Sitting of 28 March 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Before we start?
Mr. Douglas: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If you prefer me to raise it at the end of Question Time, I shall defer to your wishes, Mr. Speaker—but that will not detract from the urgency of the matter.
My point of order is that last Thursday, during business questions, several requests were made for a statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on capital offsets. No indication has been given that such a statement will be made. My constituents, and those of other right hon. and hon. Members, are being adversely affected because poinding warrants are being issued and executed in respect of bills that are not founded in law. May I have your permission, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise that matter if we reach questions today that are relevant to that subject. I believe that question No. 16 is the first of them. We must see whether we can do so.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Drugs
    Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra resources he is making available to Strathclyde police to enable them to fight against the significant increase in drug abuse and drug-related crime; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The provision of resources for Strathclyde police is a matter for Strathclyde regional council as police authority. My right hon. and learned Friend stands ready to pay police grant on the council's net approved expenditure on the police service.
    Mr. Hood: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. Is he aware of the concern felt by thousands of parents in my constituency about the increase in drug and alcohol abuse and in related crimes there? This year, Glasgow is meant to be the city of culture, but it is becoming better known in Europe as the city of drugs. I am saddened by the Minister's response. Is he further aware of the increased use of firearms in drugs offences? Will he take on board early-day motion 771, which deals with the need for gun
    470
    control, and support Strathclyde police force in calling for stricter firearms laws and controls over those licensed to use guns?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Last year, we tightened up the law on firearms ownership—and I voted through the night for that legislation. As to the number of police officers working on the extremely serious problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers, Strathclyde drugs squad now has 34 officers in comparison with only 18 in 1979. The Glasgow drugs wing of the Scottish crime squad has 10 officers, and another will be added later this year. Uniformed and CID officers also co-operate in dealing with the problem. Strathclyde police are under establishment by 130 officers, and the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to make representations to his colleagues on the police authority, as to the need to bring that force up to strength.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Minister aware that Strathclyde police officers also work in Argyll and Bute on drug-related crime, not least because of the length of the coastline there? Does he agree that they would undertake those duties more happily if they were not seriously disadvantaged in comparison with colleagues outwith that area? Eighty per cent. of police in Argyll and Bute live in tied houses. Although I agree with the provision of such accommodation, police are not permitted to buy those houses, and have been disadvantaged since the rates relief portion of their rent allowance was abolished. Will the Minister examine that anomaly?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We recognised that police officers in provided accommodation were at a disadvantage in comparison with colleagues owning their own houses, which is why we made provision in the regulations that come into effect on 1 April for an allowance of £300 per annum for officers in provided accommodation, which will continue for three years. The right to buy obviously depends on whether the property is surplus to requirements, which is a matter for consideration by the chief constable in each authority.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend encourage police forces in Strathclyde and elsewhere in Scotland to use referral schemes, so that people suffering from drug misuse, and falling within the ambit of police forces, can be referred to voluntary organisations for help with treatment—as well as being brought within the law?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are Home Office plans for the deployment of local drug prevention teams, but they are still at an early stage. We shall be monitoring developments in the first small group of local teams in England. The new central drug prevention unit, as an executive arm of the ministerial group on the misuse of drugs, will have a British role and we are conscious of the need for rehabilitation and education, on which we are spending substantial sums.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the executive members of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to discuss the current state of the fishing industry.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: My noble Friend the Minister of State and I last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 7 February, and my noble Friend did so on 8 March; in addition, my officials are in regular contact with the federation. It has not asked for a further meeting.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Secretary of State understand the deep sense of apprehension felt in the fishing community, in the fish processing sector and by all those who derive their living from the fishing industry in Scotland? Will he now undertake to consider a package of measures to alleviate that concern, and in particular give serious consideration to the introduction of a decomissioning scheme?
    Mr. Rifkind: I understand that concern. I have had some extremely valuable discussions with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I am aware of the concern that a reduction in quotas might have implications for fishermen's income. That is why we have been monitoring carefully what has been happening in the fishing industry since the beginning of the year. So far, it is encouraging that the value of fish landed in Scotland is slightly higher over the first two months of this year than the value of fish landed a year ago. There is no proof that that will continue, but it is encouraging at this stage that the increased prices will help to offset the reduced amount of fish being caught.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Why does the Secretary of State persist with his irrationally vindictive policy of driving the Scottish fleet into bankruptcy? Why does not he take into account the fact that European Community money is available and consider having a proper decommissioning scheme and a proper lay-up scheme? It is no use his saying that prices can take care of the problems when he knows that with boats being allowed to go to sea only 92 days a year, it is quite impossible for the price of fish to rise that much and still produce income without causing great hardship to the owners of vessels and to all those employed in the fishing industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully: the value of fish landed in Scotland this year is slightly higher than the value of fish landed last year. As we are only in the early part of the year, that will not necessarily continue, but it is important that we bear it in mind. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the decommissioning scheme was the subject of an extremely critical report by the Public Accounts Committee, and the House and the industry must take into account the critical remarks that were made about previous decommissioning schemes.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend analyse carefully the financial returns to the industry in the first part of the year? Admittedly, the returns have been good, but they relate to a very small proportion of the fleet. The rest of the fleet has not been able to go to sea on account of bad weather. Because they are restricted to 92 days, they cannot recoup the losses incurred in the early part of the year as they would in a normal year. Will my right hon. and learned Friend please understand the deep apprehension that still exists in the industry, to the extent that fishermen are now considering legal action against him? I ask him in particular to reconsider a decommissioning scheme.
    Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, we shall continue carefully to monitor what is happening in the industry. I know that my right hon. Friend will be the first to agree that the financial implications of the reduced quotas must be examined. The value of the fish landed is a factor that determines fishermen's incomes and we cannot ignore the fact that it is marginally higher this year. Obviously, legal challenges are a matter for the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and ultimately, if the matter is considered by the courts we shall all respect the outcome of the judgment, if it goes that far.

    Public Housing (Dampness)
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from local authorities and other organisations about the need to direct further investment to tackling dampness in public sector housing.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from local authorities and other organisations about the need to direct further investment to tackling dampness in public sector housing.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No such representations have been received. I am pleased to say that I am today announcing the final housing capital allocations to local authorities for 1990–91. The final gross allocations have been increased by £46·5 million compared with the provisional allocations that I announced last December. That will benefit all housing authorities in Scotland. Of the increase, £41·1 million is in respect of expenditure on local authorities' own stock. Full details of the final allocations have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister recall that the Scottish Development Department's own house conditions survey showed that more than 500,000 houses in Scotland were suffering from dampness, of which 370,000 were in the public sector, and that that dampness was creating major health problems, particularly for youngsters and children with chest problems such as bronchitis? As last week the Secretary of State reshuffled some £4 million to save his political skin and the skin of his party, will a substantial proportion of the allocation that he has announced be spent specifically on the eradication of dampness?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I visited 39 district councils, none of which pressed me to make specific allocations because they want the discretion to choose their own priorities. What the hon. Lady says about the seriousness of dampness is true. Moray district council has today been given an extra allocation of £676,000, and on the non-housing revenue account an extra allocation of £50,000. Every authority in Scotland will benefit from the extra allocation of £41·1 million to the housing revenue account, except West Lothian, which has been allocated everything that it asked for. It also benefits on the non-HRA.
    Mr. Welsh: Given that over 520,000 houses in Scotland suffer from dampness, which affects the lives and health of many Scottish people, the amount of money that has been allocated is inadequate to meet the problem. Even to recycle money within the Scottish Office budget, Ministers must go cap in hand to the Secretary of State, who must

    473
    go cap in hand to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister dominates the Scottish Office, she should be answerable, because Ministers certainly are not. When will we get action to solve major health and housing problems, which are nothing less than a national disgrace?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The extra allocation of £46·5 million is being made not as a result of recycling within the Scottish Office but on the basic assumption that it is possible to process council house sales within seven and a half months. Some authorities in Scotland have taken well over a year to do that, but we know that, in two years, processing has been completed within less than eight months. Last Sunday, the Sunday Mail said:
    "It's not a shortage of cash that's causing chaos, but massive delays by some district councils' house selling operations."
    Mr. McAllion: The Government have created a national housing agency, Scottish Homes, which owns more than 70,000 houses in the public sector. How can it possibly tackle dampness when, according to its strategic investment plan, investment in those 70,000 houses has been placed at the bottom of six different spending priorities? Is not that an obscene order of priorities and does not it represent a sell-out of Scottish Homes' tenants and Scottish Homes' stock?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Special Housing Association and Scottish Homes have a good reputation among their tenants for spending sufficient funds on management and maintenance of council house stock. Most of their houses are in relatively good condition. It is for them to choose their priorities, and obviously they will do so. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular problems in his constituency, I should be glad if he drew them to the attention of Scottish Homes and myself.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that 74 per cent. of houses that suffer from dampness are in the public sector is a condemnation of the policies of Scottish local housing authorities?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is important that housing authorities have the discretion to choose priorities within their areas. These problems are found not only in the public sector but in the private sector, and today we have made an additional allocation to the non-HRA as well.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware how blindly complacent he sounds when he speaks on the subject of dampness? Does not he understand the enormous human misery caused to thousands of Scots through their having to live in damp houses? Does he accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that dampness in housing causes ill health? If he does, will he stop mouthing meaningless statistics that no one in Scotland believes and invest the massive amount of money necessary to eradicate that unacceptable and unnecessary scourge for ever?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that £46·5 million is to be sniffed at. His authority in Glasgow has today been allocated more than £9 million extra on the housing revenue account and £2 million on the non-HRA. He should address his comments
    474
    to his district council which, no doubt, will take them seriously. The average increase throughout Scotland is 9·8 per cent., and that should not be underestimated.

    Community Care
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra provision he has planned for the community care of mentally ill citizens and those people who are mentally handicapped in 1990–91.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Government support to local authorities in 1990–91 through revenue support grant will take account of likely additional costs arising from the introduction of the new community care arrangements, including services to those with a mental illness or a mental handicap.
    Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that one important aspect of community care is the provision of sheltered employment? Is not one of the finest examples of that the sheltered placement scheme, which provides some 350 permanent jobs for those with mental handicaps? As there are about 14,000 mentally handicapped people in Strathclyde region alone, will the Government give an assurance that they will increase their share of that scheme's budget, as Strathclyde regional council has done? When will the Government provide proper community care for those with mental handicap and illness?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the success of the sheltered placement scheme, which has received strong Government support. Our commitment to the needs of those with mental illness or handicap is reflected in the fact that the social work budget has planned provision increasing over 11 years by 75 per cent. in real terms. That is a substantial increase.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference between Labour and Conservative health care policies is the difference between talk and action? The Labour party talks whereas the Conservative party has spent more than three times as much on health care in Scotland over the past 10 years.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. It is not insignificant that the title of our White Paper was "Caring for People". The interests of those in especially vulnerable groups have been brought to the forefront in the provision for community care.
    Mr. Worthington: When will the Minister bring together the social work services group and the Scottish Home and Health Department to achieve proper planning and co-ordinated policies for Scotland? One of the advantages of the Scottish Office is supposed to be a corporate approach, but it does not exist. There are twice as many mentally ill people and one and a half times as many mentally handicapped people in hospital in Scotland as there are in England and Wales. When will the Minister and the Scottish Office show some leadership in this matter?
    Mr. Lang: The figures show a dramatic improvement in our provision compared with that of the previous Labour Government. Residential places for the mentally ill have increased by 88 per cent. since we took office; there has been a 73 per cent. increase for the mentally handicapped; and the community health services budget generally is up

    475
    by 57 per cent. in real terms over the decade. That is a dramatic increase. We have found the resources to follow up our care in this important area.

    Water Authorities (Debts)
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Her Majesty's Government intend to write off any of the current outstanding debts of Scottish water authorities.
    Mr. Rifkind: Debt was written off in connection with water privatisation in England and Wales. As we have no proposals to privatise the Scottish water authorities, the issue does not arise.
    Sir David Steel: The Secretary of State might say that the issue does not arise, but, as the Treasury gave £5 billion to the water authorities in England and Wales in this financial year, does not that mean that nothing equivalent has been given to Scottish authorities, with the result that every poll tax payer is paying a higher element of community charge than would otherwise be the case? Should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman have another of his cosy chats with the Prime Minister and point out the injustice of that as well?
    Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically misinformed. First, he is unaware that expenditure on water and sewerage in Scotland will be more than £500 million over the next three years—a major increase which we announced recently. Secondly, he is unaware that Scottish water consumers actually pay significantly less than consumers south of the border. The average cost per Scottish water consumer is £40·62 compared with an English average of £55·12. For metered water users, there is a similar difference of which he should have been aware.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge the extra money for investment that my right hon. and learned Friend has allocated for water and sewerage, but will he also recognise the problem facing regional councils such as Grampian? In recent years, Grampian has had to invest large sums in water and sewerage services because of the service that the council gives to the development of North sea oil. As a result, traditional industries in Grampian such as fish processing, food processing in general and the paper industry must bear charges out of all proportion to those of similar industries elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am very familiar with the point that my right hon. Friend has raised. He will be aware that water charges in Grampian are much the same as those in England. In addition, Grampian regional council, which has received advice from the Scottish Office about the council's discretion to vary water costs for certain classess of its consumers, has—if I am not mistaken—reduced some of its water charges this year as a result of that discretion.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: When the Secretary of State says that he has no plans to privatise the water industry in Scotland, is he aware of the speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), to what he described as the new Right in Scotland, in which he said that the Conservative party had not yet run out of things to privatise in Scotland? Will the
    476
    Secretary of State give us an absolute assurance that water is not included in the speech made by his hon. Friend, or is he still afraid of him?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that we have not run out of things to privatise in Scotland, and water is not one of them.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry since the announcement on 8 March of measures to restrict fishing activity.
    Mr. Lang: My noble Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry on the day of the announcement.
    Mr. Wallace: I am sure that, from his contacts with fishermen and the fishing industry, the Minister will know that one of the great weaknesses in the present conservation regime is the number of fish that are discarded into the sea. Does he agree that the measures announced on 8 March will do nothing to stop that fault in the regime? The problem will not be tackled properly until the Government are prepared to come forward with measures that bring the catching capacity of the fleet into line with fishing opportunities. Is it not the case that any efforts on the part of the Scottish Office to do that are being frustrated by its English counterparts?
    Mr. Lang: No, that is not the case. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that conservation is vital, which is also recognised by our colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well as by the Scottish Office. With regard to the announcement about haddock, there was an option to move to nets with a wider mesh of 110 mm, but the vast majority of fishermen opted instead for the more restricted number of days' fishing.
    Dr. Godman: The restriction of fishing activities off the west coast of Scotland must have as its aim the protection of the west coast fishermen, who fear—rightly and understandably—an incursion into their traditional fishing grounds by the bigger vessels from elsewhere in Scotland. With regard to discards, mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), what consultation have the Government been involved in on the harsh measures threatened by the Norwegian Government and the banning of discards on catches in their waters? That ban will affect some north-east Scottish fishermen.
    Mr. Lang: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the interests of west coast fishermen. We are looking closely at that point with a view to bringing forward a consultation paper at an early date, which may, for example, canvass the possibility of a weekend ban on fishing in west coast inshore waters.

    School Assemblies
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any legislative proposals relating to the conduct of school assemblies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: All education authority schools in Scotland are required by law to practise religious observance. My

    477
    right hon. and learned Friend intends to issue shortly draft guidance on how this and other aspects of religious education might be strengthened.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that all pupils should have a sound knowledge of the Christian religion and that that can be substantially achieved through well-conducted school assemblies? Does he think that those assemblies would be enriched by the regular singing of "I vow to thee my country", meaning Great Britain of course? Perhaps the singing of that great hymn would enrich our prayers in the House.
    Mr. Lang: Yes, or perhaps the singing of "Lead kindly light amid the encircling gloom." It is certainly our intention in bringing forward the consultation paper to find ways of strengthening religious observance and religious education in schools. That is part of our purpose.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Minister agree that the Scots do not require advice on religious education or practices in schools or anywhere else, and certainly not from sources in England where the average attendance in church on Sundays is less than 2 per cent? Does he further agree that perhaps school assemblies could join in observing the Church of Scotland's day of prayer against the poll tax? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), could advise the education authorities and the school chaplains to do just that.
    Mr. Lang: I am only a Minister of the Crown and I cannot aspire to those greater insights to which ministers of the Kirk aspire. There is a need for improved religious observance in schools, and the characteristics of that should be more frequent. It should be more regular and of high quality.

    Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Ayrshire and Arran health board; and what was discussed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I regularly meet health board chairmen to discuss a variety of topics.
    Mr. McKelvey: No doubt when the hon. Gentleman met the health board chairman in Ayrshire he discussed the question of opting out. I wish that I had been a fly on the wall at the time. Is the Minister aware that in the Glasgow Herald of 19 March, Bill Fyfe, the chairman of the health board, made it clear that in his opinion only doctors could decide the question of hospitals opting out, that it could not be decided otherwise, and that opting-out cannot be rammed down their threats? Will the Minister therefore refrain from ramming the idea of opting-out down the throats of doctors and consultants in Ayrshire and elsewhere? Will he give an undertaking to abandon opting-out since little interest in it has been shown by doctors, or will he at least allow opting-out only where a majority of those working in hospitals have agreed to accept it?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am very much aware that Mr. Bill Fyfe, the chairman of the health board, rejected the view expressed by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), in his role as paid columnist for the Glasgow
    478
    Herald, to the effect that the proposals that are being discussed in Ayrshire and Arran for self-governing status for that hospital were in in no way linked to any possibility of development of phase two of that hospital. Whether a proposal comes forward will depend entirely on the discussions that are taking place and on whether the consultants believe that it is in the interests of patient care.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Minister take time to visit the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board? He will know from correspondence that he has received from me that some patients in Springburn are not shown on the records of the Greater Glasgow health board as being with their doctors. As a result, some patients who have been with their doctors since 1935 are not recorded as being on their GP's list. That means that the general practitioner is not being paid for those patients. It is ridiculous that Greater Glasgow health board does not have proper records.
    Mr. Forsyth: I take that as support by the hon. Gentleman for the proposals by Greater Glasgow health board to privatise its medical records in order to improve the service.
    Mr. Dewar: Can the Minister answer the simple question that was put to him initially and say when he met the chairman of the Ayrshire and Arran health board? Does he recall that the working paper on self-governing hospitals that was produced by his Department stated:
    "It will be for boards to give all proposals … local publicity. They will seek the views of those with an interest," including
    "staff affected, general practitioners, local health councils and the local community"?
    Has that working paper become waste paper? Or, if the Minister still believes in an element of democratic consent, how will the promise to consult the staff of hospitals that may opt out be implemented?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman seems somewhat confused. If he has read that working paper he will know the process whereby hospitals become NHS trusts. The first stage is an expression of interest; the hospital in Ayr has not even reached that stage yet. The second stage is that, if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate that the expression of interest should be followed up, a plan will be prepared. At that stage there will be full consultation, not only with the doctors but with the wider community, as spelt out in the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

    Investment
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much inward investment has taken place in Scotland over the last five years; and what steps he is taking to encourage further such investment.
    Mr. Lang: Over the five years to the end of March 1989, Locate in Scotland recorded planned investment by companies of about £2·4 billion, associated with the intended creation or safeguarding of more than 40,000 jobs. Locate in Scotland is continuing to promote Scotland vigorously as a location for inward investment, and I have recently increased its staffing.
    Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since 1981, a total of 60,000 jobs have been attracted to Scotland as a

    479
    result of the Government's policies, and that they almost certainly would not have been attracted in those numbers had a Labour Government been in power, because the Opposition are anti-business? Does he also agree that the Government's inward investment programme is being maintained, as is evidenced by the 2,000 jobs that have just been attracted to Scotland as a result of Motorola coming there? Will my hon. Friend kindly leave some jobs for the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lang: I would not argue with my hon. Friend about the exact number of jobs that have been created, but certainly a number of indirect jobs follow from the direct jobs that have been created, and they are substantial in number. Over the past five years about 300 projects have been attracted to Scotland, which is an average of one a week every week for five years. That is a dramatic advertisement of the qualities that Scotland has to offer.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: If the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), who has joined us, is looking for a safe seat in Scotland, following the resignation of his Tory councillors, he is wasting his time.
    Perhaps the Minister will ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State a question. In "The Thatcher Interview", talking about the effect that high business rates are having on the closure rate of business in Scotland, the Prime Minister said that closures might be the result of bad management or too much borrowing. Does the Secretary of State fall into line with her judgment on this issue?
    Mr. Lang: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should raise the subject of business rates, because the Labour party has been responsible for substantially increased business rates in Scotland over the years, to the great detriment of business. The Government have stepped in with new resources and a progressive plan to reduce business rates in Scotland steadily over a five or six-year period to bring them into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing could do more harm to Scotland's prospects for inward investment than a combination of the roof tax and the setting up of a Scottish assembly as the only European haven of socialism apart from Albania—a comparison which is perhaps unfair to Albania?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reason why we have been so successful in attracting inward investment to Scotland is that we have established an enterprise economy there based on low taxation rates. The high taxes that would result from a Labour Government would drive investment away not only from Scotland but from the whole United Kingdom.
    Mr. Beggs: I congratulate the Minister on the success in attracting new industry to Scotland—
    Mr. Sillars: But—
    Mr. Beggs: But does he agree that Dumfries and Galloway, Stranraer and Cairnryan are as peripheral to the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland is? Is there likely to be inward investment in that region of Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know of my enthusiasm to attract inward investment to Dumfries and Galloway. As for infrastructure, we have substantially increased investment in the A75—about £50 million has
    480
    been spent on it in the past decade, and more is to follow. That is of advantage not only to my constituents but to the hon. Gentleman's in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend believe that the European Community may soon find that the special measures given to Scotland, over and above those given to England, are going to an area which is no longer one of low income and low economic growth, and that it will not allow them in a free-trade Europe?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend may be assured that the selective assistance that operates in Scotland is part of the United Kingdom scheme which is applied on even-handed criteria and meets the rules and regulations of the European Commission.

    Police (Court Work)
    Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the report made to him by the chief constable of Central Scotland police about the amount of police time spent in courts.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Efforts will continue to be made, in consultation with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, to reduce the amount of police time spent in court, so far as that is consistent with the administration of justice.
    Mr. Ewing: I do not know what efforts continue to be made because it is now two years since I came to see the Minister about the absolutely disgraceful situation, particularly in the sheriff courts in Scotland, and nothing but nothing has happened. If anything, it is worse than it was two years ago. Is the Minister aware that the situation in the sheriff courts is nothing short of a national scandal? If anybody should be charged with wasting police time, it is the Scottish Courts Administration and the Minister.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Over the past 18 months the average delay period for summary criminal trials has been reduced from 17·6 to 14·9 weeks. The hon. Gentleman has correctly identified a pressing problem which we have been looking at hard. The main problem is caused by late changes of plea, and no solution has emerged which protects the interests of justice. If someone were required to plead guilty or not guilty 48 hours earlier, many accused would plead not guilty, causing even longer delays, because they wait to see how many witnesses appear in court to see what chances they have of getting off. I am sorry that that should be so. The hon. Member, who once had responsibility for the problem, has identified it correctly. The joint report of the chief police officers and the Crown Office made several important recommendations on the quality and timeliness of police reports and statements, the availability and citation of witnesses and the use of procedures to reduce inconvenience. Some findings may well be put into effect by the summer. I shall keep in close touch with the Lord Advocate on this point.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Although I welcome the reduction in time that it takes for cases to come to trial, may I enjoin my hon. Friend to reconsider the perfectly simple scheme which I devised for both sheriff courts and High Courts, under which there would be a mandatory meeting of both parties to arrange pleas in time to dismiss the witnesses? It is not only policemen who spend a

    481
    ludicrous part of their working time hanging round the courts, but witnesses who are reluctant to co-operate in the prosecution of crime.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will certainly discuss my hon. and learned Friend's point with the Lord Advocate as soon as possible and draw those comments to his attention.

