this is a stale matter and that the decision has been made and re-made on many occasions. I hope that he will not do that. I hope he will say that, in the light of the very strong case which has been made out, the Government will seriously consider what has been said. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, there is an overwhelming case for doing so. We have two new Secretaries of State. It could hardly be argued that they will have had time to study the case in all its details, taking into account all the demerits of the Government's case, in the few days since they took office. The noble Lord said rather fetchingly that they now have a chance to immortalise themselves on the issue. They should certainly seize the opportunity. It would be far easier to immortalise themselves in this connection than in any reappraisal of the poll tax or of our decrepit transport system.
On the assumption that a road is required—I believe that it is, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who knows the area rather better than most of us has confirmed that fact—the choice is still relatively simple. There is, first, the northern route. I refer to the proposed M.1-A.1 motorway link from Rugby to Huntingdon which would run north of Naseby village. This would undoubtedly destroy the Naseby battlefield. If the Department of Transport under its previous bosses regarded that prospect with indifference, this House does not.
There is also the southern route running through agricultural land. No doubt there would also be an environmental penalty to pay, but this is an area, as I understand it, in which large estates predominate. It may be they that have made the strongest representations to the Government thus far.
Perhaps I may briefly review the history of the decision. As has been said, the original decision was made by Dr John Gilbert, my honourable friend in another place—with whom I served in government—on 7th August 1975 on the basis that while all factors were very evenly balanced, the historical significance of the area was of overriding importance, and he had therefore decided that the link road should follow the southern alternative past the village. That
260
decision has been praised on all sides of the House tonight. It was a decision made after extensive local consultation. The consultation demonstrated vividly that local opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of preserving the battlefield and therefore of adopting the southern route. The Government have never shown convincingly, from the time that they began to reconsider the decision, that the considerations applied by Dr. Gilbert were wrong.
It was only a short time after the Government came to office that the decision was reversed. That position, doggedly maintained ever since, rides roughshod over local public opinion. It demonstrates the proposition that is sometimes put forward: our mind is made up, do not confuse us with the facts.
Over the years successive Ministers have maintained the position. I urge the Minister to consider the following points. It was asserted that bad soil conditions within the southern corridor ruled it out. Based on information I have received from the society which has briefed noble Lords, my understanding is that physical investigations have never been undertaken. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point. Is the assertion right or wrong?
The inspector, Brigadier Morrell, conceded in the report:
"I do not feel qualified to judge the disputed claims of landscape experts".
The evidence given by such experts (in contrast to the lawyers who attended the inquiry) wholly supported the southern link. It did that on environmental grounds alone. Despite that, the inspector's recommendation was, extraordinarily enough, based on landscape issues, and that constituted the basis of the Government's conclusions.
Yet, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, at the beginning, and as has been repeated by others in the House, no oral evidence on that matter was submitted, rightly or wrongly, by English Heritage. The Department of Education and Science, despite the heritage arguments, said not a word. The department responsible for tourism totally ignored the matter, and ignored incidentally the potential for tourism in the area. It seems that the Government, almost deliberately, neglected to intervene.
I have no doubt—this is what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, when answering questions on the matter on 26th January 1989—that the Government will pray in aid the fact that there has been litigation in the High Court and the Court of Appeal and even the European Court of Justice, and that those court decisions were unable to change the situation. The reasonable explanation for that, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as a distinguished lawyer will aver, is that the High Court's remit in such matters is restricted, because all that it could determine was whether the Minister had fulfilled his constitutional duty by holding a public inquiry. That he did.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred to the remarkable observations of Lord Justice Bingham when the matter went to the Court of Appeal. The