    Employment Strategy
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss employment strategy in Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: I met the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 10 November 1989 for a general discussion on the Scottish economy. There are no plans for further meetings at present.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Secretary of State intend to raise with the STUC and British Steel the crucial importance of investment at Clydesdale and Imperial mills? Will he discuss with them the recent gossip, rumours and speculation about foreign deals? Will he tell the House whether he considers the Scottish capacity for producing seamless tubes to be important, especially for the North sea?
    Mr. Rifkind: When I last met the STUC we discussed those matters and agreed that it would be highly desirable if British Steel could be persuaded to consider further investment in the steel industry in Scotland. That industry has different components, including the category to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Scottish Office intends to ensure that its views on the future plate mill strategy for Scotland are taken into account by British Steel when it comes to develop its future strategy. At the end of the day these are matters for British Steel, but it is important that it should be aware of the good case that exists for investment in Scotland.
    Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State is only too well aware of the thousands of livelihoods in Scotland that depend on the steel industry. How can it possibly be right for Ministers to abdicate responsibility for all those people and simply to hand over the final decision for this vital industry to the board of directors of British Steel plc?
    Mr. Rifkind: The employment opportunities that exist because of the steel industry are important, as are the employment opportunities presented by Yarrow, Ferranti, IBM or any large employer in Scotland. The Government do not directly provide employment. Their responsibility is obviously to encourage an atmosphere and a quality in the economy that encourage job creation. The hon. Gentleman will join me in feeling great pleasure because unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 150,000 over the past two or three years.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the STUC, will he inquire whether it has changed its policy of opposing job-creating investment, such as that which was to take place at Ford of Dundee, and whether it is still its policy to support Scotland as a museum of industrial archaeology by public sector
    482
    subsidies rather than supporting the Government's policy to attract private sector investment from abroad, thereby securing the jobs of the Scottish people indefinitely?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am glad to say that, unlike the Labour party, the STUC supports the Government's Scottish Enterprise proposals and the way in which training is to be developed to local enterprise companies throughout Scotland. We welcome that support. It is a pity that, so far, the Labour party has felt unable to support us.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, given the serious employment problems in Scotland, it is far too long—four months—since he last met the STUC? Is he aware that the serious position in Midlothian is causing great concern? Recently, Sneddons went into receivership, with the loss of 200 or 300 jobs? Crystal Glass has threatened to close. The coal mining and engineering industries have contracted. I am worried about employment prospects in Midlothian. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving Midlothian special regional status to tackle the employment problem?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the various closures in his constituency, but I think that he would wish to point out fairly that many more jobs have been created in Midlothian over the past few months and years than have been lost.
    Mr. Eadie: No.
    Mr. Rifkind: If that had not happened, it would have been impossible for me to say, as I can, that unemployment has fallen greatly in Midlothian over the past two or three years.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the STUC leaders that there are more people in work in Scotland than ever before, but that that is no thanks to certain trade union leaders who put the interests of their members at Dagenham above those of the jobless in Dundee?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to say that the number of people in employment in Scotland is at its highest ever recorded level.
    Mr. Dewar: A month ago at Scottish questions, when replying to me, the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed that it was important that British Steel was aware of the Scottish Office view that there was a strong case for investing in the Scottish steel industry. Despite the statements of Conservative Back Benchers, that has nothing to do with industrial archaeology. What steps have been taken to get this message across? Have there been meetings at a senior level with British Steel and involving Ministers? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is essential that he personally takes up the cudgels on behalf of the Scottish steel industry?
    Mr. Rifkind: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await my answer to the next question on the Order Paper, which deals with that very matter.

    British Steel
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairman or chief executive of British Steel.
    Mr. Rifkind: I expect to see the chairman of British Steel in the relatively near future.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a different dimension in relationships between the Scottish Office and IBM and the Scottish Office and British Steel, because he deliberately privatised British Steel? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets British Steel senior executives, will he discuss the fact that there are lying at Leith docks mile upon mile of welded pipe which will be used to extract Scottish oil from the Scottish waters of the North sea, and not a single mile of it has been produced in Scottish steel mills?
    When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman press British Steel to accept—and will he accept unequivocally—the call by shop stewards at Dalziel today that the welded steel mill that British Steel is earmarking for Teesside should go to Dalziel in Lanarkshire, which would increase its take from Ravenscraig and ensure that Scottish steel jobs are created from the massively expanding demand for steel products in the Scottish waters of the North sea?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there are imports of steel into the United Kingdom in categories that are simply not manufactured in this country, in Scotland or elsewhere. It is obviously a matter for British Steel to decide whether that makes sense or whether it should start manufacturing in the United Kingdom steel that it currently imports. That is a matter for British Steel to decide and, naturally, we hope that if it comes to that judgment, it will choose a Scottish location for the manufacture of products of that kind.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that the shutdown at Ravenscraig, however unwelcome, is being handled with the customary responsibility and competence of the managers and steel workers there so as not to prejudice the long-term future of the plant? Will he make sure that the chairman of British Steel fully understands the implications of the plate review for the future of Dalziel and Ravenscraig up to and beyond 1994?
    Mr. Rifkind: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the responsible attitude of shop stewards and work force at Ravenscraig, and I agree with him that it is important for all in Scotland who attach importance to these matters to ensure that British Steel is aware of the attractions of Scotland as a location for investment, either at Dalziel or in respect of its other steel activities north of the border.
    Mr. Holt: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there would be considerable resentment on Teesside if he were to use, or seek to use, undue influence on British Steel? The people of England are just as entitled to produce steel—on Teesside—as the Scots are; let the board of management make that decision. I am sorry that there are no socialists from Teesside here today to fight for jobs on Teesside, as I am doing, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend has got the message.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The decision must be based on the good commercial case that can be put in regard to where investment should go. All parts of the United Kingdom would welcome steel investment, and it is the responsibility of us who live in Scotland to put such arguments as point towards
    484
    investment in Scotland. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be making similar representations on behalf of his constituency and his part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dewar: I am genuinely grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me again. I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is soon to meet the chairman of British Steel. May I press on him the urgency of doing that in a short time scale, given the imminence of decisions that may affect the Scottish industry? Will he bear very much in mind the fact that British Steel is not just another private sector company but that it has a wider responsibility, given its history and the vulnerability and importance of the industry in Scotland? Its special status is reflected by the existence of the golden share.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the golden share applies only in regard to any attempt by any outside interest to acquire more than 15 per cent. of the shares in British Steel, and I am not aware of any suggestion that that is about to happen or is likely to happen.
    As for the overall responsibilities of British Steel, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the assurance that was given at the time of privatisation, and which has since been repeated—that if at any time British Steel did not wish to continue with its assets at Ravenscraig, it would consider any private sector bid for those assets to ensure the continuation of steel activity north of the border. That is a matter to which I attach importance and to which the Prime Minister referred when questioned about it at this Dispatch Box.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland since May 1979.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Since April 1979, over 184,500 public sector houses in Scotland have been sold to sitting tenants. Included in that figure are over 132,000 sales by local authorities.
    Mr. Knox: What percentage of the council house stock in Scotland has been sold to sitting tenants? If the figure is still significantly below that in England, what further steps does my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State intend to take to increase the number of sales in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The figure is now 18·6 per cent., and south of the border it is 22·2 per cent. The gap has narrowed. On the previous occasion that I reported to my hon. Friend, it had narrowed by 0·1 per cent., and it has closed by at least as much again. We have taken steps, by way of a right-to-buy publicity campaign, to ensure that tenants know of changes in the law. It should not be forgotten that the average rent in Scotland is approximately £20 and the average weekly cost of a mortgage is approximately £23. That is within the reach of thousands of families throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Minister appreciate that, notwithstanding the discounts on these council houses, many people in Scotland who bought their houses are now in arrears with building societies because they cannot afford the high interest rates? Does he appreciate that the

    485
    Government's policy of cutting public support for council housing, and thus forcing rents up, led many people to buy houses when they would probably have been better advised not to do so? When will the Government reconsider their whole approach to this issue? When will they start to provide decent support for public sector housing? When will they allow local authorities to avoid increasing rents excessively and start building some of the council houses that are needed?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously, in the case of the public sector housing stock, the level of rents is determined by what is considered to be an appropriate level of management and maintenance. Public sector sales—sales to sitting tenants—greatly benefit the remainder of the public sector housing stock. Fewer than 0·1 per cent. of houses sold to tenants are being repossessed. The overall number is very small. Also, building societies are prepared to discuss with those concerned suitable phasing arrangements to enable debts to be paid.
    Mrs. Gorman: Can my hon. Friend tell me what progress is being made in respect of the rents-into-mortgages schemes in Scotland? This is a terrific idea, which I hope can be extrapolated to the new town corporation houses in my area. Changing a rent into a mortgage is a very simple idea.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was present when the Prime Minister handed over the first deed of contract to a remedial teacher in Uphall, who was gaining her own house under this scheme. There have been more than 500 expressions of interest, and we expect the scheme to be highly successful. Of course, we shall review the success of the operation shortly.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many extra staff have been employed by local authorities for the administration of the poll tax system.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Local authority staffing levels are the responsibility of individual authorities. Information on numbers of staff employed for particular duties is not held centrally.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I find it remarkable that, on this question, the Secretary of State is not facing the music. The poll tax is surely one job-creation scheme that Scotland could have done without. Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain how his right hon. and learned Friend's £4 million poll tax panic package will be distributed, and where the money will come from? Can he explain why his right hon. and learned Friend failed to protest in Cabinet last Tuesday; why he required us, on Tuesday and Wednesday, to explain that such blatant discrimination against Scotland was an outrage; and why his right hon. and learned Friend was looking like a right idiot on Thursday? What kind of humiliation will it take to make the Secretary of State resign?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement to the House on the details of the scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Shortly. The Budget is, of course, secret until it has been delivered. The meeting to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not
    486
    a discussion session, but a relatively formal meeting. The matter has been taken up by my right hon. and learned Friend. As to the source of the funds, suggestions that the sum of £4 million will be taken from sensitive Scots programmes are incorrect. The sums involved are marginal in the context of the total resources of £9·5 billion. It is part of the normal good housekeeping practised by all Ministers within overall programmes to adjust resources in response to changed evidence of need. The £4 million for this purpose will be found as part of the normal process of good housekeeping, and not by deliberate cuts in any programme.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that, despite the increase in numbers employed, we have rightly had exemptions for Alzheimer's disease, transitional payments and now capital offsets? All those impinge on what Scots should have been paying since April 1989. Therefore, will the Minister instruct local authorities not to pursue poindings and warrant sales against costs that manifestly cannot be substantiated in law? Does he accept that it is not a matter just for the Budget but for the status of the Scottish Office, and that there is a clear indication that Scottish Office officials were not consulted and did not know what was happening in England and Wales?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will not give any such guidance to local authorities. It is for them to choose the most appropriate measures to raise the revenue due to them from such persons as the hon. Gentleman. I will not give them any advice on that. Further exemptions, would breach the principle of accountability which underlies the whole concept of the community charge.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on average about 90 per cent. of community charge payers are paying the community charge? Will he take time today to write to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is a lawyer, to ask him why he refuses to condemn those of his hon. Friends who wish to break the law?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We look forward to the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and other Labour Front-Bench Members on their colleagues who are refusing to pay, which we believe to be wholly irresponsible because defying the law is a short-term policy which is unworthy of any hon. Members who espouse to be a future Government. I can indeed confirm what my hon. Friend said; on average 90 per cent. have paid the community charge in Scotland. I expect that figure to increase in coming months.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister clear up the big remaining mystery of last week? Did he threaten to resign, and was that what really pulled the Prime Minister back into step? Is the Minister aware of the statistics that have come out about the change in the number of poll tax registrations in Scotland? Before the whole thing began, the official Government estimate was 800,000 registration changes in Scotland in the first year. The actual number has been 1·5 million, every single one of them generating bureaucracy, expense and confusion. Will local authorities be compensated for the wrongness of the Government's official estimate? Will the Minister assure the House that, whatever else the £4 million comes from, it will not come from local authority budgets within the Scottish Office?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is ironical that the hon. Gentleman should express such concern about registration since he strongly opposed registration in the "Stop it" campaign. Those who have registered amount to
    488
    99 per cent. I believe that the system is working well. As to the hon. Gentleman's question about whether I or any of my colleagues threatened to resign, the answer is emphatically no.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am rising to ask whether you have received any notification from the Government as to whether they intend to make a statement today about the seizure of nuclear trigger devices at Heathrow airport. I am sure that everyone in the House, on both sides, will agree that this is a profoundly important matter, relating not only to national security but to the United Kingdom's relationship with the Government of Iraq. It is something on which it is necessary for the House to hear from the Government very urgently. I should be obliged if the Leader of the House, who is here, could arrange for a statement to be made later today.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is indeed a very serious matter. I am sure that what he has said will have been heard by the Leader of the House.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I invite you to make a statement on the following circumstances? Under Standing Order No. 128, a Select Committee governs the operation and compilation of the Register of Members' Interests. On the Order Paper today, there are 32 parliamentary questions tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). I have given the hon. Gentleman notice that I would raise the point of order. On the last occasion that similar questions were tabled, at a cost of well over £3,000 to the taxpayers, the hon. Member admitted that it had nothing to do with his constituency but that he had tabled the questions on behalf of Price Waterhouse who wanted the information to form a business plan.
This is an abuse of the House. May I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to deprecate the practice until the Select Committee on Members' Interests has had an opportunity to examine the matter? I recognise that it is the responsible Select Committee. I had hoped, in the past when I raised this matter, that the publicity would lead to an end of the abuse, but that has not been the case. It would be helpful if you could say whether you prefer that sort of questioning about outside interests when an hon. Member receives several thousand pounds a year in his private income. The questions should not be asked in order to reflect that interest.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right to say that that is a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests, and I understand that that Committee is already looking into that practice.
Mr. Gavin Strang: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it did not escape your notice that, at the start of Scottish Questions, there was only one Conservative Back Bencher in attendance. In the course of the hour, two other Scottish Back-Bench Conservative Members came into the Chamber, one of whom did not manage to remain until the end of Question Time. Will you convey to them that they have a constitutional responsibility to be here to question the Secretary of State for Scotland and they are not absolved from that by encouraging large numbers of English Members to communicate their wishes?
Mr. Speaker: I like to see the Chamber full for Question Time, but hon. Members' other engagements are not a matter for me.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you observed the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) arriving late during Scottish Questions, asking her question and swanning out again? Would you consider that that is a good way to get a question called?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Lady had a question on the Order Paper today.
Mrs. Fyfe: So did I.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I know but I do not know why the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) arrived late or may have left early.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Mr. Speaker. In the past, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) used to do exactly the same with agriculture questions, and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has a research assistant who has been approaching all lady Members on the treatise that she is doing on the representation of women in Washington and in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the House has weightier matters to discuss this afternoon.

Points of Order

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Local Authority Playing Fields
3.37 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove from local authorities the power to dispose of land used as playing fields, except in circumstances where ownership is passed on for continued use as playing fields to a recreational association of charitable status under the terms of the Recreational Charities Act 1958.
We have all heard of the man who said, "Whenever I feel like taking violent exercise I go to bed and stay there until I feel better." However, there is no doubt that a healthy body aids the mind to be healthy too. Therefore, I think that people who practise sports or keep themselves fit have a healthy mind and a healthy body to boot.
There are two dangers in sport at the moment. First, some local education authorities have for a long time discouraged competitive sport. I number among them the Inner London education authority which, during the past 10 years, has largely discouraged competitive games within school sport. That authority has now changed its position completely after conducting a thorough and careful investigation, and it is now in favour of competitive sports in schools.
Another example of the disastrous discouragement of competitive games is the headmistress in Bristol who banned an egg and spoon race on school sports day because she thought that it would encourage undue competitiveness in children. Nothing could be more absurd. That type of attitude has damaged sport in schools no end. Eight out of ten children in schools today will not keep up a sport after leaving school; therefore, sport in schools needs every possible encouragement. In addition, with our test team poised on the brink of a possible great victory in the West Indies at this moment, we can see the sheer pleasure for the nation of producing successful international teams. We hope that our soccer team, too, will be successful this evening.
The second danger to sport is the selling of playing fields for building. When playing fields are sold, an amenity is lost which may never be replaced, and the environment is permanently damaged. Competitive sport in schools is regaining popularity, thanks in part to the widespread support of many hon. Members, including the sponsors of the Bill—among them my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), to whom I express my great appreciation. But we still have some way to go because playing fields are continuing to disappear for building.
It is said that an area the size of the Isle of Wight is lost every year. That is a huge acreage to lose, bearing in mind the fact that the National Playing Fields Association says that we should have six acres per thousand of the population. Just to achieve that statistic, which is small enough, we should need an extra 6,304 acres of playing fields in the south-east, an extra 2,793 acres in London, an extra 791 acres on Merseyside and an extra 974 acres in the west midlands.
Anyone who seeks to oppose the Bill will have to examine his or her conscience and realise that to do so will be to deny opportunities for sport to our children and to adult members of the community. That is the responsibility the House faces.
492
In an Adjournment debate on 12 February, the hon. Member for Vauxhall raised a number of these issues in a remarkable speech and kindly allowed me to refer to sports facilities in my constituency. I shall mention those within the broad national context, because the Bill is concerned with playing fields right across the land. In my constituency, Ealing council is seeking to dispose of 17 acres of playing fields at Cayton road for building development. They are in a heavily built-up area with no other leisure facilities for children or the community, and they are absolutely vital to the community.
I understand that the borough is seeking to acquire the substantial playing fields and facilities at the Warren Farm sports complex, but it must be understood that that facility will not serve the neighbourhood of Cayton road. It is too far away and there are no public transport facilities. Moreover, the schools that use the Cayton road playing fields do not want to transfer to Warren Farm and nor do the public. The two sites are not interchangeable.
The loss of local facilities will be particularly hard on the young who require not only somewhere close to home where they can play and practise informally but somewhere to spend a few minutes with their friends playing a game. Most hon. Members have had the pleasure of doing that. The Cayton road playing fields must remain playing fields, and my Bill will secure their future.
Educational and community playing fields acquired through the public purse require further protection, given that they are disappearing at the rate that I have described. The Government are due to produce a much-needed consultative planning guidance note on planning for sport. They have also recently published a consultative paper proposing changes to deemed consent planning procedures whereby local authorities can grant themselves planning permission for more profitable forms of development in advance of the sale of playing fields.
Do these steps go far enough? I believe not. I propose that local authorities be prevented from disposing of playing fields. Some may consider that an excessive and inflexible requirement, but there is a duty on all of us to look beyond the 20th century and the early 21st century. Land lost for building or for any other purpose is lost for ever, and that should be on the conscience of anyone who opposes the Bill. Future generations will not thank us if we take the short-term view and allow the sporting endowment of a century to be frittered away.
The only way of safeguarding land for public recreation and sport is to establish charitable trusts for a particular area under the Recreational Charities Act 1958. If a local authority wants to dispose of playing fields, it should be allowed to do so only in circumstances in which their use as outdoor playing space is legally assured. Provision should be made for such land to be disposed of to appropriately constituted recreational charities—and not for either private or public building, ever. The land can then continue to be used as playing fields, and will become subject to the charities Act and to the oversight and control of the Charity Commissioners. The Bill will enable people with an interest in the sports facilities in their neighbourhood to take the initiative and to exercise self-help.
In the longer term, my Bill will establish a partnership with local government in introducing expertise and new potential sources of financial support. It will also increase the likelihood of reductions in public expenditure, so that money can be beneficially released for the development of

493
other recreational and community initiatives. The Bill is not mandatory. Its purpose is to protect the recreational or playing fields land bank that is our heritage in such a way that local authorities can, if they choose, transfer the ownership of such land at reasonable cost to responsible bodies within their own communities. The public interest and public benefit of any such transfer will be guaranteed by the limited scope of disposal to recreational charities only.
This nation has a particular duty to our children, and to those who are no longer children but who enjoy sport, to ensure that facilities are available to learn sports, and to enhance public enjoyment of them, at all levels and ages, by those of every creed.
3.47 pm
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I do not take second place to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in my zeal to ensure that the existing playing field stock is not only sustained but substantially expanded. I myself was a schoolboy sports enthusiast, and I remain an ardent supporter of sport in general.
I oppose the Bill because, although the hon. Member for Ealing, North raises a point of general principle that no right hon. or hon. Member would oppose, he could not resist the temptation to let fly and seriously to attack the Labour-controlled London borough of Ealing, despite the difficulties that confronts it at this time. It is well known in the locality that the hon. Member has been involved in a running battle with Ealing borough council for a considerable time.
The school playing fields to which the hon. Gentleman referred are connected with Ealing Green boys' school in my constituency, with which I have had a great deal to do over many years. With my encouragement, groups of boys from that school come to see debates and 10 o'clock Divisions in this House. From time to time, I visit the school to explain the workings of the House—although occasionally, I find that difficult to do. Never in all those years have I heard any complaint from the school or its headmaster about the local authority's plans for the playing fields of which the hon. Member for Ealing, North spoke.
I wish to put on record the practical difficulties faced by the London borough of Ealing and its plans to allow the Notting Hill housing association to develop 10 of the 17 acres of the Cayton road playing fields for social housing. The rest of the site, which is currently underused grassland, will be developed into a public park. The site is currently used as a sports ground by Ealing Green high school and is some distance from the school. It is not open to the public and has no ecological merit. The council proposes to relocate the school's playing fields if a suitable alternative site can be found, and there is a strong chance of that.
No relocation proposals will be considered without extensive consultation and the school can expect to remain at Cayton road for some time. There was extensive consultation on the proposals last year, including a public meeting organised by the planning and economic development department of the borough council.
On 22 June, the Department of the Environment issued a direction preventing planning permission from being
494
granted. That may have something to do with pressure from the hon. Member for Ealing, North, who will have quite a struggle to retain his seat because of the poll tax. People in flats and young couples who have taken on mortgages on their houses will struggle to pay twice as much under the community charge—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not widen the debate into that.
Mr. Bidwell: I digress, and I shall now return to the subject.
The additional housing that will be provided will help to combat the homelessness crisis and reduce the burden of the bed and breakfast bill on local ratepayers. Ealing has 1,700 people in temporary accommodation and 9,500 households on council waiting lists. The council has been told by central Government to provide 9,000 new homes in the borough. There is a great scarcity of land for private and public development. At the same time, under the proposals a new park will be opened for public use, and Ealing Green high school will be relocated to an equally suitable site.
No decision on the Cayton road application has yet been made, and the views of local people will be fully considered. The London borough of Ealing will consult Ealing Green high school about finding a suitable site. The public will save because such housing will relieve the colossal cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Those are the facts.
I have been looking up the record of the hon. Member for Ealing, North in debates. He warmly supported the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 against anxieties expressed by some Opposition Members. Locally, he is regarded as the ooslam bird who tries to fly in all directions simultaneously and he will come unstuck because of those antics today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. Denis Howell, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. David Amess, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. David Evennett and Mr. David Evans.

Local Authority Playing Fields
  LOCAL AUTHORITY PLAYING FIELDS
  Mr. Harry Greenway accordingly presented a Bill to remove from local authorities the power to dispose of land used as playing fields, except in circumstances where ownership is passed on for continued use as playing fields to a recreational association of charitable status under the terms of the Recreational Charities Act 1958: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 April and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund Act 1990.
Strathclyde Regional Council Order Confirmation Act 1990.
British Film Institute Southbank Act 1990.
Birmingham City Council Act 1990.

Social Security Bill (Allocation of Time)
Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed to the allocation of time motion, I must announce to the House that I have selected all the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), with the exception of amendment (c).
3.55 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Social Security Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Report and Third Reading
  1.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following Table:—

  TABLE

  Allotted day

  proceedings

  Time for conclusion of Proceedings

  First day

  New Clauses 19, 21 and 22

  9:00 p.m.

  New Clauses 23 and 26

  11:00 p.m.

  New Clauses 1 to 6

  Midnight

  New Clauses 7 and 8

  1:00 a.m.

  Second day

  Remaining New Clauses

  7:00 p.m.

  Amendments to Clauses; New

  9:00 p.m.

  Schedules and amendments to

  Schedules

  Third Reading

  10:00 p.m.

  (2) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

  Order of proceedings
  2. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.
  Dilatory Motions
  3. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted day
  4.—(I) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.
  (3) If an alloted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (I) of Standing Order No. 14 shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and on the first allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of three hours.

  Private business
  5. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  6.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, other than the proceedings specified in sub-paragraph (2) below, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which the Table in paragraph 1 above specifies are to be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put (so far as they are applicable and notwithstanding any Order of the House relating to the order in which the Bill is to be considered) the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question that the new Schedule (amendment 22) be added to the Bill;

  (d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;

  (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so made for a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (I) or (2) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (4) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (5) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  7.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended,

  497
  before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying of supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  8. Nothing in this order shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  10. In this Order
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Social Security Bill.
  Hon. Members do not need me to tell them that my right hon. Friends and I do not table timetable motions without due consideration. We believe that it is important for all legislation, including this important Social Security Bill, to be debated and scrutinised properly by Parliament. For that reason alone, it is a matter of importance that one feels obliged to move such a motion, particularly on this fairly short Bill.
  It was striking that the Bill's Committee stage was orderly and compact. Subsequently, we reached what I thought was a sensible agreement between the usual channels to allocate a day and a half for Report and Third Reading. Both sides judged that sufficient, so it should have been, and so, indeed, it was. For that reason, I attach some significance to the fact that the motion means that the House will spend more time on the Bill, not less, than was originally planned by the usual channels.
  The Committee stage was, in many respects, a model of how the detailed scrutiny processes of the House should operate. Opposition Members moved about 120 amendments, some significant but others less so, and four new clauses which in their view would have improved the Bill. Where the Government were able to agree with them, my right hon. and hon. Friends accepted their points. The Government moved about 145 amendments and the whole process was completed in about 30 hours.
  In his remarks at the end of the Committee stage, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security summed it up:
  "Some difficult issues have been discussed and I think we have managed to discuss them, despite the vigour and enthusiasm of the Opposition in attacking us, with good humour. That is very important, and in no way would I underestimate the strength of feeling of the Opposition about some of the measures."
  498
  On the same occasion, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—I am pleased to see her taking her place with such zeal and diligence—who led for the Opposition, said:
  "It has been a civilised but serious Committee."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 8 March 1990; c. 462-63.]
  That was a sensible judgment. I think that all my right hon. and hon. Friends who had participated in or followed the proceedings of the Committee agreed with her.
  What happened subsequently, however, revealed a startling and far less constructive attitude by the Opposition. They have tabled no fewer than 21 new clauses and a further 21 amendments for consideration on Report. Few of the new clauses relate to subjects that were discussed in Committee. The remainder have been tabled to widen substantially the scope of the Bill and as pegs on which to hang a series of debates about matters not directly related to its main purposes. Unless we take sensible steps now, the debate will become unmanageable.
  Mr. John Battle: Did not the Government table new clauses on matters not related to the substance of the Bill when it went before the Committee, precisely because they found themselves in difficulty with other legislation? The clauses that have been tacked on bear no relation to the substance of the Bill in its original form. The Government have extended the agenda and turned the Bill into a holdall to pick up the pieces of other shoddy legislation.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept that analysis. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall deal with it shortly. The usual process for the handling of a Bill is for the main substance to be debated in Committee and for discussion to focus more sharply when it returns to the Floor of the House. What has happened with this Bill has paralleled what happened with the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. The House will remember that that Bill made good progress through Committee, only to be brought to a virtual standstill on the Floor of the House by the behaviour of some Opposition Members when we began to make headway on Report.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House forgotten what really happened? That Bill was obstructed and eventually guillotined for what some might say was exactly the same reason as this Bill will be obstructed—I understand by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Back Benchers—and guillotined. We are debating the same issue—the charges in residential homes. Do not the Government bear responsibility for that? It has nothing to do with my hon. Friends.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. What happened on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was overwhelmingly the result of the time taken by Opposition Members. That Bill could continue its passage through the House in a sensible manner only after the successful moving of a timetable motion by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. He did so only after many hours of debate on Report.
  The Social Security Bill is a much smaller Bill. Because of the similarity in the way in which the Opposition are apparently proposing to handle the Bill, it is sensible to let the House make a decision at the outset of the Report stage on the amount of time to be devoted to consideration

  499
  of the Bill. Indeed, that view is in line with the view increasingly often aired in more than one part of the House, that timetabling is generally helpful.
  Sir Peter Emery rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I thought that that might provoke my hon. Friend.
  Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend cast his mind towards the two Procedure Committee reports about the Committee and Report stages of Bills? If the Government had followed our advice, this debate might have been unnecessary. Our reports make two recommendations similar to what I think my right hon. and learned Friend is now attempting to do. Is not he attempting to ensure that all parts of a Bill are debated in Committee, and that only new factors of apparent importance are debated on Report? Would not it be better to timetable in that way and so ensure that this sort of position does not arise?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend gives me such comprehensive support that I must welcome it. However, I must take care to ensure that my response is not so enthusiastic that it makes him feel that the argument is already over. There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend said. One point about the recommendation for more timetabling that emerged from what he said is that the earlier that that is undertaken the more value it has.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be cautious about those recommendations, which touch on the heart of what the House is about. The Government, through their hubris last year, introduced 11 guillotines. That meant that much legislation was unargued, unreasoned and caused difficulty in the country through the necessity to defend our position. Our fear about the guillotine is that many of the issues arise as a consequence of debate, and are not matters of settled judgment beforehand. In a spirit of humility, I ask the Government to be cautious about such arguments.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would not imagine my hon. Friend making a point of that kind except in a spirit of the utmost humility and I accept it in that sense.
  The time foreshadowed for the Report stage was a day and a half and that is not unreasonable. We are now providing for rather more time than that to be devoted to debate and for that to be carried out in a more orderly fashion. That should command reasonable support.
  I hope that the House will agree that it makes sense to keep within reasonable bounds the amount of time that can be devoted on the Floor of the House to topics that were touched on or discussed in detail in Committee. There is much to be said for a fair, but disciplined approach to debating the new clauses and amendments that will shortly come before the House and the timetable motion will encourage that process. If the House approves the motion, the more self-disciplined we can be, the more new clauses and amendments we shall be able to debate.
  I repeat the central point that the Bill will now have longer for debate than the one and a half days agreed
  500
  through the usual channels. Therefore, I see no merit in accepting the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
  Mr. Michael Meacher: The Leader of the House has repeated his earlier point that there will be more time to debate the Bill and its new clauses. How can that possibly be so when the first six Opposition new clauses are being squashed into one hour and when the most important of these is about poll tax benefit, and all hon. Members know that that will take up the whole hour on its own?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The total time allotted exceeds the normal one and a half sitting days—
  Mr. Battle: That is time to debate Government new clauses.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government new clauses deal with important matters with which it is perfectly sensible to deal at this stage. For example, the social fund amendment is a response to events that have occurred since the Bill's introduction. The measure relating to income support payments for people in residential care and nursing homes is a sensible response to the concerns expressed earlier this month by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is a complicated area and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was understandably concerned to get it right. That new clause was tabled yesterday.
  The new clause on occupational pensions tabled last Friday improves the existing provisions, following further and useful consultations with interested parties. The overwhelming majority of the Government amendments are simply designed, as you would expect, Mr. Speaker, to improve the detailed drafting of the Bill. I see no reason to apologise for bringing any of the new clauses to the House on Report.
  Ms. Clare Short: Will the Leader of the House explain what possible justification the Government have for tabling a three-and-a-half page new clause on the duties of fathers to maintain their children if that saves social security costs—as seems to be the Government's only interest? When the Prime Minister made her speech about that in January we had plenty of time left in Committee. Why did the Government not bring that important issue forward sooner? We will not have enough time to discuss it properly now because of the guillotine motion.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will explain, it is important that that matter should have been thought through carefully before it was debated in the House. The new clauses, including the one to which the hon. Lady has referred, have intrinsic merits and they will provide an opportunity for hon. Members to air their views on those issues.
  Mr. George Howarth: The Leader of the House has just made a very serious point. He has suggested that the reason why the new clause has only just been introduced is that the issue had to be thought through. Was it not thought through when the Prime Minister made her speech in January?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course it was. Speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are lucid and

  501
  effective, but even her speeches require a little time to be translated into clauses and then find their way into Bills such as this.
  The time that will be made available under these arrangements is a sensible allocation, not least in the light of the experience on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill to which I have referred. It is a sensible way to ensure that these matters are discussed in an orderly and sensible fashion. No Government can stand back and allow the proper management of the business of Parliament to be threatened by the unreasonable prospect that could have followed from handling the Bill without a timetable motion. I commend the motion to the House.
  4.10 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: I shall try to be helpful, but I doubt whether the Government will take my advice. I cannot help reflecting that I have had the job of opposing a guillotine motion in the House on only one other occasion. The Government decisively rejected my advice and I have the feeling that they have regretted that decision ever since. It was made during the guillotine debate on 22 February 1988 on the poll tax Bill. I advised them that it was not a good idea to rush it through. There were 317 of them and 223 of us and, accordingly, the vote to rush the legislation through as quickly as possible was carried. The old phrase about turkeys voting for Christmas inevitably comes to mind. Having made the mistake once, perhaps the Government will listen more carefully today.
  I am disappointed that the Leader of the House has chosen to bring forward the motion. I approach my job with a little caution, because I know that guillotine debates have a certain sameness about them, and I also know that it will not be long before the Government and Opposition are reversed. I do not disagree with the Leader of the House when he says that it is important to get sensible consideration of Bills in Committee. However, he stretched matters to excess in pretending that the guillotine on this series of debates constitutes the orderly management of Government business.
  I had some hopes that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be a reforming Leader of the House. He has made promises about the private Bill procedure and I thought that he would find better ways to deal with such things. I am afraid that, increasingly, he is becoming a party hack putting through business as effectively as he can and stifling opposition and debate. He has been a little disappointing. The guillotine motion is not business management, it is crisis management.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: The hon. Gentleman talks about crisis management. As a fellow retread, he will recall that some years ago when he sat on the Government Benches as the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, we both witnessed the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) standing at the Dispatch Box and moving five guillotine motions in one day. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that was orderly and that it was good management?
  Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman neglects the critical difference. At that time there was a deliberate attempt, helped by the House of Lords, to throw out major pieces of legislation to which we were committed. There was a different state of affairs at that time and the motions were presented much later in the parliamentary year. We had
  502
  fewer guillotine motions than the present Government. I will not bore the House by reading the list of all the guillotine motions that the Government have presented. In the two and a half years since the general election more guillotine motions have been brought forward by the Government than were brought forward during a similar period by the last Labour Government. That has happened even though the Government have a large majority, a supine press and a largely docile House of Lords. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that the state of affairs is totally different.
  What are the possible explanations for the Government bringing in a guillotine motion on this legislation at such short notice? The first might be that we were running out of parliamentary time at the end of a parliamentary year. Clearly that does not apply to this legislation. I know that, to Conservative Members, it must seem a long time since the Queen's Speech, but I remind them that we are only three months into the parliamentary year.
  A second possible reason is that the Government's legislative programme is threatened. I know that they are losing by-elections, but the Government still have a substantial majority in the House, so surely they cannot claim that their programme is threatened.
  Have the Opposition behaved irresponsibly when considering the Bill? That cannot be the reason: Second Reading was on 22 January and the Committee had 12 sittings, so there can be no suggestion of filibustering or of the Opposition behaving unreasonably.
  The reason for this guillotine is that the Government are in a panic. Just for the record, let us get straight how the Government tabled their five new clauses, which are complicated and which deal with important issues. One was tabled on Monday; two more were tabled early on Tuesday morning; a fourth was tabled a little later; and the final one, on residential accommodation, appeared only at 5 pm yesterday. The first we knew about the guillotine motion was yesterday morning. If that is not crisis management I do not know what is.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Surely the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the residential care provisions were changed because the Government were responding to the wishes of the House? He cannot grumble about that.
  Mr. Grocott: The hon. Lady did not have the advantage that I had of being in Mid-Staffordshire on the day the Government lost the vote of residential accommodation and of seeing the panic at the Tory press conference when Conservatives had to explain how the Government were operating. I am sure that that panic has fed back to the Cabinet by now. The Government were in an indefensible position, so they are not being reasonable and sensible: they are panicking.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Grocott: I shall not give way as I have already been speaking for some time.
  The Government are panicking because they can no longer rely on many of their Back Benchers. On Tuesday night in the debate on the flagship of their legislative programme, the poll tax, they were deserted by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and by the

  503
  former Chancellor of the Exchequer, so it is not surprising that run-of-the-mill Back Benchers without big jobs are failing to support the Government.
  As the Leader of the House rightly pointed out, our 21 new clauses touch on crucial areas such as residential care, the poll tax, the uprating of benefits in line with earnings, people with disabilities—important new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) deal with them—and the compensation of victims of radiation. Either all these new clauses, some of them supported by Conservative Members, will not be considered at all or debate on them will be grossly foreshortened. No Government with a majority of 100 or more, three months into the parliamentary year, should be doing this, and they would not be if they were in rational control of their programme.
  I said at the beginning that I would try to be helpful, but I have a feeling that I am not striking a chord among Tory Members. If they will not take any notice of us I suggest, in their own interests, that they take a look at their record of rushing legislation through Parliament, to see what happens when they make a mess of it. The three guillotines on the "great" Social Security Bill still failed to produce a sensible Act. Time after time, with the poll tax legislation and social security legislation, the Government have not listened to reasoned argument and allowed enough time for debate, so they have looked stupid and sometimes have ended up in the courts thereafter.
  The guillotine motion is not moved so that there can be sensible scrutiny of the Bill, but because the Government are in a panic. That is why we shall vote against it.
  4.19 pm
  Sir George Young: Like the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), I hope to be helpful. His speech was short on enthusiasm and seemed to be a bit of a ritual. Perhaps it was a word-processor-written speech with "social security" inserted for the name of the previous legislation on which he may have opposed a guillotine motion.
  I spoke on Second Reading, but did not serve in Committee. We had a reasoned debate, with support from both sides. I understand from my hon. Friends who served on the Committee that it was a civilised procedure. Therefore, at first sight it may seem that the legislation does not deserve a guillotine motion. The reason for the guillotine and why I support it is what happened a fortnight ago.
  A fortnight ago, I voted in every Division through the night. The notion that if one allowed this debate to proceed through the night there would be a civilised and rational discussion of new clauses is betrayed by anybody who was here a fortnight ago or anybody who reads Hansard. We got through about one clause in four hours and did not put the time to good use. If this measure were not guillotined, we would waste the small hours, and tomorrow afternoon the Government would have to introduce a guillotine motion. Against practice and even the declared intentions of Labour Members, it is sensible to introduce this motion to ensure a civilised debate in reasonable hours.
  504
  Although I have not always supported guillotine motions in the past and I did not support one on the community charge, I shall vote for this one with enthusiasm.
  Mr. George Howarth: I have followed the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but it is inconsistent. Is it not better to debate matters at length than not debate them at all, which is what he will vote for if he votes for the motion?
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman misses my point. If one provides extensive time for debate, it is not put to productive use. I am not sure whether he was here a fortnight ago and listened to some of the debate—
  Mr. Howarth: I was.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman was. I challenge him to say that the hours between 10 pm and 7 am were put to the best possible use, that we got through a whole series of new clauses and had a useful discussion. We did not. Labour Members filibustered. They used the time to spin out discussion—
  Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: No. The hon. Lady will be able to make her own speech.
  That is why I have no hesitation in supporting the guillotine motion. We shall make more sensible use of time than if we did not have the guillotine and sat all through the night listening to boring speeches from Labour Members who are simply trying to spin out time. That does the House no good. People outside the House and Conservative Members wholly understand why the Government have introduced the motion.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: I am glad to have this opportunity to speak in the debate. I have spoken on one or two guillotine motions before and I shall refer to them.
  The Leader of the House should have waited to listen to the debate. Whenever I moved a guillotine motion, I at least had the courtesy to listen to the debate. This is an important occasion, and he was at his lucid and most effective best—those were the words that he purloined from the Prime Minister—when he spoke to us. To run away immediately afterwards is grossly discourteous. It is not how the House of Commons should be run. He should be here to listen to the debate.
  I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who is left on the burning boat and serves alone. He is probably better than his colleagues and if he had the chance to speak, it might be better all round. It is shocking for a Leader of the House to move a guillotine motion and to skedaddle off as though it were nothing to do with him. The Patronage Secretary moved the previous timetable motion because the Leader of the House was not present to move his own motion—he was off in Chile or somewhere. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's absence during that previous debate is all the more reason why he should have stayed today.
  The behaviour of the Patronage Secretary was bad as well. I have never in all my time as a Member seen a more raucous, demonstrative Patronage Secretary. I thought that he had been appointed to the Chief Whip's Office to

  505
  bring a much-needed touch of elegance and courtesy. All his measures outside are matched when he comes into the Chamber. He sits next to the Leader of the House, shouts and interrupts everyone who wants to make a speech. He skedaddles off when he has the chance, leaving the hon. Member for Hallam, who is not allowed to reply, although I am sure that he is more capable of doing so than Ministers.
  This is a discourteous way of treating the House of Commons, especially if the Government want the motion to be treated seriously, as it should be. I agree with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that it is dangerous for the House of Commons as a whole if we become used to the idea that we just need a guillotine motion to get business through.
  Mr. Richard Holt: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is discourteous for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House not to be here, does he think that it is also discourteous for the shadow Leader of the House not to he here?
  Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) made an effective speech from the House of Commons' point of view, and everyone who heard it knows that it was a good speech. He is here to listen to the debate. I should have thought that every Conservative Member would understand that for a Leader of the House to move a motion and then clear off without having heard any of the replies is a discourteous way to treat the House of Commons. When I was Leader of the House, I stayed pretty well throughout the debates, certainly on these matters, to listen to the view of the House of Commons.
  I underline the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. It is foolish, even from the Government's point of view, not to listen to the House of Commons. The main purposes of a Leader of the House are not only to listen and move motions but to take messages from here to the Cabinet. Perhaps the breakdown in the Government's operations has occurred because that main task has not been performed. Cabinet does not learn what the House of Commons says, for example, in the early hours of the morning, when some of the most interesting developments take place—such as the debate a week or so ago that led to the other guillotine motion.
  If such events are not reported to No. 10 Downing street by the Leader of the House, it shows a great weakness in our government and injures Cabinet government. Whenever there is a fresh Government crisis, the Leader of the House says, "We shall go back to Cabinet government." He says that almost twice-weekly now, but he is one of the chief offenders. He should tell No. 10 Downing street and the Prime Minister around the Cabinet table each week what is happening here. He cannot do so if he is not here to see what happens. Even in the Government's own interests, it would be better for the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary to pay attention to the House of Commons for a change and learn some wisdom from this place.
  I was provoked into making those comments by the conduct of those on the Government Front Bench, but I now wish to start on a different note. I agree with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that this is a serious matter for the House of Commons as a whole, although I disagree with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G.
  506
  Young), who has great knowledge of the House. It is a serious matter if Governments of any complexion get into the habit of thinking, "We can always introduce a guillotine motion to deal with these matters. If we get into trouble, we need not worry too much, and we need not even think of it at the beginning of a Bill." Indeed, a proposal to that effect is sometimes put forward by the Select Committee on Procedure.
  That idea has always in the past been rejected by the House, and it should be rejected. I regret that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), is not in his place because he could learn something by listening to this debate. It is important for all concerned to hear what the House of Commons as a whole has to say on issues such as this.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is attending a meeting upstairs.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman may have a good cause for not being here, but he makes interruptions in debates such as this and has suggested that the House should conduct itself in this way. As I say, he might attend here on occasions such as this because people can learn by listening to what is said in the Chamber.
  The idea that we should have a cut and dried timetable for every Bill, with utter certainty about each measure going through in an allotted time, would do great injury to the House as a whole. After all, every Government, even the next Labour Government, would like such powers. We never sought such powers when we were in office. I accept that I introduced, and urged the House to introduce, guillotine motions on particular Bills. Indeed, we introduced five in a single day, as some people are kind enough to recall—[Interruption.]—but even then I said exactly what I am saying now, which is that it would be a great injury to the House of Commons to have cut and dried guillotine motions on all Bills. The Government would love to have such a power but, by the same reckoning, it would greatly injure the power of the House, including the power of Government Back Benchers.
  That that is true is borne out by the experience of the last few years, and Conservative Members will recall the debates that took place on what is now the Official Secrets Act 1989. A guillotine was introduced on that measure at a late stage—not to control speeches by my hon. Friends, but to gag Conservative Members.
  Is there anyone who does not think that that measure would have been better had the Government listened to what Back Benchers said, and had even gone to the extreme length of incorporating into the legislation some of the amendments tabled by their supporters? The Government would have done better from their point of view and from that of the legislation.
  I urge the Government—as I urge the new Government who will be coming into office; nobody knows exactly when, but it is within a measurable time—not to be tempted by the idea of saying, "Let us have a cut and dried procedure so that we can get every Bill through in exactly the way we want."
  If the Government take that attitude, they will, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin said, finish up with legislation with gross defects. No measure has ever been pushed through with grosser defects than the poll tax

  507
  legislation. The Government could have saved themselves a great deal of trouble by listening to what hon. Members in all parts of the House said about that legislation.
  Had the Government not used the guillotine, they might even have had time to think up some of the brilliant ideas on the poll tax about which we have heard in the last week or two. Indeed, they might even have put those ideas to the House and got them approved. That is the purpose of debates in the House. I have found over a number of years that debates in Committee are some of the best. Those debates, be they late at night or early in the morning, are some of the most important of all.
  A prime example of the point I am making occurred only a week or so ago, when the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton voted against the Government, and I accept that he has had a creditable record on the type of issue that was then before the House. He did his best to persuade the Government to adopt his view. Although he did not quite succeed, anyone who listened to that debate—and I listened to most of it—could see that that is what the House of Commons is for.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made his case very effectively, but it was the cross-play of argument with several Conservative Members that made the debate a most memorable one. In the end, the Government had to give way, but it was not only because of the vote. I claim that those who listened to the debate could come to only one conclusion: that something had to be done.
  If only the Government had been wise enough not to introduce the guillotine, the debates on the poll tax legislation could have been much better. The Government could have learnt something from the House of Commons and could have had second thoughts, but, far from learning from experience in the House of Commons, they rushed off to introduce the guillotine to deal with the situation.
  I do not want to elaborate a point that has been made quite clearly, but I have to say that, so far as I can judge—and I am an expert on the subject—that is why the present Government's use of the guillotine has been far more dangerous, extensive and elaborate than that of any Government since the introduction of the mechanism by the Liberal party before the first world war. Previous Governments took some care. They paused before introducing the guillotine. That is the purpose of debates such as the one that we are now having, but even this debate has been cut down—to some extent, in my opinion, wrongly.
  As things are going, it seems that the Government would like to make introduction of the guillotine a simple formality. The procedure is used so often that one might almost think that it was a formality already, that in every Bill there was a clause providing that, when the Committee stage or the Report stage has been reached, the guillotine will be brought in. The present Government have introduced more guillotines to curtail debate at this stage of Bills than any other Government in British history. By doing so, they have done injury to the House of Commons, but principally to themselves. The more this is done, the worse the government of the country becomes. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and hon. Friends, when they are given the chance to run affairs, will resist any
  508
  temptation to follow the present Government's example in this field—as in any other field. Indeed, I am sure that they will.
  The Leader of the House comes into the Chamber with a real hangdog look on his face. Time and again he appears looking as if he has just come from a meeting with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). [Interruption.] I am glad to have from such high authority, confirmation that that is what the Leader of the House has been doing. That is his excuse. He will have to troop round the country to keep up with his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley.
  Let me give the Leader of the House some advice. If he wants to finish off his right hon. Friend, we shall help him. We too think that the right hon. Gentleman is not fit to be Prime Minister. When it comes to a comparison, there is not much choice—"small choice in rotten apples", as Shakespeare would have said. If the Leader of the House really wants to deal with the right hon. Member for Henley, he has only to ask him why he voted so eagerly for the application of the poll tax in Scotland when he knew that it was going to be so injurious to England. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had the nerve to cross the Scottish border when he has been on his tours. He takes trips everywhere else. He should be invited to Scotland soon and asked to reply to that question.
  All these matters could be dealt with properly if only the Government learned that they should provide time in the House for arguments to take place properly. That is why I oppose the motion in good conscience. The Minister for Social Security, who is to reply to the debate, knows something about the Bill. I am sure that he will try to defend the Government's position. No doubt he is as good a person to defend it as anybody; certainly he will be much better than the Leader of the House or the Patronage Secretary, with whose eloquence we had to content ourselves on the last guillotine motion.
  It is better that the Minister should deal with the motion. He starts with a measure of good will. I am trying to dissipate some of it so that he does not have too easy a time. The Minister has a long record. I do not know who will be Leader of the House in the next Parliament, but I am sure that some hon. Members who are now on the Government side, and perhaps the Minister himself, will be on the Opposition Benches, remembering what I am saying today. They may reflect then on how wise I was.
  If only the Government would get the message, how much better it would be for the country. When the Minister replies to the debate, I ask him not to make the formal reply which he has been given by the Leader of the House but to express the view which he would get from this side of the House in this and future debates.
  4.41 pm
  Mr. Roger King: It is always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), with his not infrequent strictures on the introduction of guillotine motions. One feels that one is listening to a maestro who had the opportunity, when he was in a similar position to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, of obtaining an entry in the "Guinness Book of Records" for the greatest number of guillotine motions introduced in one day. We are well