261
European Court of Justice in Luxembourg said that the environmental impact assessment directive was not in force—it did not come into force until July 1988—and therefore it could not intervene. What the European Court of Justice said was something of an indictment. It said that the Commission could not, on the basis of the environmental impact directive, stop any member state from destroying its environment if it so wished. We hope that the Government will not so wish.
The reasons, stated and unstated—the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to some of the unstated reasons—come to this. First, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, admitted—it is plain in law, and right—that a Minister can overrule an inspector, but in this instance the Government have chosen not to do so. On 26th January 1989 he said:
"My Lords, possibly, but at this battlefield there are no remains of the battle to see. It looks like an ordinary field, so far as I am aware".—[Official Report, 26/1/89; col. 820.]
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, clearly has not visited the site or he would not have said,
"so far as I am aware".
He also said that most battlefields look like ordinary fields. That is true. I have recently been to Yorktown. That looks like an ordinary field. Waterloo also looks like an ordinary field. The Belgians have taken great trouble to preserve the battlefield, as I am well aware from having travelled along that motorway on many occasions. It has been falsely asserted by the Government that all that was at stake was a battlefield little bigger than a football pitch. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out, there were 21,000 men mostly on horseback fighting along a front of two miles—some football pitch!
The unstated point is that there are powerful vested interests which have sought to influence and have succeeded in influencing the Government, Northamptonshire County Council, Daventry, landowners, and so on. The Government have put above all the case for road haulage, but it is a bigger case than that.
Why are so many agitated about this issue? The battle fought on 14th June 1645 was the decisive battle of the Civil War, ensuring the supremacy of our Parliament. As my right honourable friend Michael Foot put it in another place, it was one of the birthplaces of parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom. It is also a pleasant area. It is a pleasant battlefield. It is good to visit because it provides an unspoilt view of the landscape. That is the view of Professor Woolrych, who gave evidence to the public inquiry in 1984. There is tourist potential as there is in relation to other battlefields. There is also considerable educational potential. It is something, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has clearly demonstrated today, about which children should know. I am convinced that a visit brings history to life. That is surely a critical matter.
There are environmental considerations which cause grave concern here. There are two routes, almost equal in length, but the northern route would
262
have a disastrous impact. The southern route would not. It is more favourably placed. It would not involve nearly as much public expenditure as that relating to the northern route.
If the Government dispute that point, which has been made to them over and over again, let them give comparative figures. I believe that in winding up the debate the noble Viscount should do so. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the northern route would involve building three massive bridges because the route runs along a high ridge. That does not apply in any way to the southern route.
Even on public expenditure grounds, about which the Government claim to be concerned, they have been demonstrably wrong. I believe that the Government have miscalculated. That is the view of everyone who has spoken in the debate. The Government should change their mind, even at this late stage. Naseby was a decisive battle between Cavaliers and Roundheads and I sincerely hope that it is not the boneheads who will triumph.
8.20 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate which has, more than almost any other that I can remember, brought out the exceptional erudition, knowledge and experience which are features that so distinguish your Lordships' House. Your Lordships may have overrated the influence that I might have with my colleagues. However, I can tell the House that I personally will ensure that the Official Report of this debate will be read by my right honourable friends, the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment. Nevertheless, that is as far as my influence extends at this stage, and I shall confidently leave it to my noble friend Lord Renton—who has considerably more influence—not only to send a copy of the Official Report to our right honourable friend the Prime Minister but I dare say to have a cup of coffee with him.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government's reasons for their decision to route the M.1-A.1 link road to the north of the village of Naseby. At this moment it remains the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to build this much needed link road across the East Midlands on the route already authorised by the made orders. This will take the road north of Naseby. The Department of Transport is already constructing about half the length of the 45-mile road and is pressing on with completion of the statutory procedures for the remaining sections of the road. We expect to start work for the section around Naseby in the summer of 1991.
The merits of competing routes to the south and north of Naseby have been discussed at length over about the past 15 years. The original orders under the Highways Act for the Naseby section were published in draft as long ago as 1982. It is now the time to put intention into practice and build the road.

263
My right honourable friends the former Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport confirmed the need and fixed the alignment for the whole route of the M.1-A.1 link road in a letter of 6th April 1987 which conveyed their decision. This followed a report by an independent inspector who held a public inquiry between September 1984 and June 1985. That inquiry heard a great deal of detailed evidence and cross-examination, alternative proposals and counter proposals on many issues, including the effect on Naseby battlefield. Overall the inspector found that the case for an M1-A1 link road was overwhelming. At that original inquiry the debate on the route at Naseby and related issues alone took about four weeks.
The inspector concluded that the evidence given by five eminent historians supported the view that the Department of Transport's proposed northern route would cross the battlefield near its southern edge. He said the objectors' alternative southern route put forward by the Society for the Preservation of the Field of Battle of Naseby would have a greater overall impact on the environment. Bearing in mind the minor extent to which the proposed road would encroach upon the battlefield, the inspector was not convinced that the additional effect upon the environment of the objectors' alternative route could be justified. He concluded that the department should not adopt a route to the south of Naseby in preference to the published route north of the village.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that more physical boreholes—that is site investigation—have been carried out to the south of Naseby than to the north. This was reported to the 1984–85 public inquiry. However, I do not believe that this is either the place or the time to re-open that public inquiry.
In coming to a decision my right honourable friends the former Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport dealt with the hard choice between preserving the whole battlefield and protecting the sensitive environment south of Naseby. They were in no doubt of the historical significance that rightly attaches to the site of such an important battle. On the other hand, they had to consider all the environmental arguments.
The two affected local authorities—that is Northamptonshire County Council and Daventry District Council—opposed the objector's alternative southern route because among other things it affected the designated area of high landscape value which lies to the south of Naseby. The alternative route would impose more visual intrusion on a greater number of dwellings than the northern route, subject more dwellings to increased noise and have a particularly severe effect on the village of Haselbech where local people were united in opposing the alternative route.
My right honourable friends the former Secretaries of State concluded that it was not reasonable that the whole area of the battle should be regarded as sacrosanct, as something to be preserved in its present form at all costs. That present form, I might add, is unlikely to resemble the countryside of 1645.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is not far off it.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. My right honourable Friends did not believe, in any event, that the road would have such a devastating effect on the battlefield as some fear.
The road would cross near the southern edge of the battlefield at low level. The natural topography north of Naseby village comprises a series of ridges running generally from west to east. The link road will run along a valley formed between two of these. The high ground to the south of the road will then shield it from the village of Naseby and the ridges to the north will shield views of the road from the main area of the civil war fighting.
Not only has the question of the route north of Naseby been thoroughly investigated during the required statutory procedures of highway scheme preparation, but it has also been pursued by the Society for the Preservation of the Field of Battle of Naseby through the High Court in August 1988 and through an Appeal Court in January 1989, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, told us. On each occasion the validity of the decision of my right honourable friends the former Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport has been upheld. An application to this House in March 1989 for leave to appeal was subsequently refused.
Also following the recommendation of the inspector in his report on the 1984–85 public inquiry, my right honourable friends the former Secretaries of State agreed that, in an effort to reduce the effects on local road users, changes should be made to the provisions for minor roads which currently run across the battlefield. These changes (to provide one new bridged crossing and to amend another) were also subject to the rigours of the statutory procedures which involved a second public inquiry held in February 1990.
The route of the main line of the link road was not strictly within the ambit of that inquiry. Nevertheless, the inspector agreed to hear the further submissions of the Society for the Preservation of the Field of Battle of Naseby on that already well rehearsed topic. He concluded, and my right honourable friends the former Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport agreed in their decision letter of 22nd October this year, that no new evidence of sufficient clarity or substance had been presented such as to cast doubt on the analysis of the original inspector and the findings of the then Secretaries of State following the 1984–85 inquiries.
Lengthy, detailed, comprehensive and sympathetic consideration has been given to the route of the link road at Naseby. Yet another review now would show that a change of route would achieve nothing but delay because of the fresh statutory procedures which would be required. The need for the scheme was substantiated at the 1984–85 inquiry; this need remains beyond doubt and the growth in traffic in the intervening years makes it all the more urgent. The link road will provide a vital and necessary route between the industry of the Midlands, East Anglia and

265
the east coast ports and thence to Europe. It will reduce fatal and other accidents on existing roads running through a large number of communities in the East Midlands and bring them relief from the environmental effects of heavy traffic. To realise these benefits as soon as possible it is right to press ahead to complete at the earliest opportunity the route which exhaustive consideration of all points of view has shown to be the best choice.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask this question. Does he have any figures as to the relative costs of the two routes? We should bear in mind that the building of overhead bridges is bound to be an increased cost. On the proposed northern route, there would be three bridges.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the quantum of costs on both the northern and southern alignments was put to the 1984–85 inquiry and the southern route was more costly by £1 million. I take the point about the extra cost of the bridges and I shall certainly look into it and let my noble friend know about it.

Clyde Port Authority Bill London Underground (Victoria) Bill Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill Shard Bridge Bill
A message was brought from the Commons that they have considered the Lords Message of 12th November last and have made the following orders:
That the Promoters of the Clyde Port Authority Bill, the London Underground (Victoria) Bill, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Shard Bridge Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bills, in the present Session; and the Petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bills shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
That there shall be deposited with each 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 last Session;
That each 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, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
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 last Session.
House adjourned at half past eight

  SAUDI ARABIA: EXPULSION OF YEMENI WORKERS
  SAUDI ARABIA: EXPULSION OF YEMENI WORKERS
  THE GULF: TERRITORIAL SEAS
  THE GULF: TERRITORIAL SEAS
  FCO PAPERS PUBLISHED 1989–90
  FCO PAPERS PUBLISHED 1989–90
  ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AND EC PATENT LAW
  ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AND EC PATENT LAW