  509
  aware of that and we shall continue to remind the House of it when Opposition Members complain that we are guillotining happily.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Given that his Government have extended the guillotining process, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that there might be a danger that the next Government, whoever they may be, will extend the process further? Does not the hon. Gentleman worry about that?
  Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It pre-empts what I intended to say in a few moments; perhaps I may come to it now.
  The main problem that we face in the House is that we have opposition for opposition's sake. It has been going on for many years. Opposition Members recounted that the Government introduced a guillotine on the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which introduced the community charge. If my memory serves me right, we debated that measure for 180 hours or longer. Try as we might, we could not obtain from the Opposition one element of their alternative policy. It was just mindless opposition for the sake of opposition. Not one shred of policy came from the Opposition. There is still not a shred of policy on their alternative to the community charge, although they have a vague idea of values about which they trumpet in by-elections, but no one knows what the values are. It is like saying, "If you do not like my principles, I have plenty more where they came from."
  Mr. Holt: Did my hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on the radio the other morning? When he was asked by the interviewer if the Labour party had made up its mind on whether the future funding of local government would be by a property tax or a tax on each individual in the property, he said that that was one of the little points that Labour had not quite worked out.
  Mr. King: That is right, but we are not here to debate the community charge. I should welcome that opportunity because we might have the chance to flush out Opposition policy. My point is that after 180 hours of endless debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House we could not obtain one shred of policy from the Opposition.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend and I had the honour of serving in Committee on that Bill. Does he recall that Labour policy has changed twice since the Committee stage? Such policy as we were able to get out of the Opposition changed immediately afterwards, and it has subsequently changed again. What conclusions does my hon. Friend draw from that?
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend invites me to draw conclusions. I note that the Labour party has introduced a flexible membership card, a credit card. It is like the party's policy—extremely flexible depending upon which by-election the party is contesting.
  Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
  Mr. King: I am not giving way. I must get on because other hon. Members want to speak.
  Not only did we have problems in flushing out any worthwhile opposition to the community charge and in obtaining concise, realistic debate, but we suffered the same experience on water privatisation. In my book that
  510
  was an outstanding achievement for the Government. It has transformed the water and sewage industry and put it on a sound financial footing, which will deliver quality and efficiency to the consumer. Try as we might, all we got from the Opposition was mindless opposition with not a shred of alternative policy.
  Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a danger of the House being misled by the hon. Gentleman, although I am sure he has no intention of doing so. No doubt he would want to confirm to the House that he and the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) were members of the Standing Committee on the Local Government Finance Bill, yet in all the hours of debate to which he referred they never opened their mouths.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I should like to hear a little more about the Social Security Bill.
  Mr. King: I shall not travel along the path that I have been invited to follow, except to point out that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) obviously does not yet know the workings of the House. He does not realise that as Parliamentary Private Secretaries my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and I were not by convention entitled to make a contribution in Committee. Of course, our views are well known to the Government.
  If we were to conclude the debate on the motion fairly abruptly, we should have about 14 more hours' debate on the Bill. That is a considerable amount of time. Not only will we continue until 1 o'clock tomorrow morning, but we will come back next Tuesday to complete consideration of the measure.
  The experience that we have obtained in the House over the past few years with the introduction of a 10-minute limit on speeches at certain times shows succinctly that contributions to the point can be made in a short time. Open-ended debate encourages excessive waffling and flannel, which is often all that we hear from the Opposition when they do not like a measure but have no realistic alternative to offer in its place.
  We owe it to the country to have clear, concise debate. There is an argument for having a timetable for Bills when they receive their Second Reading. We should debate that issue. Those of us who spend considerable time in Committee debating a measure come back to the House to hear the same points being debated all over again. Long hours are required to accommodate that debate. Timetabling a debate would not mean glossing over some points. On the contrary, it would concentrate the minds of hon. Members in an efficient debate on the matters at the core of the legislation. For that reason, I welcome the motion, so that we can get on with the real business, which is to improve social security benefits.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I feel that it ought to be said from this side of the House, relative to the intervention of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), that the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is not here is that he is attending a funeral, that of my late hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, Allan

  511
  Roberts, whose untimely passing is so widely mourned. I am sure that the hon. Member, with his customary decency, will now understand.
  If the guillotining of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was a disgrace, the Government's action today plumbs new depths of infamy. Whereas the NHS Bill was debated in Committee for weeks of late night sittings, the Social Security Bill never disturbed Ministers' schedules beyond 1pm on but two days a week. That alone makes this a preposterous motion. It is one about which I feel very strongly and, unlike the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), I shall certainly oppose it.
  There has never been any suggestion of filibustering: nor did the Order Paper suggest that the Bill's remaining stages could not be completed in due time and without this motion. The only portent of filibustering has come from the Secretary of State himself, who, by yesterday, had tabled four new clauses, one new schedule and 65 amendments.
  Social security affects the lives of every family in this country and they expect their concerns to be fully debated on the Floor of this House. Our new clauses and amendments—and indeed those tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House—reflect their concern. Yet with this motion the Government are treating not only Parliament with studied contempt but all of our constituents who will be the victims of the huge cuts in public spending under this Bill.
  Are Social Security Ministers so ashamed of their record that they wish to avoid debate? Do they not want to hear how people with AIDS are being forced to beg from charities for essential food and for items which the Department used to provide before 1986? Last year, charities provided £350,000 to people with AIDS, not for luxuries but for basic subsistence. Is not that both extremely cruel and deeply scandalous?
  Does the Secretary of State not want to defend in detail the laughable claims that private occupational sick pay schemes provide adequate earnings-related cover for long-term sickness? Is he afraid to have fully debated in the House how severely disabled young people have their severe disablement allowance withdrawn? Is he hiding from the vast evidence of the need for personal care and assistance revealed by the independent living fund? Does he want to avoid having to make a definitive statement about the independent living fund's current financial crisis, which, if it is not resolved soon, could lead to people with disabilities having to return to lives of dependence?
  The guillotine is calculated to prevent any meaningful debate on new clauses and amendments which are of the first importance to disabled people and which now have scant, if any, likelihood of being discussed. As the Secretary of State must know, many of these suggested changes to the Bill reflect the deep concern of the all-party disablement group.
  Does the Secretary of State want to avoid discussion of the comments flowing from all sides on that pitiful document "The Way Ahead"? Many of the organisations of and for disabled people say it should have been christened "The Way Backwards". Peter Large, of the Disablement Income Group—than whom no one is more qualified to comment—has described "The Way Ahead" as
  "Nothing but a narrowing stony ledge",
  512
  and he says that ministerial
  "talk about a more coherent system of benefits is a sign of delirium."
  The Secretary of State may recognise new clause 18, since it is practically identical to the clause inserted into the Social Security Act 1973. When Labour came to office in March 1974 it was abundantly clear that the outgoing Tory Administration had given no thought at all to the requirements of that part of the Act. Yet in six months the then Labour Government had published its proposals for the mobility allowance, which now goes to 615,000 people; for the invalid care allowance; and for the noncontributory invalidity pension.
  I must congratulate Conservative Members on one thing. When they were in opposition there were no more enthusiastic proponents of increasing the social security budget. Indeed it became a standing joke in the Department that their next ten-minute rule Bill would seek to extend mobility allowance to pole-vaulters.
  The Secretary of State is backing this motion only because he is profoundly ashamed of the record of the Government in which he serves. The House should reject the motion with the contempt that it demonstrates for the countless needful people who will lose from the provisions in the Bill.
  Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the statement made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I feel that my criticism of the shadow Leader of the House may well have been misplaced and in the circumstances I should like to withdraw it.
  4.55 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The real reasons why we are debating a guillotine motion today are not those given by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who opened the debate for the Opposition, but are given in the Morning Star and the Daily Mirror yesterday. On page 8, the Morning Star said:
  "Labour MPs plan a 23-hour all-night Commons sitting tomorrow",
  and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is quoted in the Daily Mirror as saying:
  "Labour MPs plan to force an all-night Commons session tomorrow".
  We know what all-night Commons sittings are about, and they are certainly not about debating Bills in detail. They are about filibustering and ensuring that time is wasted to prove some sort of parliamentary virility symbol.
  We want a proper debate on the important subject before the House. I recall that, during the debates two weeks ago on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill—I was a member of the Committee on that Bill —I sat in the Chamber at 3 o'clock in the morning listening to a speech by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr Michael) that went on for 32 minutes. The whole purpose of his amendment was merely to make local health district boundaries and community health council district boundaries the same as the local authority districts. It took him 32 minutes to say precisely that.
  Labour Members then went on for another two and a half hours, making the same points over and over again. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made two speeches, one lasting one hour and 48 minutes and the other lasting more than an hour, on small points in the

  513
  Bill. Having had that recent example, we are right to take heed of the public warnings in the national press that they intend to do the same with this Bill.
  We know the reasons why the Opposition made all that fuss two weeks ago about the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. In Committee, we had a reasoned debate and went through the Bill sensibly, but their union paymasters in the National Union of Public Employees and in the Confederation of Health Service Employees were unhappy about the reasoned and moderate debates on that Bill and were determined that there should be a fuss on the Floor of the House.
  Now the Opposition are seeking to do the same on this Bill. Having had a reasoned and sensible Committee stage, they want to create a rumpus on the Floor of the House, because that is where the television cameras are. That is why the Labour party is taking that attitude on Bill after Bill. We have reasoned debates in Committee; then there is a row and rumpus and synthetic indignation in the Chamber.
  I listened with great interest to the speech by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). When it comes to timetable motions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for—I am sorry I am promoting him before his time—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said, the right hon. Gentleman is an expert. He takes the cake for guillotine motions. He never missed an opportunity to speak on them. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely consistent. When in opposition, he is always against guillotine motions, and when he is in government he is a firm supporter of them.
  Mr. Holt: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who was Leader of the House, criticised my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for not being here. I wonder whether we shall hear similar criticism of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who is standing in for the shadow Leader of the House, for not being here to listen to the debate.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a good point. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
  As we know, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent is the expert on these matters. No one has beaten his record for introducing five guillotine motions in one day, which he did on 20 July 1976—a date that will no doubt live for ever in the right hon. Gentleman's memory.
  The right hon. Gentleman has spent a lifetime proclaiming himself a great libertarian and constitutionalist and a great upholder of the rights of the House of Commons. We heard it all again today. We should be more prepared to listen to the right hon. Gentleman and believe what he said if we had not had experience of his record in office from 1974 to 1979. First, as Leader of the House, he introduced five guillotine motions in one day. Then, as Secretary of State for Employment, he moved motion after motion to enforce the closed shop and force people to join trade unions.
  When this great libertarian, who has spent his life telling us what a great constitutionalist he is, had the power to put his principles into practice, he did exactly the opposite. I shall bear that in mind when I listen to his lectures.
  I want to conclude by quoting from Hansard.
  Mr. Roger King: The lesson for the day.
  Mr. Bennett: As my hon. Friend says, the lesson for the day.
  My quotation is this;
  "We see a Labour Government as having a right and a duty to legislate against any attempts to frustrate us in the end from exercising our rights of legislation, whether in this House or in another place—and, of course, it is a particular illustration of the malice, folly and absurdity into which right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side have got themselves that when we exercise those ancient rights it is cheating and when they exercise them it is freedom."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1543.]
  Those were the words of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent when he moved the five guillotine motions on 20 July 1976.
  As I said, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the right hon. Gentleman's Government were entitled to move those guillotine motions, the present Government are entitled to move the guillotine motion on the Social Security Bill to ensure that we can have a proper and rational debate on this important measure and that we do not face a filibuster—the macho-virility symbol of a weak and divided Opposition.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: For a weak and divided Opposition, we did not do badly in Mid-Staffordshire where the electorate decided on a swing of 21 per cent. in favour of Labour. The previous speech came from one of the most noxious Tories, although there are a number of candidates for the title so it is difficult to single out the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).
  Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said that they would support the guillotine motion because of their experience of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Anyone capable of an objective assessment could fairly claim that not only did we have a debate on important issues throughout the night on that Bill, but that a number of Labour Members were not called in the debate. We were anxious to talk about the balloting provisions for the opting-out process, and so on. So many of us were present that we could not all be called. In all, four Opposition Members were not called, not because there was a guillotine but because the House wanted to get on to another subject. It is simply not true to say that there was an organised filibuster.
  The National Health Service and Community Care Bill is of extreme concern because its effects will be so damaging. We therefore wanted to get our remarks on the record in Hansard to make it clear beyond peradventure that we oppose the damage that the Bill will do to the National Health Service and that we shall restore the National Health Service as a full public service after the next general election when we will be swept into office with a mandate to do that.
  The same is true of the Social Security Bill. It may be shorter than the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, but it is important. The Minister knows full well that his Department produces some of the most shoddy legislation with some of the most shoddy appendages of secondary legislation. It is responsible for the most errors and its legislation is subject to the greatest number of court cases. The Bill is shorter than the NHS Bill, but it still has 18 clauses, six schedules and 55 pages and includes in its provisions the repeal of nearly 100 sections of several other Acts. Perhaps we should help the Minister to avoid further

  515
  court actions. One of the new proposals tabled by the Minister would reverse a court action that his Department sustained, which reversed the aim and effect of legislation previously passed by the House. It might not be a bad idea to spend some extra time on a matter which, by common consent of hon. Members on both sides of the House—it is a question of fact—is subject to the most challenges in court.
  The reason for that is that Social Security Bills affect most people in the country. This Bill will affect as many people as the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, if not more. Fortunately, some people go through life without ever having to be treated in a National Health Service hospital. Some go through life without even having to see their GP. But it is rare for people not to have to consider some aspect or other of social security, for themselves or for a relative. That is why the allocation of time motion is ill advised and ill judged.
  The guillotine motion will have two effects. In the ordinary course of debate, the House creates its own discipline. There is usually the sense that hon. Members want to move to a vote. People say, "Do not speak for too long because we want to vote at 10 o'clock." Everyone knows that that happens. In addition to removing that voluntary discipline, which requires no imposition by the Whips, the guillotine removes the initiative from the Opposition and places it with the Government. With a guillotine, the Government and their supporters know that they can talk for as long as they choose and rob the Opposition of the opportunity to advance their case. The longer they take, the less time the Opposition will have, and the guillotine will fall, irrespective of who takes up the time.
  In Committee, it is an entirely different matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) raised a point of order about the situation that obtained in the Committee on the last Local Government Finance Bill. We have heard expostulations from the hon. Member for Northfield to the effect that we have had plenty of discussion. We know that, in Committee, he kept quiet. The general instruction to Government supporters in Committee is to keep quiet and not to take up the time because the Government want to get their Bill through. That means that the initiative is with the Opposition, and that is right and proper.
  We are here to criticise and it is interesting to hear Tory Members say that Opposition Members are here simply for the sake of opposing. They say that they want an opposition in eastern Europe. They have not said that they want a tame opposition in Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the other eastern European countries. They did not say of Romania that Ceausescu should have an opposition but only if they were a tame opposition who did not challenge Ceausescu's Government. But that is what they say they want here. They say that we are opposing for the sake of opposing. That is patently untrue. We seek to challenge the Government and we need time to do that.
  The trouble with guillotining is that it diminishes the opportunity for proper debate and robs the Opposition of their main job of scrutinising legislation. That has to be done because most Conservative Members are subservient
  516
  and will not challenge their own party's legislation. They are frightened to do so after the Mid-Staffordshire by-election.
  Mr. Roger King: Opposition for opposition's sake is not a good thing. Opposition against a background of proper policies is something else, but Labour does not have any policies. Will the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) say whether he is in favour of a timetable motion —yes or no?
  Mr. Cryer: I am opposed to the timetable motion before the House and shall vote against it, and I have tabled amendments to try to make the motion more equitable.
  When a Labour Government introduced timetable motions, which have been well debated this afternoon, Lord Hailsham described that Government as an elective dictatorship. At the time, we did not have a majority, so we were never certain of getting anything through the House —let alone a guillotine motion. We had to convince the minority parties in debate that they should vote with us.
  What of the comments of Lord Hailsham and his cronies today? Given that the Government have an overall majority over Labour in this House of 150, and over other Opposition parties of 100, the timetable motion is a good example of an elective dictatorship imposing its will on this House and robbing the Opposition of an opportunity to oppose legislation—in just the same petty way that the Government introduced several statements yesterday, to try to rob us of the opportunity to present the victor in the Mid-Staffordshire by-election at a time convenient to most right hon. and hon. Members, and when my new hon. Friend would have been seen by millions taking her seat. The Government's tactic did not work but merely focused more attention on the newest Member of the House—showing again that the Government are losing their touch.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman recall this quote:
  "A timetable motion is an exceedingly sensible addition to a Bill … The principle of a timetable motion is highly commendable as a general rule. It is not cutting down debate".—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1728-29.]
  Those were the words of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on 20 July 1976, when speaking to timetable motions on the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and Education Bill.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to my words on that occasion. I am all in favour of quoting from Hansard. Right hon. and hon. Members are on record for the very purpose of ensuring some accountability. The Government are trying to remove that accountability from the Opposition and to fill out the time available within a guillotine with speeches by Tory Members, thereby robbing Opposition Members of the right to place their views on the record.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) does not have a good record for consistency. He spoke of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, on whose Committee I also served. The hon. Gentleman is on record as signing an early-day motion in support of enrolled nurses having a right to training, yet when I moved an amendment for that purpose he voted against because he thought that that would go unnoticed in Committee.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes the valuable point that all the comments and views expressed by right hon. and hon. Members are open to scrutiny. I am certainly willing to stand by my own past comments.
  Ms. Short: All right hon. and hon. Members would agree that there must be guillotines in some circumstances, because every Government must get their business through Parliament. However, today's debate centres on our desire to raise a series of questions on social security measures that have hurt people throughout Britain. I refer to the Government's failure to provide proper pensions, child benefit, treatment of the homeless, and so on.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are willing to stay up through the night to debate those matters. We have made it clear that we are not trying to jeopardise tomorrow's business. The timetable motion is an attempt to prevent Opposition Members from raising those issues so that lazy Conservative Members can go to bed.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend echoes my point that the Opposition have a serious purpose in mind in opposing the timetable motion. We are concerned that legislation leaving the House should be as clear and unambiguous and equitable as possible. If any Conservative Member wants evidence of my genuine concern, I remind the House that I spent hours, as Chair of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, ensuring that that was done. Statutory instruments of the Department of Social Security have often had to he reported to the House because of their ambiguity and unusual use of power. We make a just and valid claim when we say that our action is motivated by concern about the Government's attempts to compress, for example, Government new clauses 23 and 26 into one hour of debate, as they intend to do also with new clauses 1 to 6 and new clauses 7 and 8. My amendment would extend the final guillotine from 1 am to 2 am, which would give the House an opportunity to debate more thoroughly new clauses 7 and 8.
  New clause 7 is complicated, and relates to applicable amounts, and new clause 8 encapsulates a private Member's Bill dealing with Crown employees exposed to radiation. I refer to service men who ran that risk in the service of their country, and who are a body of people normally much admired by Conservative Members. My amendment would allow the House to debate and reach a decision on the provision of compensation for former Crown employees suffering from leukaemia; cancer of the thyroid, breast, pharynx, oesophagus, stomach, small intestine or pancreas; multiple myeloma; lymphomas except Hodgkin's disease; cancer of the bile ducts or gall bladder; or primary liver cancer, except if caused by cirrhosis or hepatitis B. Those diseases have been contracted by people as a result of their service to the Crown and exposure to radiation, and they now rightly seek compensation—such as that paid in the United States of America, where proper legislation already exists.
  The House should have an opportunity to debate new clause 8 extensively, but it is squashed into one hour together with new clause 7. What is the betting that the Tory Whips will organise Tory Members to vote against it?
  New clause 8 does not have the support only of Labour Members, which is why my amendments place particular emphasis on giving more time to debate that new clause in particular. Eight Tories, 11 Labour Members, two SDP Members, one Liberal, and one Scottish National party
  518
  Member put their names to that new clause, so it has the support of a cross-section of the House. I hope that the Government will encourage their own Members to support new clause 8 in the Lobby, and so provide a little help to literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have suffered ill effects as a consequence of their service to this country. We shall see what happens.
  New clause 8 was tabled because a handful of Tory Members set out to sabotage the private Member's Bill on the same subject, which should have enjoyed a consensus of the House. Instead, there was filibustering on its Second Reading to prevent the Bill from progressing further.
  My second amendment would extend the time available for Third Reading by two hours, to 12 midnight. I am willing to remain here for that length of time, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends, because the legislation is important enough to justify doing so. The guillotine is trampling on the rights of Parliament and the good work of the Opposition, but it will avail the Government absolutely nothing, as the Mid-Staffordshire by-election amply demonstrated.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to move his amendment (a)?
  Mr. Cryer: Yes, formally.
  Amendment proposed: (a), in paragraph (i), leave out '1.00 am' and insert '2.00 am'.—{Mr. Cryer.]
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: We are here as citizens chosen by our fellow citizens to represent them here in what used to be referred to when I was growing up as parliamentary Government. It reflects the truth that Churchill identified, which is that the people are sovereign. We give authority to Governments and substance to the rule of law. I remind right hon. and hon. Members, following the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the former Leader of the Opposition, that our authority, springing from the people, is the very basis of that power and, as Burke said, parliamentary democracy is not just the number of our people divided by two plus one; it is the whole process of argument and reason. Although we may disagree, ultimately authority is secured for acquiescence on the basis of the process of argument and reason.
  It is not on the merits of the guillotine today or another guillotine that I rise to make that remembrance. Last Session we passed 11 guillotines with the greatest parliamentary majority conceivable in a parliamentary democracy. In 1945, when a Labour Government were elected with perhaps the most radical programme of any Government in the history of our nation, they did not use the guillotine as far as I can recall, and if they did it is almost unidentifiable. That Government brought in legislation that transformed the nation and touched on great passions for the right and for the left. Yet they were able to secure the business of the country without truncating and cutting out debate.
  I reflect on that time because it is discussed in Leo Amery's book "Thoughts on the Constitution" which examines the legislative programme of that Labour Government to which he was not particularly well disposed. In one parliamentary Session they passed some 70 pieces of legislation without the need to resort to a guillotine.
  Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend has just identified the nub of the problem we face today, which is not the size of the Government's majority or the Government's radical proposals, but the actions and behaviour of the Opposition. Attlee's Government were not faced with an intransigent mob as we are today.
  Mr. Shepherd: I note what my hon. Friend said. Perhaps as Milton said in "Areopagitica", we ought to have a little tolerance of each other. That is true, but it is not a requirement of membership of the House to be particularly tolerant. Our duty is to scrutinise legislation because on our authority it becomes the law of the land.
  I said that last Session we had 11 guillotines and supplemental guillotines—something I had not encountered before. I well recall that we used a guillotine motion to secure one hour's debate because the Government were so nervous.
  The prejudgment of issues is a foolish approach to our business. After all, it is perhaps during debate that we realise the wrongness or the weight of arguments that we had not prejudged or considered would have arisen. I have been in the House for 11 years and I have watched Ministers and right hon. and hon. Members discover the point of opposing and conflicting arguments. That is an extremely important process which would be damaged by a rush into curtailment of debate.
  My purpose was not to take up much of the time of the House but to reinforce time and again that it is in the interests of the Government that I support to be extraordinarily cautious in their approach to guillotines. There has been much reference to going through the night and the poverty of discussion through the night, but there is no reason why we should go through the night. There is nothing wrong with the parliamentary year. We could stage the Bill over three days.
  Leo Amery, the father of a very distinguished right hon. Member, pointed out that Second Readings, which often contain the principles of Bills, often took two or three days. Now we are shocked at the very thought of something taking a day. In some instances I have sat here when important pieces of legislation have been given only half a day for Second Reading. We then think that 180 hours in Committee—after all, it is to our advantage for there to be scrupulousness in Committee—justifies condensing important legislation covering, in some instances, hundreds of clauses into a few hours of debate. That serves us ill.
  Last year when the Water Bill was under a guillotine, we considered about 300 additional amendments, a large number of which were tabled by the Government and 80 of which were substantive. It is a shame to ourselves as citizens representing fellow citizens that we charged that through. Of course, our courts are now lumbered with cases trying to identify what we intended through the legislative words that we used.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the fact that more than 500 Government amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill were tabled, and that about 600 Government amendments were tabled to the Local Government Finance Bill which dealt with the poll tax? Many of those amendments were not discussed, but we now know the result of incorporating them.
  Mr. Shepherd: I presume that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was intended to support my contention.
  Governments are formed and given authority by the House. Now, all too often the tail wags the dog. This is parliamentary Government and it requires us properly and responsibly to return to our fellow citizens and say that we have honourably considered the legislation. There is nothing partisan in that as one day we may be in opposition and all the calls that we now hear from the Opposition will be our calls.
  It is true, tedious, tiresome and sad for our nation that Ministers one day demand the necessity of a guillotine and the following day, as we have just heard from the Opposition, they stand on the other side of the House and say that it is outrageous. I have never been given the Queen's commission to serve on the Treasury Bench, and I do not expect that call immediately, but I know that that dual approach, that almost duplicity of saying one thing from the Treasury Bench and another thing from Opposition Benches as if it were only a partisan exchange, loses the essential flame of what we are about and our authority. Our authority is to redress the grievances of people and to give authority to the Government so that they may govern, as the Treasury Bench exists only because of the House of Commons being given authority by the people out there. Consistently, time and again, we are throwing through ill-considered legislation.
  I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has more important business elsewhere, as has the Patronage Secretary, and I am sorry that those on the Labour Front Bench have responded in like measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are here."] I apologise, as those on the Labour Front Bench have returned.
  The guillotine ill serves my party's interests, but most of all it diminishes the authority of the House when it is treated so disdainfully by the constant pressure to get ill-considered legislation through the House.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who made a powerful and passionate speech with which I agree entirely.
  Governments must reserve the right, in principle, to table guillotine motions, but they must be used more sparingly than they are being used by this Administration. For that specific reason, I object to the motion.
  If I understood the justification for the motion given by the Leader of the House, it is that too many new clauses have been tabled. However, that applies not only to the official Opposition—I understand that the usual channels operate principally between the two major parties—because other parties are involved. Back Benchers must also be considered, yet the Leader of the House ignored them when trying to justify the motion.
  There is no justification for the motion. The Government forget that we return to the subject of social security every year. Therefore, it is not open to them to say, "If we do not seize this opportunity it will be five or 10 years before we can deal with these issues." There is no reason for the Government's indecent haste in tabling the new clauses that they have inflicted on the House.
  I could not agree more with the point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. It does the House no

  521
  service for the Government so regularly to table guillotine motions. I object to the fact that they have complete control of the time that is allocated. If they said, "We shall allocate the time and the Opposition can use it how they wish," it would allow more efffective opposition and enable them to have their legislation within the limits of their timetable.
  The Government's new clauses take up much space on the Amendment Paper. Clause 21 is three and a half pages long. We have been given ludicrously little time to scrutinise clauses of such length. That demeans the process of democracy and makes it impossible for Opposition Members effectively to scrutinise legislation.
  The Government could have waited before tabling new clause 19. They have had the report of the Occupational Pensions Board for almost a year. It has been tabled because they made a hash of drafting the Bill. Instead of being pushed through under the guillotine, it should have waited until next year.
  New clause 21, which is three and a half pages long, which applies to the liability for maintenance of dependants, is of fundamental and far-reaching importance. That idea appeared in the Government's mind after a fevered sleepless night. Instead of waiting until next year's Social Security Bill, they have stuck it on to the fag end of the Report stage of this Bill, without any justification whatever.
  New clause 22 is a direct response to the Government's duffing up by the courts. The courts will not be grateful for the Government's response. The new clause acts retrospectively and changes the provisions that have obtained since 1975 to what the Government thought they should have been in the first place. Earlier, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said that that is not how we should amend legislation. That procedure is not guaranteed to succeed and will not make it simpler for the courts to interpret the Bill.
  New clause 23 results from another bloody nose that the Government got from the courts on the iniquitous way that the social fund is being administered. It is ridiculous that the Government have tabled it at such short notice. The same applies to new clause 26. We had a substantial debate on income support on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
  The Government's new clauses are not necessary to amend social security legislation and are not in the interests of proper and effective scrutiny. After we have considered those new clauses, what time will be left for other amendments?
  I take exception to the suggestion of the Leader of the House that, on Report, hon. Members can only refine what was done in Committee. My party was unable to serve on the Committee that considered the Bill. I make no complaint about that, because the minority parties were as well represented as they could have been, but some hon. Members do not have the benefit of serving on Standing Committees. It is wrong for the House to accept that on Report hon. Members are doing only a wee bit of fine tuning.
  The Standing Committee did honest and sensible work, but it is an important part of hon. Members' work to scrutinise de novo the work done in Committee as well as that done on Second Reading. The Chair is advised, perfectly properly, about the priority of the amendments, but the idea that we should only refine what was done in Committee should not be given currency or support.
  522
  I make a plea on behalf of the minority parties for less business in the House. Other legislative processes in other constituent parts of the United Kingdom might make the Minister's job easier. The Government should take the sensible course and establish a Scottish Parliament with responsibility for some of these matters. The House could then discuss legislation at its leisure. The legislative process would be none the worse for that.
  Members of the official Opposition are girding their loins for retaliation. If guillotine motions are being moved before the long, hot summer season starts, goodness knows how many long and tedious nights we shall spend not doing ourselves any credit because we cannot properly scrutinise legislation in the early hours of the morning. That is not a sensible way to run the country. I hope that the Government will think seriously before moving future guillotine motions, which are bad for business and bad for the legislation that hon. Members have to scrutinise.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I shall be brief. Later this evening, we shall debate new clause 1 on community charge benefits, which was tabled by the Opposition. The political issues of the greatest significance and most interest to our constituents are those surrounding the community charge.
  Before we dispatch the Bill, it is important that we have further discussion and debate on the amendments, and perhaps further amendments on how to deal with some of the problems that will face our constituents because of the community charge. I believe that that is vital and—
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Essential.
  Mr. Marlow: Yes, essential.
  I speak as someone who supports the principle and idea behind the community charge. It is right that everyone should pay towards the costs of local government and it is wrong that people should be able to vote for a local authority, and sometimes vote in extravagant local authorities, when they do not foot the bill.
  The levels of community charge that are being presented are way above the levels that Conservative Members and even the Government anticipated. That is due, in part, to local authorities being extravagant in their expenditure. However, that is the position with which we are faced.
  Like other hon. Members, I recently canvassed my constituents. I knocked on one door, said who I was and asked the lady what she thought about the community charge. She burst into tears—[AN HON. MEMBER: "She saw you standing there."] I am trying to make a serious speech on a serious issue. That lady's distress had nothing to do with being anti-Government or anti-Tory; it was because she was confronted with the problem of trying to cope with the financial burden being put on her household. She is probably entitled to transitional relief or rebate, but she was not aware of that. She lives in a small terraced house and she has been confronted with an additional financial burden with which she cannot cope.
  Some couples with relatively low pay will have to find an additional £5 per week virtually from thin air. Where will they find it? Other couples have to find up to an additional £9 per week virtually from thin air. In some

  523
  cases, their pay has risen little or not at all. I am talking about relatively low-paid people living in small houses in inner-city areas.
  Pensioners are deeply concerned about the attrition of their savings. I am glad that the Government have done something about that, but I wonder whether it is enough. There is a great deal of anxiety about the levels of community charge, which range between £250 and £500, and it is an unfair anxiety. I know that the Government are aware of the problems, as they, too, have been taken by surprise by the levels of community charge. I know that they want to do something about that, but they say that they will do it next year. That is no good; it must be done this year. The current position is unfair and unreasonable.
  The levels of community charge—whether £250, £450 or £500—must be reduced. Local authorities have made their predictions and set their budgets, so there is no point in saying that we cannot put more money into the system because local authorities will spend it. Any money that we put into the system now will go straight to our constituents to reduce the fearsome burden that concerns them so much.
  We can and should do that, but how? There should be a national rebate of the community charge. That will cost money, which must come from somewhere. Last week's Budget will be followed by a Finance Bill, and we can change the Budget details through that. Instead of increasing tax thresholds, they should be maintained at their current level and the tax raised used to reduce each person's community charge by £42. There could be a 1p increase in income tax. People are concerned that the community charge is regressive rather than progressive. If 1p is put on income tax, those who earn the money would pay more towards it.
  By those two means, we could reduce each person's community charge by between £80 and £100. That would bring charges down to between £150 and £350. No one will whinge or think it unfair if they have to pay £150 for everything that is provided by local government. Those who would pay £350 would say, "Why are we paying more?"
  The main purpose of the community charge is to introduce accountability, and under those circumstances accountability would work. Presently, everyone feels that he has an unfair burden and is paying too much. If there are problems on the streets and if there are problems with non-payment, to a certain extent people will sympathise and the community charge that I support and that I believe is the only proper and sensible way to finance local government will never be properly launched. The Government must bring down the levels this year, find the money from central taxation and so remove the anxieties of many people.
  If the community charge is a fair and proper system, it will work and there will be accountability. There will be problems over the next six months if the Government leave it until next year to introduce changes. How will accountability work if the system is different next year, and the fudge by local councils this year of increasing expenditure will also happen next year? It is only fair that there should be changes and that they should be made
  524
  now. There should be a national rebate of between £80 and £100, and that could be done through this Bill. I very much hope that the Government are listening.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. John Battle: Occasionally, in what are becoming these all-too-frequent debates, our politics are rightly called back to some of the basic principles and practices of parliamentary democracy. That was shown in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). To my mind, what characterises Parliament under this Government is that it is pushed to its limits. The legislative programme is far too heavy. Controversial material is introduced which is clearly not thought out and which is then forced through by whipping rather than being properly considered. It appears that legislation is now the Whips' business rather than an issue for debate and scrutiny.
  I was surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), because there is no proper discussion. Two years ago, Opposition Members, in Committee and again on the Floor of the House, outlined precisely the effects of introducing the poll tax and showed who would pay the price. The record shows that in Committee we asked whether there would be any transitional relief. "No," was the reply at the time. Judging from the shouts across the Chamber the other night, it appears that Conservative Members still think that there can be a 100 per cent. rebate. Most of us, and certainly the public, know that, on the instruction of the Prime Minister, every person must pay a minimum of 20 per cent. of their poll tax, regardless of ability to pay.
  The hon. Gentleman called upon the Government to take action now, not next year. They had the opportunity to take action not last year, but the year before. We are slightly encouraged that at least some Conservative Members were willing to listen to the argument and the debate and to vote for sensible clauses to ameliorate the destructive elements of the poll tax.
  It is not long since we faced a similar position with the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I sat in the Chamber throughout the whole of the Report stage, waiting to speak. As the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills reminded us, we are elected to raise matters on behalf of our constituents. I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee that considered that Bill. Although my constituents face proposals for self-governing hospital trusts, and although there are great worries about doctors' contracts, I could not raise those matters on behalf of my constituents because the timetable motion ruled out those clauses from the business of the House.
  I served on the Committee that considered this Bill and, as has been said, the Committee stage was both reasonable and sensible. One reason for that—we make no apology for it—was our right to reserve our position and not to vote on every item in the Bill. We did not want the Bill to be guillotined in Committee. The Government accepted that we would again raise certain topics when the Bill returned to the Floor of the House. Those matters are of great importance, and hon. Members need to hear the arguments and vote on the issues.
  That is why we tabled new clauses. As a result of the guillotine motion, I will not be able to speak on the clauses

  525
  to which my name appears. Those new clauses deal with the uprating for pensioners and social security benefits for the families of prisoners, who do not receive them at the moment because of an anomaly in the law. In Committee, the Minister said that, if we brought that issue back to the Floor of the House, we could sort out that minor anomaly. That will not happen, because of the guillotine motion. I represent one of the most overcrowded prisons in the country, and because of the guillotine motion I will have difficulty in representing my constituents today.
  The Bill originally had 18 clauses, but there are 17 Government new clauses on the Amendment Paper today. That represents almost a new Bill. The new clauses introduce completely new material as a result of the Government's failure in shoddy legislation in other Bills.
  One of the Government new clauses results from the fact that the High Court overruled the Government on the social fund regulations. That new clause is not the result of Opposition filibustering; it is the result of bad legislation, which the Opposition opposed at the time. The Government were caught out by the courts and they have been forced to alter the Bill to try to sort the matter out and ratify their position.
  The Government lost a vote on Report on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill on the issue of residential care, so they have had to find a convenient Bill on to which to tag an alteration to correct that position. That explains the reason behind another of the Government's new clauses. That new clause and the one about the social fund have nothing to do with issues that we discussed in Committee.
  We are entitled to ask what the Government are scared of. Are they scared of the official Opposition, or are they afraid of opposition on the Government Benches? The Government appear to be afraid of opening up the issues that surround the Bill and the new clauses, because this Government will go down in history as the Government who punished the poor and presided over increasing poverty in our society.
  The poor are being economically and socially marginalised. They are also being politically marginalised off the agenda through the arcane guillotine games that the Government are playing. The Government are prepared to redefine the poor away by refusing to accept a standard definition of poverty. They are also attempting to manipulate discussion on those issues off the agenda. The Government can ignore contradictory evidence and they will distort the language, but they have consistently avoided any serious debate of the devastating impact that social security legislation has had on poverty.
  It is important that we raise such issues if we are to understand the relationship between the Budget and social security legislation. There is a deliberate hidden fiscal policy to price out the poor. When we consider the inter-working of taxation and the Budget with the benefit system, it is clear that taxes have been redistributed. Income is being taken from the pockets of the poor and put into the wallets of the rich.
  The most blatant example of that was the poll tax referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). It is amazing how late in the day Conservative Members have woken up to the effects of legislation which the Government are putting through the House. The poll tax has plainly been designed to fall more heavily on the poor than on the rich. That is what the
  526
  Secretary of State at the time claimed that it was designed to do. It was not supposed to offer real protection, because it takes no account of the ability to pay.
  Late in the day, after the poll tax Bill has been passed and after Conservative Members voted for it, they are now voicing their disquiet. At least some Conservative Members listened to the debate and perhaps voted accordingly. However, it is amazing how many Conservative Members now pretend that they did not vote for the poll tax Bill and that they did not vote against the Opposition clauses which warned people what would happen.
  This guillotine motion prevents us from considering the Bill which contains reductions in the severe disablement allowance and in the reduced earnings allowance. In Committee, we served notice on the Government that we would bring those issues back to the Floor of the House, because the country has a right to know what the Government are doing in social security legislation.
  We have not had an opportunity to discuss the report from the Government Actuary. It is about time that we had an opportunity properly to discuss the distribution of wealth and income and the condition of the poor in our society. The Government have initiated no such debate. The document to which I want to refer is entitled the "Report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1990 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1990" and was published in January.
  The report offers an interesting clue to the future, which does not appear in any other Government document. Paragraph 10(i) contains an assumption that the number of unemployed people in Britain will rise to 1·75 million in 1990–91. That is a clear prediction that unemployment will rise. Paragraph 21 is more interesting, in that it relates to the effect of different assumptions on unemployment and earnings. It states that, if the average number of unemployed people was to be 100,000 higher and corresponding assumptions were made,
  "the contribution income in 1989–90 would be £110 million lower and expenditure would rise by £65 million."
  That means that there will be an 8·5 per cent. fall in the national insurance fund as a result of rising unemployment in the next financial year. There will be a net loss of £175 million.
  It is not good enough for the Government to tell us now that they cannot pay the pensioners their uprating, and that they must push the poor down. It is no good the Government saying that they cannot do more at the margins to assist people facing the poll tax and that they can only tinker at the edges of the savings concessions. It is not good enough for them to say that there is not enough money. They are taking money by failing to uprate benefits and pensions. Government reports state that it is more politically expedient to take funds from the poor and excluded in our society, including the unemployed, than to have a system under which there is a fairer and more equitable distribution of taxes at local or national level.
  It is about time that we had a thorough debate on those matters. In its original form, this Bill contained only brief bits of policy on a wide range of topics. It has turned into a rag bag as a result of the Government's failure in other areas of policy, and that failure was highlighted in the High Court. Other Bills have been thrown into this one as a result of court decisions and because the Government failed in other Bills.

  527
  While I have been a Member of this place, a huge amount of legislation has come before the House. A great number of Bills have come before the House every Session. Despite the Government's attempt to bludgeon those Bills through, as a result of our failure to give those Bills full and proper critical scrutiny, the public have been delivered of a raft of shoddy legislation.
  It is amazing that Conservative Members will vote for the guillotine motion and then vote without considering the issues in the amendments and new clauses. Conservative Members will wake up late in the day and wonder why they did not vote against this motion because the public are upset about what the Government are doing. If Conservative Members will face up to that, they should consider whether they should vote against their guillotine motion.
  We could then have proper consideration of the major issues. The poll tax rebate system is a major issue, so let us discuss it now. We should spend what time it takes to get it right; otherwise, the public will be short-changed and the people who pay the price for short-changing legislation at the moment are the poorest.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Last week some of us spent much time and exercised our consciences in voting down, regretfully, a measure put forward by our Government on residential care. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, for whom I have profound respect, has put forward a clause that some of us will be able respectably to support. Some £70 million will ensure that what I am confident the Government did not want to happen will not happen. If they had listened to us before, much embarrassment could have been saved over the community charge benefits. I say with no sadness and with great pride that the principle of this measure has a tremendous amount to recommend it. However, as a practice it has almost nothing to recommend it. I voted against it from the start. I have served on Committees examining Bills and over a period of three years nowhere can my name be found supporting the community charge.
  Mr. Salmond: Did the hon. Gentleman's votes against the poll tax legislation also apply to the Scottish legislation or did he vote to impose it on the Scottish people even though he finds it so distressing for his own constituents?
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that. He was not here at the time, but some of his Scottish colleagues will remember that I came here late at night to speak against the legislation being imposed on Scotland. Some hon. Members who are now in the Chamber will remember that.
  It is sad that this is the last time that we shall have a chance to debate this issue. It is even more distressing that, in spite of all the so-called changes that have been made, the Government have not yet grappled with the simple fact that the principle of everybody paying something towards local government services is entirely sound and proper. Local government services, even more than central Government services, affect nearly everybody in the country.
  528
  I repeat the question that I asked some three years ago when we debated the matter: I save money but who pays for my savings? I shall save some £1,200 a year on the community charge or poll tax—it is much better to call it that—but people who live not half a mile from me in a one-bedroomed flat will pay £480 more than I pay. I live quite well, although modestly. I will be £1,200 better off and the people in that flat will be £480 worse off. There is neither logic nor justice in that, for one simple reason. Throughout our history all taxation has been based upon the ability to pay. Many of us argued in the long hours of the night and have argued within our party and in the country that ability to pay has to be the bedrock of any sensible or just tax. Many of us have said to our Government colleagues again and again, "Why not bring justice in this year? Why does it have to be next year?"
  It is nonsense to talk about a safety net. What safety net is it, for God's sake, when some people have to pay for other people's so-called safety? What happens next year? Of course local government has to be paid for. The Opposition should not take too much heart from the discomfort that my party finds itself in, because nothing is for nothing. Somebody has to pay for local services. It is no good putting forward some grandiose scheme and saying that matters will be put right because Opposition Members and Conservative Members must be honest and say that local government requires billions of pounds.
  I spent more than 20 years in local government and I can say with absolute conviction and honour that I warned my party and the Government that the poll tax would be a disaster. I was wrong because it has been a cataclysmic disaster and the by-election in Mid-Staffordshire showed that. There should be no pussy-footing about it: the poll tax was one of the great reasons that lost us that by-election. I warned the Government at the time that I gained from the poll tax and that I felt guilty about that. I live among people who have gained from the poll tax, but I have yet to find one person who says, "Goody, goody, I have gained." On the whole people in Britain do not say such things because they care about who pays.
  At this very late stage I appeal to the Government to bear in mind that people do not think just of themselves. They ask the question that I asked some years ago when I said that I stood to gain £1,250. Of course it has narrowed and is now £1,200. I asked, "If I gain, who pays?" Of course everybody should pay something. I have always thought it hugely unjust that under the rating system 40 per cent. of the people paid and 60 per cent. of them voted for other people's charges. That system was hugely unfair, but it is nonsense to replace one unfair system with an even more unfair one.
  I should be happy to debate the community charge benefit day after day and week after week until we could find a fair system. This is our last chance to debate fairness and I ask the Government not to tell people what they will do next year and the year after. They should admit that there has been a cock-up and should do something about it now. Why should people have to subsidise my poll tax? I know that the Government will say that I pay more income tax than some people, but that is because I have a higher income. It is nonsense to draw such an analogy. I stick by the principle of ability to pay and I am tired of people thinking that others should pay their tax. Everybody should pay something towards the service that he receives.

  529
  Local services should matter even to people who are on social security and they should have to pay something, but it is nonsense that I, in my home, should pay exactly the same as someone in a one-bedroomed flat. That people in Scottish crofts who used to pay £60 should now pay £480 is huge nonsense. To build a just and fair society we must be able to argue, with those who receive and with those who pay, that a tax is fair. My conscience and guts tell me —Mid-Staffordshire told us all—that people will not accept an injustice however long we argue that it is fair.
  The time for change has come. For God's sake, let us not defend the indefensible; let us defend the people's right to a fair system of taxation.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Like most right hon. and hon. Members, I am very disappointed that the House is being asked to debate the merits of this important Bill under the guillotine. I was more than a little surprised to hear the Leader of the House complain about the number of new clauses and amendments tabled since the Committee stage, given that, on the Amendment Paper for debate this evening, the Government have no fewer than 15 new clauses and amendments, and that only two Opposition new clauses will get an airing by 11 pm. Perhaps other Members will now know exactly how hon. Members from Northern Ireland feel when, for instance, an education order is put through the House in a similar way—not under the pretext of the guillotine but by Order in Council.
  Although I have friends on both sides of the House, I get a little tired of the yah-boo type of debate that seems to go on continually here. Referring to what the other party did when in power or what it may do when not in power probably provides good political ammunition, but such debates between the major parties can be instrumental in avoiding debate on the merits or otherwise of the subject in hand. I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who talked about those who were not on the Committee being represented. I represented the minor parties, and I can say that it was an excellent Committee stage. Arguments were forcefully put and some amendments were even accepted. However, other Members did not have a chance to serve on the Committee and they should have the chance to table amendments and have them debated at length. That is the weakness of the guillotine motion: it will cut off much debate on important subjects.
  Even if Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker exercise great dexterity and care, many Back Benchers cannot speak in many of our debates. I notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of my party, is in his place. My party has always voted against guillotine motions on the basis that they are a negation of democracy, curtailing debate on matters that involve millions of citizens, many of whom feel cut off from the many benefits which they are told are flowing from the affluent society.
  For instance, a constituent has written to me:
  "In 1980 the State Pension received by a married couple was worth 40 per cent. of full-time average earnings. By 1988 the same pension was worth only 31 per cent. full-time earnings. Yet there have been statements by Government Ministers that pensioners are increasingly better off."
  Why cannot we debate that?
  Ms. Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have seen that new clause 2 would enable us to discuss the failure to uprate pensions, but the Government have given us only one hour in which to deal with the poll tax, the uprating of pensions, the offsetting of costs of child care for people working or on supplementary benefit, the disqualification of people who have been unemployed for 26 weeks rather than six weeks and the issue of young, pregnant, homeless girls. That is what the guillotine is about.
  Mr. Forsythe: That fully illustrates the dangers of the guillotine motion. Why should we not spend time on debate? It is what we are paid for. We are sent to the House to debate these matters on behalf of our constituents.
  Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he and his Northern Ireland colleagues are placed in an invidious position because of the activities of the Conservatives in Northern Ireland? It appears to be their declared intention to offer the people of Northern Ireland the poll tax, so the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues face the prospect of all the rubbish that has been forced through for the rest of Britain, in the form of the poll tax, being inflicted subsequently on them without warning and without the opportunity for debate, either under primary poll tax legislation or under the legislation pushed through the House tonight.
  Mr. Forsythe: The hon. Gentleman puts the case well. I should be interested to see what would happen if the Conservatives put the idea to the people of Northern Ireland. The people in the street gave their answers in a recent television programme, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that none of them supported the poll tax, and very few will support the Conservatives.
  Without the guillotine we might have made a case about the community care grants and the social fund, and, in particular, about grants underspend. Underspend in Antrim last year was 44 per cent.; in Coleraine it was 54 per cent. We could have debated that, had it not been for the motion.
  Hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland are exhorted by hon. Members on both sides of the House to talk—to talk and to continue talking. They say that we will reach a solution by talking. Yet, on this occasion, this honourable House, in the country that is the mother of Parliaments, is doing the opposite: i t is curtailing debate.
  Finally, I am sure that we all remember what the guillotine did: it cut off the heads of people in France. There is a great danger that if we continue using guillotine motions we shall cut off the head of democracy. As we all know, without a head the body dies, and this honourable House should remember that.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr. Speaker. I followed the logic of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and I was led to wonder whether he was advocating that at the beginning of each Session legislation which he and his hon. Friends felt was so important and interesting compared with anything else should have almost limitless parliamentary time. Time is a finite commodity and we shall always have to have a mechanism for allocating it to ensure proper and fair debate of the

  531
  huge range of subjects that the House must consider. The hon. Gentleman's line of argument did not reflect the fact that not long ago he and his hon. Friends benefited from time available to the House to discuss Northern Ireland orders at considerable length, and rightly so because matters about the Province are as important as those about any other area.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jack: I shall give way when I have developed my point a little further.
  The hon. Gentleman would not have the luxury of that amount of time if the Government did not arrange their affairs to ensure adequate time to discuss the many items before us.
  If time is abused—there was newspaper evidence to suggest that the Opposition intended to use tactics, including moving amendments and proposing ideas, which would take up a disproportionate amount of time—the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will suffer next time Northern Ireland business is to be debated because there will be insufficient time.
  Mr. Forsythe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, even if we had talked all night about the Orders in Council, we could not have changed one word, comma or full stop. Unfortunately, he is wide off the mark.
  Mr. Jack: I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. My point was not about the nature of the orders, but that time for their discussion was not truncated. That luxury, if I may describe it in that way, can be afforded to different sections of the House only if we all respect the fact that time is finite. Whenever the House abuses the privilege of time, we must ration the available time.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Northern Ireland Members do not have a right to debate in the House matters that directly affect Northern Ireland? Does he agree that if the business were properly arranged, legislation would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and there would be no need to set aside time specifically for Northern Ireland matters?
  Mr. Jack: I take entirely the hon. Gentleman's most reasonable point. Each of us who represents a different section of the United Kingdom wants time to debate our special needs. I should dearly love to have a debate about the problems of Lancashire and Fylde. That would be illuminating. It might well be that the way in which we debate Northern Ireland legislation could do with being sorted out, but that is for his hon. Friends to suggest.
  My point is simply that if we have a limited amount of time, we must ration it. The guillotine motion was introduced because of strong evidence that there was to be an abuse of the time available for the discussion of the Social Security Bill. Newspaper reports suggested that the Opposition would table many amendments in an attempt to gain concessions from the Government. Sadly, when that happens we must allocate our time.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made an impassioned plea against the motion on the ground that the Bill was a piecemeal approach to social security legislation. He knows a great deal about social security
  532
  and housing and I respect his views and contributions to our debates, but he is a member of the "Ah Whoopee" tendency. In other words, we have a Bill dealing with pensions, technical social security matters and insulating grants—all important matters—and the "Ah Whoopee" tendency says, "Ah, here is an opportunity. We can put into the Bill all our pet theories and ideas on social security. Here is a vehicle for them." Instead of having the courage to put forward a comprehensive view of the Opposition's approach to social security, properly costed and argued out, the Opposition themselves adopt that piecemeal approach and seek to amend the Bill. They are guilty of their criticism of the Government.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has accused the Opposition of abusing the House because we have tabled some amendments. Does he feel that the Government are abusing the House more because they have tabled more amendments?
  Mr. Jack: No. I was about to come to that point and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised it. The essence of the House of Commons lies in our flexible system of legislation, from which we benefit. In the Bill we have an opportunity to react quickly to the court judgment on the social fund and the Government have seized it. Rather than take additional parliamentary time to introduce a special Bill—which would reduce time to discuss Northern Ireland matters, for example—the Government have used this Bill as a vehicle to respond to the court judgment. They are to be congratulated on that.
  I hope that the House will pass the timetable motion. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say about the operation of the social fund. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will address the problems put to me when I last visited my local social security office and discussed the operation of the social fund. I hope that he will tell us about the management changes in the local administration of the fund. There is considerable concern at local level about monitoring. If accountability at local level is to mean anything, social security managers will need powers under the social fund to run their budgets as they are requested. They must not be leaned on too much by regional or national officials. It is right that we should explore those matters when we debate the amendments on the social fund.
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman accused me of spending the Committee's time on this, which I did, but he may like to read the Committee reports before he makes his ill-informed comments. Because of the guillotine motion, it is hardly likely that many of us who would like to debate the social fund will have the opportunity to do so. Will he sign a letter with me to his right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, asking for a half-day debate on the social fund so that we all have time to put our constituency points? Will he accept that offer?
  Mr. Jack: There is a far more effective way than signing letters. On Thursday at business questions the hon. Gentleman may wish to make his own point in his own particularly effective way.
  I support the timetable motion because it is right that we should have a chance to debate many of the amendments—for example, new clause 1, which deals with the community charge. However, I wonder whether the Opposition will be enthusiastic about those amendments

  533
  when they realise what may come out during the debate. Will they be pleased to learn that in Lancashire the community charge could be £60 less than it is? Will they be pleased to learn that the reason is that the county council is topping up its coffers, refunding its overspending from last year and not making money available to local authority rest homes for elderly people? Yet those are Opposition concerns. Will they be so pleased to learn that at the county council budget meeting the Labour group imposed a guillotine on discussion when good Conservative ideas were yet to be heard? Those truths could come out in such a debate.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 20 July 1976, in supporting a guillotine, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said:
  "Let us accept that the democratic will in this country, and the instrument of it, is the ability to command a majority of votes in a House of Commons debate. That is what we shall do at the end of this debate, and we shall then see an end to the cant and humbug that we have heard from the Opposition"?—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1656-7.]
  Why does the hon. Gentleman oppose guillotines now when he was in favour of them in government?
  Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend's assiduous research overwhelms me, but he makes his point in a uniquely effective way.
  New clause 26 is about residential care. I am delighted that we shall debate it because that will give us a chance to explore some of the hidden recesses of the income support regulations. I hope that the Government will make a positive announcement to deal with the points that come up in debate.
  I should like my Front-Bench colleagues to address a problem that causes difficulty for some of my constituents living in residential and nursing homes. They would like my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider the income support regulations that deal with the way in which properties are handled. Two elderly people may have been living together as friends. One may go into a nursing or rest home and apply for income support but find that he or she is not able to get that help—even at its more generous levels—because the couple are deemed to have capital through the joint ownership of a house. It is impractical for those elderly people to sell half a house. My right hon. and hon. Friends may like to reflect on that important point and allude to the opportunity to discuss it in another place. That issue is important and has been flushed out into the open by the discussion on residential and nursing homes.
  There is much important business in the Bill to discuss and the sooner we do so, the better.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The speech by the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) would have benefited if he had been in the Chamber more than five minutes before rising to speak. If he is so anxious about Members from various parts of the United Kingdom being able to represent their constituents, perhaps he and his colleagues will stop disrupting Scottish Question Time every month and give Scottish Members a chance to question Ministers.
  Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Salmond: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has taken too much time already.
  I suppose that, after the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), we should welcome another rebel to the Tory anti-poll tax standard. We must be charitable on these occasions, but we remember the hon. Gentleman's enthusiastic support for the poll tax. We in Scotland remember that, unlike the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), the hon. Gentleman enthusiastically imposed the poll tax on the Scottish people—the very tax that he now finds so unamenable when it is imposed on his own constituents.
  The Leader of the House referred once again to deals that were supposedly done between the usual channels. We in the minority parties are irritated when we hear that guillotine motions are introduced because of some breakdown in the usual channels, of which we are not a part, like the majority of Members. That is no reason for restricting the ability of hon. Members to debate.
  Mr. Grocott: For the record, I should like to make it clear that there has been no deal whatsoever on this guillotine motion.
  Mr. Salmond: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's word. I was referring to what the Leader of the House implied in his opening speech.
  I was wondering whether to concentrate on the brass neck or the arrogance of the Leader of the House in proposing the timetable motion—his brass neck in complaining about the number of Opposition amendments, when the Government themselves have tabled no fewer than 70 new clauses and amendments, or the arrogance which makes him think that the tabling of amendments is a sign of improper opposition. It is not up to the Leader of the House to decide which amendments are proper and which are improper. If an amendment is in order, it can be put on the amendment paper; if it is selected for debate, it can be debated; and if the House so decides, it can pass the amendment. It is not the role of the Leader of the House to decide that, because a number of amendments have inconvenienced his business timetable, that is a justification for imposing a guillotine.
  I should like to consider specifically the limitation of the debate on new clause 1 and the other new clauses and amendments that will be debated between 11 pm and 12 midnight. One hour is by no means adequate to debate even new clause 1, never mind the other important amendments. The increase in capital limits in the Budget has raised substantial expectations among old-age pensioners who believe that they now will be entitled to a poll tax rebate.
  It would have been extremely helpful for hon. Members to have a prolonged debate on those issues. It would then be realised that, because the taper and the income assumed have not been changed, the income and interest assumed will bite into the rebate level well before they get anywhere near £16,000 of savings. It will be a great disappointment to many old people to learn that, even on tiny incomes and with modest capital, they will qualify for the tiniest of rebates, if any at all.
  Last Friday, I appeared on television with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I saw his expression of surprise when I detailed how some of his own constituents would qualify for the tiniest of rebates because they had £12,500 in capital. All Tory Members

  535
  would have benefited from a prolonged debate on this subject so that they could realise how limited that concession is.
  Several times during the past week we have been denied the opportunity to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland fully explain to the House last week's remarkable events —remarkable in the sense that he was exposed as marginal to Cabinet decision making; as so dim-witted that last Tuesday he did not even refer in Cabinet to the position in Scotland; as so insensitive that he described the immediate outcry as "bogus"; and as so craven that within 48 hours he had done a political somersault to save his political skin. The right hon. and learned Gentleman refused to make a statement. He would not even personally answer our questions during Scottish Question Time this afternoon. The timetable motion makes it unlikely that he will contribute to the debate this evening.
  The timetable motion is not a convenience for the House of Commons. It is a convenience for the Government, so that they can get through some more sloppy legislation as part of the shoddy programme of this shabby Administration.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: Every hon. Member knows that there have been occasions when protests about the guillotine have been tinged with at least a margin of synthetic ire, but no one could possibly say that that applied here. By any standards, the Government's move to impose a panic guillotine is an abuse.
  That is the view not just of many of my colleagues who have argued so cogently against the guillotine, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in his eloquent and witty speech. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for his moving, brave and, as we always expect, principled argument against the practice of guillotines in general. I am sure that the House listened also to the powerful pleas of other Conservative Members.
  They are not here to hear me say this, but it is not often that I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who is not often a rebel in our cause, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). It is an outrage that matters as important and contentious as the poll tax and residential and nursing home charges should be allocated no more than a handful of minutes for discussion.
  We have three main objections to the guillotine. First, it is being imposed before the House has even embarked on the Report stage. By definition, therefore, there can be no evidence of filibustering or time-wasting by the Opposition, even to the slightest degree, in Committee or at this stage. It is a totally unprovoked curb on free speech.
  Secondly, it is the sheerest hypocrisy for the Government to impose a guillotine when they are responsible for importing five new, highly contentious issues into the Report stage, all of which are extraneous to the content of the Bill but which, by convention, must be debated first as Government new clauses.
  The gap between income support and residential nursing home charges features in the Bill only because the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Secretary of
  536
  State for Health adopted such an offensively insensitive posture over the National Health Service and Community Care Bill that it provoked a rebellion on their own Benches, which caused them, despite their 100 majority, to lose the vote. That is the only reason why we have returned to the issue tonight.
  The social fund features in the Bill only because the Government acted illegally in their advice to local social security officers, which caused them to be overruled in the High Court. Child maintenance features in the Bill only because the Prime Minister, belatedly and following an Opposition initiative which I launched three weeks before her—[Interruption.] That is a matter of fact which Conservative Members can check. She decided that the Government had at least to be seen to be doing something. The Department of Social Security was caught on the hop. Nothing had been drafted or, one suspects, had even been thought about at that point. Hence, nothing appeared in the Bill about that on Second Reading. It has taken until now to produce what is merely a holding clause on that matter.
  The retrospective effect of section 165A of the principal Act features in the Bill only because of the Government's incompetence in believing that they had dealt with the matter in the 1985 Act, when it is clear now that they had not. The limited price indexing of pensions in the payment under occupational pension schemes features in the Bill only because the Government miscalulated the matter on Second Reading. They have now been forced to rethink their position in the light of the indefensibly feeble posture that they adopted on Second Reading.
  On every one of those issues, the Government alone are responsible, having tabled five new clauses at the last moment, four of them, almost unprecedentedly, in the last 24 hours. For the Government now to impose the guillotine is simply to pre-empt the lion's share of debating time for their new material, while telescoping into what I can only describe as relative insignificance the time available for discussion of the issues in the Bill.
  The third major reason why we object to the guillotine —my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) dealt strongly with this—is that it is designed to prevent debate on the whole range of issues on which we have tabled new clauses. The Government have a disreputable record on social security and our new clauses focused on each main element of that record. I refer to the break in the pension uprating link with earnings; the refusal to assist lone parents at work with child minding expenses; the draconian extension of unemployment from six to 26 weeks; the refusal to give compensation to radiation-exposed ex-service men; the iniquitous "actively seeking work" criterion; and the freezing of child benefit for the last three years.
  We appreciate the Government's embarrassment about, and anxiety to avoid debate on, those matters. But to use the procedural device of the guillotine to restrict, if not eliminate, debate on them is, frankly, contemptible.
  It is impossible, if the guillotine is accepted tonight, for there to be any debate on six of the first seven Opposition new clauses. In addition, it will leave next week a maximum of six and a half hours for debate on 13 remaining Opposition new clauses, no fewer than 37 new amendments to the Bill just tabled by the Government, 18 amendments tabled by the Opposition and the Third Reading.

  537
  To suggest that all that can be completed, or even reasonably broached, in six and a half hours is farcical. If there is any decency and respectability to be preserved in the principle of proper debate in the House, hon. Members will reject the guillotine.
  6.44 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Before dealing with the meat of the motion, I wish—I hope that I shall not embarrass him in doing so—to add my congratulations to those of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on a speech of considerable passion and vigour. I know his consistency in this matter and make no complaint about the assault that he launched on us for tabling the guillotine.
  I know, too, my hon. Friend's feeling about the weight of legislation that is put on the House and our need to get it through. As a Minister, I have been guaranteed a Bill on social security in every Session of Parliament, so far at least, and there are evenings when I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend when he talks about that weight of legislation. The House as a whole—perhaps the main responsibility rests on the Government—should be concerned about that weight of legislation, about the way in which it is handled and about some of the constraints on us.
  In my 24 years in the House, I have listened to innumerable debates on timetable motions. One has an awful sense of seeing the whole thing through again from one side of the House or the other and listening to the same speeches being recycled. All Governments have had recourse to this weapon, with the possible exception of the 1945–50 Government. But I wonder how many pages of legislation were passed in that Parliament compared with the weight of legislation that we have today.
  The hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) and for Oldham, West—although they gave different figures about the tabling of Government new clauses—were mistaken. It is not true to say, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin said, that one new clause was tabled early on Monday, two early on Tuesday and another on Tuesday afternoon. The first new clause was tabled last Friday, the bulk were tabled on Monday and only one, on residential care, was tabled on Tuesday. That mirrors well the Opposition's performance in tabling new clauses and amendments right up to the last minute, so I see no reason to apologise for the timetable.
  None of the issues contained in our new clauses could conceivably have been included in the Bill. They were all matters that we were still considering from a policy point of view. We were taking legal advice, were concerned with tidying-up procedures or, in the case of occupational pensions, were still in consultation with the industry about the detail. I believe that it was right to go ahead with the publication of the Bill as it was and to produce the clauses and amendments once we had carried out the legal and other consultations that we were having.
  The timetable motion presents the House with three definite advantages. First, as it will be acknowledged, there were discussions between the usual channels about the time needed to take the Bill through the House. There was to be one and a half days, in round terms, to be agreed between the usual channels. We shall now have more time available as a result of the timetable motion than we would
  538
  have had if we had interpreted that allocation of one and a half days in the way that it is normally understood in the House.
  Nobody suggested, until the hon. Member for Oldham, West was rash enough first to table his new clauses and then to issue his press release, that the House would anticipate a sitting of 23 hours on this sitting day.
  Mr. Meacher indicated dissent.
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman was quoted in the press. No doubt he will take the appropriate opportunity to complain to those who put that out in his name.
  Mr. Meacher: I shall say only that I never said any such thing. As is well known, one does not necessarily believe what one reads in the press. I said that we had an opportunity for open-ended debate. My hon. Friends and I had no intention to filibuster. But we insist, in view of the Government's record, which has been appalling over the past 10 years, that there should be adequate time, and an open-ended debate on the first day would give far more time than the Government are allotting under the guillotine.
  Mr. Scott: It is rather strange that both the Daily Mirror and the Morning Star carried such similar coverage of the hon. Gentleman's intentions.
  We shall have more time than we would have had, had there been a normal interpretation of the understanding to which I referred. Most of the time will be at the disposal of the Opposition. I think that we shall be able to get through the Government's new clauses very rapidly.
  The second point is the overwhelming one that our discussions will be conducted at a civilised hour. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that we are not at our best in the wee small hours of the morning. We shall be able to discuss these matters in what, in a sense, is prime time, and I think that the House will do better in scrutinising what the Government have put forward. Indeed, we intend to subject the Opposition's new clauses and amendments to scrutiny.
  Thirdly, we shall be able to organise our time in an orderly and predictable way, with as much flexibility as is possible within the broad terms of the Opposition's right to exercise their judgment on these matters.
  Ms. Short: In effect, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we may not take as much time as we need to discuss the Government's social security changes to which we object. The Government are telling us when we must finish and go to bed. They are simply unwilling to be inconvenienced by allowing us to use the platform of this House to put before the nation what we think is wrong with their social security policy.
  Mr. Scott: I do not want to embarrass the hon. Lady, but I have to say that she knows that, week by week, in Committee, we had considerable discussions on whether we should sit not only in the mornings but in the afternoons and even, if necessary, in the evenings. [Interruption.] Precisely. I am about to come to that point.
  It seems to me that Opposition Members are using a new tactic-not to say a great deal in Committee but to seek to exploit the time of the House on Report in a way that has not been the tradition. To show the tremendous

  539
  change of attitude that is reflected in the Opposition's behaviour in this case, I shall come later to what has happened in the case of previous social security legislation.
  Ms. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Scott: No.
  Ms. Short rose—
  Mr. Scott: I do not have to give way.
  Ms. Short rose—
  Mr. Scott: Very well, if the hon. Lady is upset.
  Ms. Short: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Opposition put forward a timetable for the Committee and that the Government adhered to it. We did not play games or filibuster, but did the Committee business seriously. Indeed, as a result of our action, the Government made some changes. We take a different view about what properly comes to the Floor of the House of Commons and about our ability to make a case before the nation. In the Bill there are broader issues of social security policy —matters that are quite in order—that we feel should be brought to the Floor of the House and put to the nation. We make no apology for the entirely proper strategy that we have adopted, both in Committee and in the House.
  Mr. Scott: I have little time to respond to the hon. Lady's point, so I shall say simply that I disagree with her.
  As ever, I listened with great respect to the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). We all know his record on this front. He complained about the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. Acting as I did in Committee, I shall make sure that I am a conduit for messages to my right hon. and learned Friend. I shall see that the points that have been made today are brought to his attention. However, I have a slight suspicion that the anxiety of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent to take part in these debates is rather like a criminal's return to the scene of his crime —recorded not so much in the pages of the Police Gazette as in the "Guinness Book of Records", because of the fame that he enjoys for that particular day when he was Leader of the House.
  In the last couple of minutes, I want to deal with the point on which the right hon. Gentleman asked me to reflect. I believe that Governments should be very sparing in their use of timetable motions. Certainly, I agreed to the introduction of this motion with great regret. The House has filled up slightly, but during this afternoon's debate there was hardly any sign of great passion among Opposition Members. I tried to average out the numbers present at various stages during the debate, and I think that the average came to 13. That figure may be of particular interest to the two Ulster Unionist Members from County Antrim constituencies who are in the Chamber, because of the history of their part of the United Kingdom, but the number present does not demonstrate any great passion on the part of the Labour party to oppose the motion. Indeed, it may very well be that a considerable number of Labour Members were relieved at our decision to introduce a timetable motion.
  Once more, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) for his research. The
  540
  hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) waxed eloquent in his opposition to the timetable motion. These are the hon. Gentleman's words on an earlier occasion:
  "The principle of a timetable motion is highly commendable as a general rule. It is not cutting down debate; it is making it more meaningful, cutting out aeons of waffle that fill Hansard, page after page after page. Many speeches which take 45 minutes could be cut to 10 or 15 minutes and still contain the germ of what was intended."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1729.]
  That is what I am offering the House tonight.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 204.

  Division No. 143]

  [6.55 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Allason, Rupert

  Couchman, James

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cran, James

  Amess, David

  Critchley, Julian

  Amos, Alan

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Day, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkins, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, David

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baldry, Tony

  Eggar, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evennett, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fallon, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Favell, Tony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  Boswell, Tim

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Franks, Cecil

  Bowis, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Fry, Peter

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Gardiner, George

  Bright, Graham

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

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

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burns, Simon

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorst, John

  Butcher, John

  Gow, Ian

  Butler, Chris

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gregory, Conal

  Carrington, Matthew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Cash, William

  Grist, Ian

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Ground, Patrick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grylls, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hague, William

  Chope, Christopher

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

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

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hannam, John

  Colvin, Michael

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

  541

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mills, Iain

  Harris, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Moate, Roger

  Hayward, Robert

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hind, Kenneth

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Mudd, David

  Holt, Richard

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Norris, Steve

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hunter, Andrew

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Page, Richard

  Irvine, Michael

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Jack, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Jackson, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Janman, Tim

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Pawsey, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Key, Robert

  Price, Sir David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Raffan, Keith

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Redwood, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Riddick, Graham

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knowles, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lang, Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Latham, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rost, Peter

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lightbown, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lilley, Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shelton, Sir William

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  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 Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Speed, Keith

  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

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mellor, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Summerson, Hugo

  542

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Ward, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Watts, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thorne, Neil

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wilkinson, John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trippier, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Trotter, Neville

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Walden, George

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Waller, Gary

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dewar, Donald

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dixon, Don

  Allen, Graham

  Dobson, Frank

  Alton, David

  Douglas, Dick

  Anderson, Donald

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eadie, Alexander

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fatchett, Derek

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barron, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  Battle, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Beckett, Margaret

  Flynn, Paul

  Beggs, Roy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Beith, A. J.

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Derek

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

  Fraser, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blair, Tony

  Galloway, George

  Boyes, Roland

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gould, Bryan

  Buckley, George J.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Haynes, Frank

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cartwright, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoey, Ms kate (Vauxhall)

  Clay, Bob

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clelland, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cohen, Harry

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Geraint

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cryer, Bob

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kilfedder, James

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  543

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Radice, Giles

  Lamond, James

  Randall, Stuart

  Leighton, Ron

  Redmond, Martin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lewis, Terry

  Richardson, Jo

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robertson, George

  Livsey, Richard

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Salmond, Alex

  McAllion, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Short, Clare

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sillars, Jim

  McNamara, Kevin

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Madden, Max

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

  Maginnis, Ken

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Marek, Dr John

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Martlew, Eric

  Strang, Gavin

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meale, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Vaz, Keith

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'L & Bute)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Wall, Pat

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wallace, James

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morley, Elliot

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Nellist, Dave

  Wilson, Brian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, William

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Worthington, Tony

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wray, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mr. John McFall.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved.
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

  Interpretation

    Report and Third Reading
    1.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following Table:—

    TABLE

    Allotted day

    Proceedings

    Time for conclusion of proceedings

    First day

    New Clauses 19, 21 and 22

    9:00 p.m.

    New Clauses 23 and 26

    11:00 p.m.

    New Clauses 1 to 6

    Midnight

    New Clauses 7 and 8

    1:00 a.m.

    Second day

    Remaining New Clauses

    7:00 p.m.

    Amendments to Clauses; New

    9:00 p.m.

    Schedules and amendments to Schedules

    Third Reading

    10:00 p.m.

    (2) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

    Order of proceedings
    2. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.
    Dilatory Motions
    3. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

    Extra time on allotted day
    4.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.
    (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.
    (3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and on the first allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of three hours.

    Private business
    5. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

    Conclusion of proceedings
    6.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, other than the proceedings specified in sub-paragraph (2) below, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

    (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;

    (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

    and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
    (2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which the Table in paragraph 1 above specifies are to be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put (so far as they are applicable and notwithstanding any Order of the House relating to the order in which the Bill is to be considered) the following Questions (but no others)—

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill);

    (c) the Question that the new Schedule (amendment 22) be added to the Bill;

    (d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;

    (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

    and on a Motion so made for a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill.
    (3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    (4) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

    (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

    (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

    (5) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

    Supplemental orders
    7.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
    (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

    Saving
    8. Nothing in this Order shall—

    (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or

    (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

    Recommittal
    9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
    (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

    Interpretation
    10. In this Order—
    "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
    "the Bill" means the Social Security Bill.

  Orders of the Day
    Social Security Bill
      IST ALLOTTED DAY
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered
      New clause 19

        ANNUAL INCREASE OF CERTAIN OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS
        '.—(1) The following section shall be inserted alter section 58 of the Pensions Act—
        "Annual increase in rate of pension, other than guaranteed minimum pension or money purchase benefit.
        58A.—(1) This section applies in relation to any occupational pension scheme—

        (a) which is neither a public service pension scheme nor a money purchase scheme; and

        (b) whose rules do not require the annual rate of every pension which commences or has commenced under the scheme to be increased each year by at least an amount equal to the appropriate percentage of that rate.

        (2) On and after the appointed day, Schedule 3A to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of providing annual increases in the annual rate of pensions under schemes to which this section applies.
        (3) In this section—
        "annual rate", in relation to a pension, means the annual rate of the pension, as previously increased under the rules of the scheme or under Schedule 3A to this Act;
        "the appointed day" means the day on which this section and Schedule 3A to this Act come into force;
        "the appropriate percentage", in relation to an increase in the annual rate of a pension, means the percentage specified in the last revaluation order made before the increase is to take effect as the revaluation percentage for the last revaluation period of twelve months;
        "money purchase scheme" means a pension scheme under which all the benefits that may be provided are money purchase benefits;
        "pension" does not include—

        (a) a guaranteed minimum pension or any increase in such a pension under section 37A above; or

        (b) any money purchase benefit;

        "revaluation order", "revaluation percentage" and "revaluation period" shall be construed in accordance with section 52A above."
        (2) After Schedule 3 to the Pensions Act there shall be inserted the Schedule set out in Schedule [Insertion of Schedule 3A to the Pensions Act] to this Act.'.—[Mr. Newton.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        7.10 pm
        The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23.
        Mr. Newton: I hasten to assure the House that I shall not read the contents of the new clause, still less the two amendments linked with it. I shall seek to keep my speech brief, in line with anxieties expressed by the Opposition about whether they will have sufficient time to develop their arguments on these undoubtedly important issues.

        547
        The House will recall the wide welcome that was given to an important part of our aim in the Bill—to give members of occupational pension schemes greater protection in various ways. Most of the proposals flowed from an important and valuable report by the Occupational Pensions Board and I wish to renew my thanks to the board for that. There were proposals to reduce the scale of self-investment in pension schemes to try to reduce the risk that members of schemes might otherwise face—a double risk to their jobs and to their pensions; and proposals for improved protection when a pension scheme was wound up, particularly to reduce the scope for such schemes being exploited by those who might be described as asset strippers. There was a range of measures designed to improve the advice, information and help available to members of occupational pension schemes with the creation of a pensions ombudsman, the strengthening of some of the aspects of the work of the occupational pensions advisory service and the creation of a tracing service to help people who might have pension rights in a wide variety of schemes to establish precisely where and what they are.
        In general, those aims have been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, by many people throughout the country and by the industry.
        Some reservations have been expressed about some aspects of our proposals on self-investment and we have modified those to meet what we thought were legitimate criticisms. We shall mount a survey of the scale and extent of self-investment before deciding precisely how to use the regulation-making powers in the Bill. That has also been thought to be sensible.
        The second main area of our proposals about which reservations were expressed, while the general principle was welcomed, was the proposal to require pension increases according to certain formulations when a scheme winds up. Some people—certainly the official Opposition —have said that I should have gone further and placed a similar requirement for pension increases on schemes that continued as well as those that were wound up. Other people have pointed out the possible consequences for some businesses of the original winding-up provisions in the Bill. They said that in certain cases at least the employer would have faced additional contingent liabilities for which they had had no opportunity to plan, and if they had to meet those requirements the viability of their businesses might be put at risk in certain circumstances.
        Having listened carefully to those arguments, having had a number of discussions with representatives of the industry, and having listened carefully to what Opposition Members said in Committee and to suggestions made in those quarters and the industry that there are other ways to achieve the basic objective, we came to the conclusion that we could strike a better balance between the different aims of pension policy.
        7.15 pm
        The principal element of that conclusion is that it is better to make general requirements about the payment of pension increases after members retire if the requirements that we are now proposing apply to schemes that continue as well as to schemes that wind up.
        548
        The new requirements are set out in new clause 19 and the associated amendments. We will avoid forcing employers to put new money into schemes to fund commitments to past service. That was the issue in our original proposals which caused so much unease.
        The new clause makes two requirements. First, schemes will have to pay annual increases to members for pension rights which they build up after an appointed day. For those rights derived from future service, members should be guaranteed increases in line with the retail prices index up to a maximum of 5 per cent. a year. There is nothing in that proposal to prevent schemes from continuing to pay more than that or starting to if they wish to do so, and if they feel able to.
        That new provision for improving rights for future service is an important step forward which will give members of private sector schemes, in particular, increasing security in the future. It has been widely welcomed in the industry, by the press and in other quarters as a sensible step forward. However, on its own it does not go far enough, because it does nothing for existing pensioners who have rights derived from past service.
        The latest statistics from the Government Actuary suggest that about 80 per cent.—four fifths—of members of schemes are getting annual increases, mostly in the 3 to 5 per cent. range. That is obviously welcome, but it follows that some 20 per cent. —one fifth—are getting no increase. Frankly, that is not good enough, especially when the strong investment performance of pension funds in recent years has continued to yield large surpluses which could be used by many schemes to provide some measure of indexation.
        Therefore, we are proposing a second requirement in the new clause and associated amendments so that from an appointed day schemes will have to use surpluses to pay increases to members for pension rights which they have already built up. That should include pensions that are now in payment. The guaranteed rate of increase that each scheme will have to pay will depend on the surplus in the pension fund, but the target rate of increase for schemes will be the rise in RPI up to 5 per cent. a year, with the rate to be guaranteed by each scheme, depending on the amount of its surplus. In other words, schemes that have surpluses will have to use them to guarantee increases at target level before taking a contribution holiday or a refund. Schemes will be able to continue or to start to do more than the basic requirement if they wish.
        I expect that the appointed days in both cases—both in the first requirement and the latter requirement—for the use of surpluses will be no later than the end of December 1991, although the date that could turn out to be convenient and sensible is 1 January 1992.
        I have asked my officials to begin discussions with the actuarial profession to determine the appropriate methods and assumptions for calculating the size of scheme surpluses and the guaranteed increases that would flow from them.
        The proposal offers a sensible balanced and affordable measure of security to existing pensioners. For many in the private sector it will turn existing discretionary increases into rights. That can only be an advance in making such schemes even more attractive to their members.
        The new requirement will cover benefits paid to widows, widowers and dependants. It will apply to all retirement benefits paid by occupatonal pension schemes

        549
        with two exceptions. The first is guaranteed minimum pensions and any increase in these pensions under section 37A of the Pensions Act. Those benefits are already protected through the contracting-out arrangements of the state earnings-related pension scheme.
        The second exception is money-purchased benefits, including personal pensions schemes to which I believe rather different considerations apply. Their members aready have an opportunity to use the proceeds of their investments to choose a pension that increases after retirement—or not, as the case may be. No doubt one could argue about whether that choice ought to be restricted, but, in my view, this is not the time to attempt to make any decision on that. The question of pension increases in those schemes would be best resolved as part of the review of the terms for contracting out of SERPS that is due to start next year.
        Under the new proposals, the position when a scheme winds up will match the general requirements for pension increases. In the event of a scheme winding up it will be a liability on the employer to provide increases at the prices up to 5 per cent. rate in respect of pensions accruing after the appointed day. For pension rights based on service before then, increases will depend on the extent of increases already guaranteed as a result of the new requirements and any additional surplus emerging when the scheme winds up.
        The new provisions will give members of occupational pension schemes growing certainty about the rate of pension increases that they will receive after retirement. Increases will be guaranteed for future service in line with prices up to 5 per cent. a year. For benefits already accrued—including pensions in payment—guaranteed increases will become the first call on scheme surpluses.
        It is well understood that the Government have placed considerable weight on people's own occupational and personal pension provision—building over and above the basic state retirement pension—as a central element in placing retirement provision on a secure foundation for the future. The gathering success of that policy is clear. As the House knows, by 1987, the average value of occupational pensions received by people over pension age had increased by 77 per cent. in real terms since 1979 when we took office. That means that for many pensioners their occupational pension is now their most important source of income. For pensioners receiving an occupational pension the average amount received in 1987 was £44·80, and that was nearly three years ago.
        The increasing importance of occupational pensions underlines the need to ensure that we have the right framework for the schemes. We have introduced a long series of measures to achieve just that. In 1985, we introduced the protection for early leavers so that pensions could no longer be frozen. We introduced the right to a transfer value when leaving the scheme and we passed legislation to enable scheme members to be provided with information about their scheme as of right. In 1986, we brought to an end compulsory membership of occupational schemes and extended the choice available to individuals planning for their retirement to include personal pensions, which have been an outstanding success.
        The Bill provides increased protection for scheme members. In future, early leavers will have all their preserved benefits revalued by prices up to 5 per cent. a year—and not just those rights built up since 1985. For members needing help and advice we are ensuring that the
        550
        occupational pensions advisory service is put on a firm financial basis. We shall also put in place the pension ombudsman to give members a quicker, more effective means of seeking redress of grievances and we shall expand the range of tracing services that we already provide to cover occupational pension schemes. We are limiting the scope for self-investment. The requirement in the new clause for schemes to provide pension increases is a further major step forward and may prove in time to be among the most important that we have taken.
        I commend the new clause to the House.
        Mr. Michael Meacher: I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted our argument that a pensions scheme that does not guarantee reasonable increases in pensions is a bad scheme. But it is quite clear that the proposal to limit increases to only 5 per cent. a year still gives inadequate protection against inflation.
        Mr. Tim Smith indicated dissent.
        Mr. Meacher: I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can shake his head, given that inflation is now rising towards 9 per cent., but I do not wish to provoke him.
        We believe that it is both practical and desirable to give a higher level of protection—a point which I emphasised strongly on Second Reading. Frankly, the 5 per cent. limit is not high enough. The average employee can now expect to live 20 or more years into retirement and we need a measure that provides adequate protection over that sort of lifespan. It is a relevant consideration for the House that if someone who retired 20 years ago had had only increases on the basis that the Government now propose, his benefit would be worth only about 40 per cent. of its initial value. With inflation rapidly rising towards double figures, a measure that purports to protect the real value of members' benefits but allows them to fall to less than half their initial value is—not to put too fine a point on it—a fraud.
        If anything, pensioners' needs increase as they get older and the Government's proposal is a recipe for continued poverty for the very old. We are therefore opposed to the 5 per cent. limit. We consider that schemes should he required to increase pensions fully in line with the retail prices index.
        The argument that has always been advanced against such a measure is that it is too costly. It has been suggested that it would be too expensive to legislate for larger increases and that to do so would frighten employers away from providing pension schemes. We reject that argument, and I want to say why. Employers provide pension schemes because it is in their interests to do so. They need to attract and retain staff. They also need their staff to retire as they get older. It is therefore in their interests to provide attractive schemes with a competitive level of benefit.
        The big increases in the current cost of providing a pension scheme arise when a scheme that makes no provision—the Secretary of State said that about one fifth of schemes made no provision—
        Mr. Newton: I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman. My statistics related to the members of the scheme. Rather more than one fifth of schemes would be involved, I think, because, on the whole, the large schemes have been making the increases.
        Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman simply strengthens my point. The big increases in the current costs of providing a pension scheme arise when a scheme that makes no provision for increases is improved to provide RPI increases limited to 5 per cent. It has been estimated that that could increase the cost of a scheme by up to one half. But most schemes do not start from that position; we all agree about that. Most employees belong to schemes that already guarantee or make provision for increases at or near the Government's proposals—3 to 5 per cent. is probably the norm. The relevant point is that the move from limited increases to full RPI increases without a limit is much less significant than the move from no increases at all. That is because in most cases the assumptions made by the actuaries that determine the contributions to be paid are in practice similar whether or not there is a limit. The key factor is the difference between the assumptions made about future investment returns and assumptions about future pension increases.
        I am the first to recognise that these are complex matters, but I am told that, although there are probably as many different sets of assumptions as there are actuaries, broadly speaking, the difference will be similar for schemes that guarantee increases, whether or not there is a 5 per cent. limit. Opposition Members therefore consider it reasonable to require schemes to provide full inflation-proofing for future benefits, for the reasons that I have given. In practice, many schemes, particularly the larger schemes, are already providing increases in line with what we propose. We are the first to recognise that. The current cost for those schemes will be even smaller; they may even be nil.
        As to past service benefits accrued before the appointed day, they should also be increased in line with the RPI, as far as surpluses permit. For as long as a scheme has a surplus, there is no reason why it should provide for employer refunds or contribution holidays before it is used to protect the real value of members' benefits. The money was paid into the scheme to provide pensions as part of the employee's contract of employment, so why should any of that money benefit the employer before being used to increase pensions in line with the RPI? I hope that that argument will commend itself for general support.
        7.30 pm
        The cost of our proposals should not prove to be a deterrent against good pension provision. Over the past five years, the pension schemes to which most people belong already adopt the practice that we propose. Watson's index of pension increases—Watson is a firm of actuarial consultants which I gather is quite famous—shows that, allowing for a lag in implementation, average pension increases have more or less kept in line with the RPI. Clearly there is no practical objection to making that practice a legal requirement of all schemes.
        The only opposition is likely to come from a minority of employers who want to take money away from their pensioners and use it for their own purposes. We reject entirely the suggestion that surpluses are in any sense the employer's money. Each year, the employer paid in an amount that was considered to be right at the time, and therefore it is a perversion of the language to refer to any surplus as overpaid employer contributions.
        This matter is not of a highly party political nature, so it should not be considered in a partisan way. I hope that the Government will see the sense in our argument. I agree
        552
        entirely with the Secretary of State's concluding comment concerning the importance of these matters. They are far more significant than many of the issues that cause so much commotion in the House.
        Mr. Tim Smith: If a surplus is not an employer's overpaid contribution, what is a deficit? Who would the hon. Gentleman expect to make up any deficit?
        Mr. Meacher: Deficits do not exist except in a minority of cases. I cannot off the top of my head say what proportion of all schemes are in deficit. At present, total surpluses are estimated as being in excess of £50 billion, so it is difficult to believe that any schemes are in deficit. If there are, they must have evaded the requirement that pensions legislation of successive Governments placed on schemes to ensure an adequacy of contributions to meet the retirement pensions that they must honour.
        Deficits are not the real problem. The important questions are who owns the surplus, how should it be used, and who has first rights to it. Our view is that unquestionably the first rights to any surplus are with employees now in retirement. I repeat that as long as a surplus exists, we do not believe it right that there should be employer refunds or contribution holidays.
        The basis of the Bill is that members are entitled to adequate protection against inflation, and that that priority should have first call on any surplus. There is no dispute between us on that, so I hope that I carry Conservative Members with me in arguing that it makes no sense to impose a 5 per cent. limit while allowing employers to benefit from any surplus.
        The Secretary of State's announcement is something of an about-face, but I do not want to embarrass him—and I am glad to see him turning in our direction. Nevertheless, a large number of practical points remain to be clarified before a final judgment can be made. We are keen that new schemes should be obliged to pay increases along with the existing obligation to revalue deferred benefits, and there is a responsibility on the Government to ensure that schemes are adequately funded for that purpose. If employers are to commit themselves to paying benefits that meet legislative standards, members are entitled to more reassurance that adequate financial provision is being made.
        At present, pension scheme members can look only to the disclosure requirements, which entitle them to some important but essentially limited information about benefit provisions. That approach does not provide scheme members with the kind of yardstick by which they can readily judge whether a scheme has enough money to meet its liabilities and whether contributions are sufficiently high.
        The Secretary of State should take power to lay down standards on funding rates that schemes must meet. That has not been done up to now. Such a provision takes on particular significance as this country enters a recession and the risk of deficits mentioned by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) arises.
        The Secretary of State will have powers to lay down the basis on which any surplus is calculated. That raises two questions. The first is whether there will be a surplus, and hence whether increases must be paid on past benefits. The second is whether there is sufficient surplus to entitle the employer to take a contribution holiday. In either case, it would be wrong if employers were able to manipulate the

        553
        requirements of the legislation simply by making a choice between extreme financial assumptions or unreasonable valuation methods. We do not believe that it would be reasonable to leave that decision simply to actuarial judgment—just as actuaries are not left to their own devices in undertaking statutory valuations in life assurance companies. We envisage a period of consultation on the rules to be laid down. Ultimately, the Government will have a duty to ensure that the system that they propose cannot be used against the interests of scheme members.
        We welcome what we view as a Government U-turn as a consequence of the pressure that we put on them on Second Reading and in Committee. However, we remain critical of the Government's half-measures, which still fall far short of what is properly required. We shall continue to press our case until our proposals are fully implemented.
        Mr. Timothy Wood: I welcome the new clause and the amendments. Before going further, I must declare that I am a parliamentary adviser to BZW Investment Management, though it has not pursued the Bill with me. However, there are within my constituency a number of firms engaged in the provision of pension funds, some of which have contacted me about the Bill.
        It is important that a fair balance is struck between the possible liabilities placed on the employer and the benefits to be enjoyed by the employee or retired employee. The new clauses and amendments are an important step in the right direction. I agree with both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that, when there is a significant increase in inflation, the first call on any pension fund surplus should be to the benefit of employees or retired former employees.
        However, one must also be wary of discouraging employers from providing pension funds by presenting a vision of future liabilities. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Oldham, West to say that pension funds are currently in surplus, but I recall a period eight or 10 years ago when that was far from true. At that time, unfortunately, companies were not making satisfactory profits and producing for the pension funds that had invested in them sufficient income to provide adequate pensions, which caused serious problems to develop.
        One cannot assume that the current success in terms of profitable companies generating the necessary funds for pensions will continue, especially if there is a change of Government. That is one of the difficulties that actuaries face—they cannot predict with absolute accuracy who will be in power in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. We should like it to be the present Government, which would give actuaries more confidence in the future.
        I welcome the new clause and the protection that has been provided to ensure that surpluses are used to benefit the pensioner who has first call on the pension fund. It also recognises that placing excessive contingent liabilities on employers could cause some employers to decide not to provide pension funds on behalf of their employees. That would be totally unfortunate, so I welcome the steps that have been taken today.
        Mr. Tim Smith: New clause 19 constitutes a major step forward for millions of occupational pensioners in the United Kingdom and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing it. It represents a
        554
        sensible balance between the interests of the employers and of employees. What my right hon. Friend has done is the right way to proceed in legislation affecting occupational pension schemes. He gave us some figures on the present position.
        Of course, occupational pension schemes are voluntary arrangements. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that employers provide occupational pensions for their own benefit because they want to attract or retain staff. I recognise that, but such schemes are voluntary arrangements, so it is sensible for legislation to reflect what is already best practice. Practice has improved over the years and the occupational pension schemes have changed out of all recognition in the past 20 years. By the new provisions, my right hon. Friend is reflecting what is already best practice and telling occupational pension schemes to bring themselves up to best practice.
        If we were to go as far as the hon. Member for Oldham, West wants, we would be in a different position, because we have to consider the trade-off between improving existing schemes, as the new clause will do, and extending the coverage of occupational pension schemes. Although millions of employees are members of occupational pension schemes, many employees are not. In an ideal world, everyone who had a job would belong to an occupational pension scheme, but if we were to impose upon occupational pension schemes the open-ended commitment that the hon. Gentleman has in mind it would be very difficult because we do not know what future rates of inflation are likely to be.
        It would be difficult to fund the schemes and would act as a major deterrent to any employers considering starting up an occupational pension scheme for the first time. Those employers are usually small employers, because most large employers already have such schemes. We are talking about what is a sensible burden to place on small businesses. I do not believe that what the hon. Gentleman has in mind would be sensible. It would be seen as a great burden by small businesses, so they would simply decline to introduce occupational pension arrangements for their employees, and very little would be achieved in the process.
        Mr. Meacher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has taken on board the essential point that I was making. Whether inflation is high or low, there tends to be the same ratio between investment yields and the retail prices index, which is the basis of pension increases. Even if the RPI rises, in the middle or longer term investment yields tend to rise roughly in the same proportion.
        Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman forgets what happened in the late 1970s when, it is no coincidence to report, we had the misfortune to have a Labour Government. On Second Reading, I referred to two interesting tables which appeared in the report of the Occupational Pensions Board which show the way in which the investment yield on occupational pension schemes has improved over the past 10 years, as a result of which we now have large surpluses. We are not entitled to assume that we will always have large surpluses on pension schemes.
        7.45 pm
        When we had the misfortune to have a Labour Government, pension schemes were regularly in deficit. Of course, the employees expected the employers to make up the deficits and that is exactly what they did. They

        555
        sometimes had to transfer considerable additional sums to the pension schemes to ensure that they could meet the liability.
        We are now considering a further extension of those liabilities, and I accept that it is the right time to make that extension. However, if we were to go further and make the change that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and if we were to return to those dark days of poor economic and investment performance, it would be extremely difficult for employers to meet the commitment that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The past five years have been very different from the six years of Labour Government. There has been a great transformation and no comparison can be made. However, we are not entitled to assume that that will continue for ever.
        By definition, occupational pension schemes are instituted for the long term. We are talking about long-term commitments, long-term investments and long-term liabilities. That is why it is sensible to proceed cautiously. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has great expertise in these matters, has always taken a cautious approach.
        The new clause constitutes a sensible balance. I accept what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said about actuaries and how they always produce different figures and assumptions, but actuaries may say that, as a result of the new clause, which will involve an extra commitment for many schemes, it will be necessary to increase the funding of those schemes by increasing the employers' or the employees' contributions.
        I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, West realises that Members of Parliament have to pay such a large contribution to their pension scheme because we already have indexation. Our contribution is 9 per cent., which is very high.
        Ms. Clare Short: That is because we have so many early leavers.
        Mr. Smith: Early leavers are an occupational hazard here. I was an early leaver once and I do not wish to repeat the experience, and I am not expecting to do so. That may be a particular difficulty, but we pay 9 per cent. because of the generous indexation provision in the House of Commons pension scheme. It is the open-ended arrangement that the hon. Gentleman wants. A contribution of 9 per cent. is nearly double what most employees pay as members of occupational pension schemes, and during the recent debate on the matter there were complaints about the contribution which hon. Members make.
        I am not sure that such a high level of contribution would be welcomed by people in industry generally. We should understand that, if we were to introduce the change that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, employees or employers would have to pay such a rate. There would be a substantial increase in contributions and that would be a considerable additional burden on business, would make it particularly difficult for small businesses and would lead to a reduction in the number of members of occupational pension schemes. Presumably that is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman hopes to achieve.
        My right hon. Friend has found a sensible balance in the new clause. It will involve a major improvement for millions of members of occupational pension schemes, and the House should welcome it.
        Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I intervene briefly to ask only a couple of questions, because I am more interested in progressing to the later stages of the Bill.
        I welcome new clause 19, which is complicated. It enshrines a schedule and brings the benefits that have already been mentioned. Why did not the Government take the power to vary the 5 per cent. limit? The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made a valid criticism of the new clause, because there may be circumstances in which the 5 per cent. ceiling is considered onerous and unfair. In the past, Social Security Ministers, in a variety of guises and on a variety of benefits, have resorted to the power of regulation to amend such things as child benefit, which the Government have the power to increase annually but have not exercised. The Secretary of State could use such devices to ensure that yearly returns on schemes are fair and in line with the retail prices index. No doubt there is a technical reason why that is not possible, but it is worth pursuing.
        The welcome changes made by new clause 19 may not take effect until 1 January 1992. The Government have had the report of the Occupational Pensions Board for several months, and Ministers have been considering the new clause for many months. Why might it be January 1992 before the benefits take effect? If it will take the Government that long to finish their homework, why did they not move the new clause during next year's Social Security Bill?
        I am sure that the Minister will deal with that, but subject to those qualifications I give the new provisions a warm and enthusiastic welcome.
        Mr. David Shaw: I welcome new clause 19. The improvements in private sector pension schemes under this Government are to be welcomed. The proposal for guaranteed minimum increases is extremely good.
        As an accountant, during the period of office of the previous Labour Government in the late 1970s, I had some experience of company audits. One of the major accounting tasks for the year was to examine a company's pension fund to ascertain the deficit and whether the company was capable of making available the financial resources to meet it. During the period of price and dividend restraint, deficits increased enormously as profits were curtailed. Deficits in pension funds often were not capable of being met within a year or two, and as auditors we had to take a strong view of whether a company could survive. Many companies did not and their auditors had to say that the directors were unable to continue in business. While the Labour Government were in office between 1974 and 1979, companies closed because of deficits on their pension funds. Dividend restraint had a severe effect, because 40 per cent. of all dividends are paid into pension funds and life insurance schemes. The significant amounts that are paid can contribute to whether a pension fund is in deficit or surplus.
        I further welcome new clause 19 because it will benefit about 10 million people. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not say that it will benefit many women who have jobs for the first time as a result of the growth in employment under the Government. It will be good for women generally, who have taken the opportunities for equality provided by the Government, and as a result the pensions and economy will be fairer and more balanced.

        557
        It is churlish for Labour Members to criticise the limiting of the increase to 5 per cent. During the late 1970s, they were unable to provide significant investment returns and much of British industry showed minus investment returns. They should not complain that the Government are trying to ensure increases in private pension plans. I do not know why they want to hark back to the late 1970s, when British industry showed negative returns and growing deficits in pension funds.
        There is a danger of getting trapped in the wording of the legislation. One moves into theoretical areas, whereby if the legislation says that there will be a 5 per cent. increase, one assumes that such an increase is possible. Legislation is not responsible for growth in the economy. Growth in the economy provides increases in pensions. Legislation provides only a best intention and a practice that might he followed. Without growth in the economy, which we have had under the Government, there will be no growth in pensions. Unless the economy continues to expand as it has under the Government, and unless we have another decade of Thatcherism—
        Ms. Short: Another decade of Thatcherism?
        Mr. Shaw: Unless we have another decade of Thatcherism, there will not be the increases in pensions that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) would like. I know that the hon. Lady sincerely wants increases in pensions, but she must accept that that will not happen under a Labour Government. She must accept that the pension increases under this legislation would not be possible under a Labour Government.
        Ms. Short: The thought of another decade of Thatcherism is unbearable to me, to the rest of the nation and, if they are honest, to many Conservatives Members. We had economic growth before we had the present Prime Minister. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of it, but he will find that since the second world war, and under different Governments, growth has increased by about 2·5 per cent. Pensions have been uprated and standards of living have increased. I am afraid that that was not invented by the present Prime Minister.
        Mr. Shaw: I must disagree with the hon. Lady. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that investment returns are the key. We have had economic growth since the second world war. The Conservative Government between 1951 and 1964 achieved phenomenal economic growth, which worked its way into investment returns. Under the Labour Governments of 1964–70 and 1974–79, not only was there a lower rate of economic growth than under Conservative Governments, but far more important was the effect of that on investment returns and on dividends paid into pension funds. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that my accounting experience was that we had considerable deficits in pension funds between 1974 and 1979 and that much of British industry was technically insolvent because it could not meet its obligations to the pension funds that it had contracted to meet.
        Mr. Wood: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the features of the period between 1974 and 1979 was that borrowers gained while those who relied on pension funds suffered because investments were losing out? Any growth that there might have been in the economy did not benefit pension funds.
        Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. Any growth during the period of the previous Labour Government—few people have been able to measure growth under the Government—often benefited borrowers rather than savers. Because of the reduction in inflation and the increase in growth in the economy, which has started to filter through to savers, 16·5 million people are confident enough that savers will be rewarded that they are party to either private pension plans or life insurance savings schemes. We have increased people's confidence in saving. By encouraging people to save, we shall have a more responsible country. That is what the new clause is all about. Like the Budget, it provides great incentives for saving. People will not only save in their employers' pension plans but will feel more confident about saving generally in pension plans and about the rewards of saving.
        The new clause is dependent upon the growth in the economy, on employers succeeding and having good rates of return and on those good rates of return working through into dividends and pension schemes that can afford to pay the pension increases intended by the Government. It is for those reasons that I welcome the new clause.
        8 pm
        Mr. Tim Devlin: I, too, welcome the new clause, which requires the payment of annual increases to members guaranteed up to the retail prices index or 5 per cent. It will give greater security to members of private schemes. I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about four-fifths of scheme members already obtaining increases.
        The new clause is especially welcome because it runs alongside the many other welcome provisions in the Bill that we discussed at great length in Committee. There is encouragement and security for private pension schemes across the board. The Bill already provides for the establishment of an ombudsman to investigate disputes, the establishment of a tracing service to help track down pensions held with previous employers, further protection for members of schemes that are wound up, further protection for members of schemes when they leave early, and a provision to enable the Secretary of State to introduce a new ceiling on self-investment for pension schemes. The Bill does a great deal to look after those who, together with their employers, have invested in private pension schemes.
        In Committee I made much of the ITM/Head Wrightson Teesdale scheme, which illustrated the need for greater security for small investors in private pension schemes. I made one or two remarks which, having appeared in the record, might give a slightly incorrect impression. I wish to take a minute or two to place an accurate account on the record. I do not wish anyone to be misled by what I said in Committee.
        The Davy Corporation sold the business of Head Wrightson Teesdale to ITM, a company operating in my constituency. Part of the sale agreement was that pension benefits no worse than those enjoyed by employees under the Davy Corporation scheme would be provided by ITM. That obligation was accepted by ITM. The Davy Corporation transferred from its existing pension scheme a sum of money that had been re-negotiated between the actuaries of the two companies to meet the accrued

        559
        benefits of those employees transferring to ITM. When ITM went into receivership, its employees found that the benefits under their pension scheme did not match the benefits that they had been promised.
        The problem was brought to the attention of the Davy Corporation, which contends that it fulfilled all its obligations to its previous employees—first, by ensuring that the new employer committed itself to maintain the benefits of the pension scheme for its new employees, and, secondly, by transferring the correct sum of money to the new scheme. That matter is still under debate.
        Since then, partly because I raised the matter in Committee and elsewhere, the Davy Corporation is voluntarily helping the investigation into why the benefits were short, because it recognises that the employees have no means of carrying out that investigation for themselves and because the trustees of the scheme—three individuals—do not have the financial resources necessary to investigate the position properly.
        In Committee, we discussed the security for employees in schemes that might collapse, and what could be done to remedy the position. In particular, arguments were advanced about the establishment of a pensions omudsman. I still contend that it is interesting that two individuals who were trustees of the ITM pension scheme were later taken into employment as directors by a subsidiary of the Davy Corporation, subsequent to the ITM receivership. They were employed by ITM at the time of the sale of Head Wrightson Teesdale and became employees of the Davy Corporation subsidiary only after the receivership years later.
        There is a major question about whether a psroper value for the pension scheme was transferred between the companies. Of course, the Davy Corperation has no legal or contractual obligation towards the pensioners of that pension scheme. It is a difficult and highly complicated case and a good illustration of the reason why the new measures in this Bill are needed to protect the rights of employees. I hope to raise this case again, as it illustrates what can go wrong in the pensions world.
        The new clause is a proper compromise between the interests of the employer and those of the employee. It is part of the Bill's much wider approach towards the whole question of private pension schemes. We need to encourage such schemes, but it is not the case that all schemes will always be in surplus. The scheme to which I have just referred and which I raised in Committee was significantly in deficit. I look forward to a report, at an early date, by the Davy Corporation actuaries detailing proposals to help those employees who lost when the company went into liquidation.
        Mr. Newton: In my fairly extensive experience as a Social Security Minister at every level it has been rare that such a universally warm welcome should be given to my proposals. I shall bask in that for a moment, in the sure expectation that that mood is unlikely to continue throughout the night. I am grateful for the support that has come from all quarters. I am deeply admiring, even more so than previously, of the assiduous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has pursued the interests of a significant number of his constituents—
        Mr. Frank Field: With a reading age of 12.
        Mr. Newton: I do not know to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring, but as it sounded offensive I shall not pursue his remark.
        I say gently to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that it is wrong to talk of a Government U-turn in what I have said and done to change the balance of what was already a very significant proposal for schemes that are wound up. I understood him to be claiming credit for the Opposition, but I must disappoint him: what I have proposed is a very long way away from what I can only describe as the half-baked and irresponsible proposal that he made on Second Reading.
        According to the hon. Gentleman's proposal, we should make schemes give away every scrap of their surpluses straight away, and if they could not then continue to pay the benefits to which that gave rise, they should be allowed to cut them again. That was his proposal.
        Mr. Kirkwood indicated assent.
        Mr. Meacher rose—
        Mr. Newton: I was not trying to enrage the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State's last comments were not worthy of him. He made a very silly knockabout comment which did not even begin to reflect what I said. However, instead of taking up time with another debate on what I said on Second Reading, I hope that the Secretary of State will read my Second Reading speech closely. If he then wants to talk about it, he will at least reflect accurately what I said.
        Mr. Newton: I will not go any further down what is obviously a sensitive path. However, taking the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) as an independent arbiter, as he was nodding, he is obviously on my side in this argument.
        It was suggested that we should have gone beyond the 5 per cent. ceiling of the legal requirement, as distinct from what we might like to see schemes do in certain circumstances. In the course of making points about that and asking whether the figure should be higher, the hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to inflation over the past 20 years and to the scale of investment surpluses that we have all seen in schemes over the past few years. The only comments that need to be made about that were eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) in his excellent speech and by my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) in their equally eloquent speeches.
        By taking the last 20 years, the hon. Member for Oldham, West includes a period in which inflation rose to disastrous levels under the previous Labour Government. Partly as a consequence of that inflation, more and more schemes found themselves in great difficulty because the investment surpluses on which the hon. Member for Oldham, West would rely did not exist. If we were to go beyond the requirements that I am proposing, even if there was the remotest possibility of the hon. Member for Oldham, West being the Secretary of State for Social

        561
        Security imposing these requirements, employers are afraid that they would go bankrupt and that they would not be able to pay pensions.
        Mr. Meacher: I do not want to prolong the debate. However, we must be absolutely clear that the very high level of inflation in the mid-1970s occurred for two central reasons. The first was the quadrupling of the price of oil that fed through all western economies after 1972–73. The second cause was the enormous and irresponsible credit explosion which Lord Barber, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, unleashed on the economy, the effects of which lasted for the next four years. That is exactly what the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), did between 1985 and 1987. Those were the causes of the inflation. Perhaps the Secretary of State should recall that in 1981, when this Government had been in power for two years, inflation reached 22 per cent.
        Mr. Newton: That most certainly reflected the legacy of the Labour Government who had presided over the latter part of the 1970s.
        The serious point in the debate is that, in this area above all, it is necessary to strike a balance in the requirement that one imposes on schemes. If we overdo it and impose requirements that frighten off employers or which they believe in certain circumstances—some of which I speculated about already-would become unsustainable, some employers who are already running schemes would consider whether they should continue to do that, and others which might be considering setting up schemes might decide that the risk of doing that was too great.
        Of course the balance of considerations can be seen as changing from time to time. It is implicit in my proposals that we believe that, in present circumstances, the balance has moved decisively in favour of the additional requirements that I am now imposing. I also believe that, if we were to go much further—one or two in the industry have expressed doubts whether we may not have gone a fraction too far in our proposals—some people would be frightened off from having schemes or continuing the schemes that they have at present. We must strike a balance and I am sure that my hon. Friends believe that we have got it about right.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield stated, a balance must be struck with surpluses. He put his point very well. As happened in the late 1970s, if a deficit emerges, the employer is expected to make it up. I do not believe that it would be reasonable to create a double bind for employers. If they get it wrong one way and their actuaries under-forecast the amount of contribution that is required, the employer is expected to make it up without limit. If the employer and the actuary get it wrong the other way and they over-contribute, there is no way in which they can get any of that back. I believe that we have the balance about right.
        8.15 pm
        The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire queried whether we should vary the 5 per cent. limit from year to year. Inescapably, employers and those who advise them must be able to look ahead at their commitments and plan for the contributions or investment provisions required to meet them. It is not possible suddenly to impose from year to year, according to the rate of inflation
        562
        in any particular year, a sudden increase in commitment because by definition the employers would not have been able to account for that.
        The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also referred to 1 January 1992. That is the likely date, although it is not certain. If I can bring it forward, I will. The reason for that date relates back to points made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. In some cases, because of the new requirements that we are imposing, employers will have to look at the rate of contribution required in the scheme to ensure that they can meet those requirements. It is obviously right to give them some time to consider the scheme before imposing requirements on them. 1 t would be wrong to say that, as from tomorrow, a requirement which employers had heard about only a few weeks ago and for which they had not funded should suddenly have to be met. We must give schemes some time to adjust.
        I hope that I have covered most of the points raised in the debate. I am sorry if I inflamed the hon. Member for Oldham, West beyond what I had intended in what has in general been a very good-natured debate. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West for the supportive attitude that he has adopted, which I am sure will be continued throughout our debates this evening.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 21

        LIABILITY TO MAINTAIN DEPENDANTS
        `(1) After section 24 of the 1986 Act (recovery of expenditure on benefit from person liable for maintenance) there shall be inserted—
        "Recovery of expenditure on income support: additional amounts and transfer of orders.
        24A.—(1) In any case where—
        (a) the claim for income support referred to in subsection (1) of section 24 above is made by the parent of one or more children in respect of both himself and those children, and
        (b) the other parent is liable to maintain those children but, by virtue of not being the claimant's husband or wife, is not liable to maintain the claimant,
        the sum which the court may order that other parent to pay under subsection (4) of that section may include an amount. determined in accordance with regulations, in respect of any income support paid to or for the claimant by virtue of such provisions as may be prescribed.
        (2) Where the sum which a court orders a person to pay under section 24(4) above includes by virtue of subsection (1) above an amount (in this section referred to as a "personal allowance element") in respect of income support by virtue of paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (personal allowance for lone parent) the order shall separately identify the amount of the personal allowance element.
        (3) In any case where—
        (a) an order under subsection (4) of section 24 above is made against a person ("the liable parent") who is the parent of one or more children, in respect of the other parent or the children, and
        (b) payments under the order fall to be made to the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (6)(a) of that section, and
        (c) that other parent ("the dependent parent") ceases to claim income support,
        the Secretary of State may, by giving notice in writing to the court which made the order and to the liable parent and the dependent parent, transfer to the dependent parent the right to receive the payments under the order, exclusive of any

        563
        personal allowance element, and to exercise the relevant rights in relation to the order, except so far as relating to that element.
        (4) Notice under subsection (3) above shall not be given (and if purportedly given, shall be of no effect) at a time when there is in force a maintenance order made against the liable parent—
        (a) in favour of the dependent parent or one or more of the children; or
        (b) in favour of some other person for the benefit of the dependent parent or one or more of the children;
        and if such a maintenance order is made at any time after notice under that subsection has been given, the order under section 24(4) above shall cease to have effect.
        (5) Except as provided by subsection (6) below, where the Secretary of State gives notice under subsection (3) above, he shall cease to be entitled—
        (a) to receive any payment under the order in respect of any personal allowance element, or
        (b) to exercise the relevant rights, so far as relating to any such element,
        notwithstanding that the dependent parent does not become entitled to receive any payment in respect of that element or to exercise the relevant rights so far as so relating.
        (6) If, in a case where the Secretary of State has given notice under subsection (3) above, the dependent parent makes a further claim for income support, then—
        (a) the Secretary of State may, by giving a further notice in writing to the court which made the order and to the liable parent and the dependent parent, transfer back from the dependent parent to himself the right to receive the payments and to exercise the relevant rights; and
        (b) that transfer shall revive the Secretary of State's right to receive payment under the order in respect of any personal allowance element and to exercise the relevant rights so far as relating to any such element.
        (7) Any notice required to be given to the liable parent under subsection (3) or (6) above shall be taken to have been given if it has been sent to his last known address.
        (8) In this section—
        "child" means a person under the age of 16, notwithstanding section 26(3)(d) below;
        "court" shall be construed in accordance with section 24 above;
        "maintenance order"—
        (a) in England and Wales, means—

        (i) any order for the making of periodical payments or for the payment of a lump sum which is, or has at any time been, a maintenance order within the meaning of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971;

        (ii) any order under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (overseas divorce) for the making of periodical payments or for the payment of a lump sum;

        (b) in Scotland, has the meaning given by section 106 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, but disregarding paragraph (h) (alimentary bond or agreement).
        "the relevant rights", in relation to an order under section 24(4) above, means the right to bring any proceedings, take any steps or do any other thing under or in relation to the order which the Secretary of State could have brought, taken or done apart any transfer under this section.
        Reduction of expenditure on income support: certain maintenance orders to be enforceable by the Secretary of State.
        24B.—(1) This section applies where—
        (a) a person ("the claimant") who is the parent of one or more children is in receipt of income support either in respect of those children or in respect of both himself and those children; and
        (b) there is in force a maintenance order made against the other parent ("the liable person")—
        564

        (i) in favour of the claimant or one or more of the children, or

        (ii) in favour of some other person for the benefit of the claimant or one or more of the children;

        and in this section "the primary recipient" means the person in whose favour that maintenance order was made.
        (2) If, in a case where this section applies, the liable person fails to comply with any of the terms of the maintenance order—
        (a) the Secretary of State may bring any proceedings or take any other steps to enforce the order that could have been brought or taken by or on behalf of the primary recepient; and
        (b) any court before which proceedings are brought by the Secretary of State by virtue of paragraph (a) above shall have the same powers in connection with those proceedings as it would have had if they had been brought by the primary recipient.
        (3) The Secretary of State's powers under this section are exercisable at his discretion and whether or not the primary recipient or any other person consents to their exercise; but any sums recovered by virtue of this section shall be payable to or for the primary recipient, as if the proceedings or steps in question had been brought or taken by him or on his behalf.
        (4) The powers conferred on the Secretary of State by subsection (2)(a) above include power—
        (a) to apply for the registration of the maintenance order under—

        (i) section 20 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950;

        (ii) section 2 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958; or

        (iii) the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982; and

        (b) to make an application under section 2 of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 (application for enforcement in reciprocating country).
        (5) Where this section applies, the prescribed person shall in prescribed circumstances give the Secretary of State notice of any application—
        (a) to alter, vary, suspend, discharge, revoke, revive, or enforce the maintenance order in question; or
        (b) to remit arrears under that maintenance order; and the Secretary of State shall be entitled to appear and be heard on the application.
        (6) Where this section applies, the Secretary of State shall be treated for the purposes of any enactment or instrument relating to maintenance orders as if he were a person entitled to payment under the maintenance order in question (but shall not thereby become entitled to any such payment).
        (7) In this section "maintenance order" has the same meaning as it has in section 24A above, but does not include any such order for the payment of a lump sum."
        (2) Until such time as there comes into force an amendment of Schedule 1 to the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (maintenance orders to which the Act applies) which has the effect of including among the orders specified in that Schedule any order for periodical or other payments made or having effect as if made under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, the definition of "maintenance order" in subsection (8) of the section 24A of the 1986 Act inserted by subsection (1) above shall have effect as if, in paragraph (a), after subparagraph (ii) there were inserted—
        "(iii) any order under paragraph 1(2)(a), (b) or
        (c) of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (financial provision for children against their parents);".
        (3) In section 26 of that Act, in subsection (3) definitions for purposes of sections 24, 25 and 26) after the words "section 24" there shall be inserted "24A, 24B".'.—[Mr. Newton.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Newton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Before I launch—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) looks puzzled. I am sure that she will accept that I have done the right thing.
        Ms. Short indicated assent.
        Mr. Newton: I am grateful.
        Before I say anything else about the new clause, which concerns lone parents, I simply want to say that I hope that I shall not be accused of being sexist if throughout I assume for practical purposes that lone parents are generally female and absent parents are generally male, simply to ease my sentences. Of course, as the House knows, there is a significant number—although small in proportion—of lone parents who are male and absent parents who are female.
        New clause 21 focuses on particular problems relating to maintenance for lone-parent families. As the House knows, the number of families in Britain headed by a lone parent has risen substantially in recent years. The proportion of those families that have to rely on supplementary benefit and now income support has also increased and stands at about two thirds.
        It is important to recognise, in view of the concern expressed about that, that those trends are not unique to the United Kingdom. Similar changes have happened in several other countries. Our social security system rightly provides help to lone-parent families who need it, as it does to others, but another valuable source of help for those families is maintenance. Regular payments of maintenance provide a basis of income that can help smooth the path from dependence on benefit to full-time work and independence. That is valuable to the family, but too often it is not paid. Absent parents have a clear legal responsibility to maintain their families as far as they can, but in far too many cases that responsibility has not been fulfilled or properly enforced.
        The number of lone-parent families dependent on income support in 1988 is more than double the number on supplementary benefit in 1979, but payment of maintenance has not kept pace. In 1979 maintenance was paid for about half of the lone-parent families on benefit, but in 1988 the equivalent figure was only a quarter.
        The Government have already announced that they are reviewing the maintenance system to see what changes need to be made to the way in which maintenance is awarded and operated. A survey of the work in a sample of courts and DSS local offices is under way to provide full, up-to-date information as a basis for deciding on the best way forward. We are examining the system that is in use in other countries to see what lessons can be learned from them. I am planning to visit the United States next month to see the approach that is taken there. We aim to bring forward proposals later this year. Radical changes, should they prove possible, will obviously take a little time to come into effect. That does not mean that we could or should stand still in the meantime. We have also been seeking to improve the effectiveness of the present system. The House will recall that I announced in the uprating debate a month or two ago that we are tightening the way in which we assess an absent parent's ability to pay maintenance for his family on income support.
        Mr. Tim Smith: My right hon. Friend spoke about a review. Does he agree that this is a serious and urgent
        566
        problem, and can he say whether the results will be announced in time for legislation to be introduced in the next Session? We should have as little delay as possible in bringing forward worthwhile changes.
        Mr. Newton: At this stage I cannot respond exactly and in detail, not least because, as my hon. Friend will be aware, it is not the practice for Ministers to comment on what may be in the Queen's Speech. We certainly hope to bring forward proposals this year at a time that would enable us to consider the possibilities that my hon. Friend has raised. I entirely accept what he says about the importance of the issue. I hope that he will agree that it is also a complex and difficult issue that needs to be properly considered.
        As I said, we are seeking in the meantime to make various changes in the present system. New clause 21 seeks to take us further in three ways. One of them is in relation to the realistic assessment of maintenance and the other two seek to help maintenance work more in the interests of lone parents than is often the case at present.
        The first step in the new clause brings social security law more into line with family law. We took a step in that direction last year when we extended liability for children beyond the 16th birthday to cover those children who remain dependent at 16, 17 and 18. Family law could already do that. In the new clause we are proposing to empower courts to consider the cost to the mother in caring for the absent parent's children, which will mean that Department of Social Security staff can do the same in seeking voluntary agreements on maintenance.
        The Department can currently seek its own order against an absent parent, which reflects that parent's liability under social security law. In brief, where the parents were divorced or were never married, it applies only to the benefit paid for the children. Under family law, courts can look wider and can consider the mother's costs as child carer in deciding what to award for children. Before we even consider going to court, the Department seeks to come to a voluntary arrangement with the absent parent on the basis of what the courts could award. The new section 24A in the new clause will provide a regulation-making power that will be used to specify that, once having looked at the allowances and premiums that are paid because there are children, the court should also have regard to the income support personal allowance paid for the mother. By increasing the scope of what the courts can award, we are increasing the scope of what voluntary agreements can cover and, therefore, what the Department can seek.
        Mr. Tony Marlow: I should like to put to my right hon. Friend two points that he may be about to cover in his speech. What will he do in cases where maintenance has been awarded to a mother and her children and the mother then moves in with another man whom she does not marry but by whom she is supported? Will the court or the legislation insist on the natural parent paying the maintenance? What happens when access to a child has been granted but the mother does not provide it? Will the legislation still insist on the maintenance payments being made?
        Mr. Newton: I shall deal first with my hon. Friend's second point. Over the years I have been child care Minister in my various welfare capacities and have dealt with that subject. Access to the children should be

        567
        considered quite separately from whether maintenance should be paid for the children. It is not appropriate to tie the two together.
        The other matter which links with that and which focuses specifically on the question asked by my hon. Friend is perhaps not sufficiently appreciated. At the end of the day, the Department of Social Security on its own cannot enforce anything that the courts are not prepared to enforce. We cannot compel a lone parent to agree to something, although we can go to court if we want the court to impose something. Once a court has imposed something, it is open to the person on whom the maintenance order has been made to go back to the court for a variation.
        It is not for me to speculate on what someone would do in circumstances such as those referred to by my hon. Friend. However, I expect that in such cases the absent parent might well wish to go back to the court and argue that the circumstances in which a maintenance order was imposed in respect of the former partner as carer and the children should be varied. It would be for the parent to decide whether to pursue the matter and it would be for the court to decide on it.
        Mr. Marlow: I shall put my second point again. If access has been granted and is denied by one parent, does my right hon. Friend think that it is right, fair and proper that the other parent should still be required to pay maintenance?
        Mr. Newton: They are separate issues. If access has been granted under a court order—I take it that that is what my hon. Friend is postulating—the denial of that access can be pursued in the court under that order. Equally, if maintenance has been granted under a court order, the failure to pay it can be pursued under that order. In considering a maintenance order, it would be for the court to decide whether to have regard to a sense of grievance about access.
        Ms. Short: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Newton: I understand that the hon. Lady wishes to take part in the debate.
        Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) does not totally agree with what I have said, I hope that he will at least understand the points that I have sought to make.
        Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Newton: Yes, but I am conscious of the fact that Opposition Members wish to speak.
        Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm an important point that is frequently misunderstood by people when they talk about access? Access is a right that belongs to the child to see its parent. It is not a right that belongs to the parent to see the child. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that?
        Mr. Newton: I should need to take advice before saying whether that was the legal position. I rather doubt that it is. It is somewhat outside the scope of the main thrust of the debate and I should like to get on with my speech, if only in the interests of ensuring that the hon. Member for Ladywood can make her speech.
        568
        I want to emphasise that when deciding what to award, the courts will continue to look at what the absent parent can afford to pay, as will DSS staff when negotiating voluntary agreements; but in a case in which an absent parent can afford more than the children's benefit, we shall look to obtain some or all of the caring parent's personal allowance. The courts will be able to order that a personal allowance be paid on top of the children's benefit, which means that in those cases the courts will have a flexibility similar to that under family law.
        8.30 pm
        The second change that we propose as part of new section 24A also concerns an order that the Department can obtain on its own behalf. It seeks to remove the need for a lone parent leaving benefit to go to court to obtain a separate private maintenance order. We propose that when a DSS order has been obtained, it should be possible to transfer it to a lone parent who is leaving benefit. That would apply in so far as the order relates to the costs of the children and when the lone parent does not already have a maintenance order of her own. The aim is that a transferred order should be consistent and fit in as nearly as possible with family law, so that a lone parent who leaves benefit and takes a DSS-obtained order with her is in the same position as someone who obtains her own maintenance order. We believe that that measure will make it easier for a lone parent without her own order to make the transition from benefit to work.
        By enabling a lone parent to take with her the maintenance for children obtained under a DSS order, we avoid the need for her to go to court for a new set of proceedings to get her own order, which is often argued to be a significant disincentive to taking the step of going back to work. She will have the same rights to enforce or vary the order afterwards as we in the DSS would have had. Both parents and the court will be informed of the transfer, and of course the absent parent—to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North—will still be able to go back to the court, as now, if his circumstances have changed or if he feels that other circumstances have.
        In our view, it would not be right or necessary to transfer a DSS order if a private maintenance order were already in existence. The private order would have priority, and the same principle would apply if a private maintenance order were obtained later. The existence of a private order would mean that a transferred DSS order would cease to have effect.
        Thirdly, new section 24B will enable the DSS to enforce a claimant's own maintenance order for her when payments are not being made in full, if the lone parent is claiming income support for herself and her family. Quite properly, the Department has a strong interest in ensuring that absent parents go on meeting their responsibilities for the family and that payments under any such order to the lone parent are made. The proposed new section gives practical effect to that interest when payments under a court order are not made in full and an absent parent, for whatever reason, is not minded to put that right.
        As things stand, the only remedy in such circumstances is for the lone parent herself to ask the court to enforce, and many such parents, for understandable reasons, do not want to do that. We propose to take power to do that on their behalf, with the aim of ensuring that prompt action is taken in all these cases, thus reducing the chance

        569
        of the absent parent getting into the habit of non-payment. We also think it right that the DSS should be able, if necessary, to be heard on any proposal to reduce the amount to be paid.
        Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Not having served on the Committee, I have not followed all this, but in the event of a delay and of the mother not being able to obtain the maintenance to which she is entitled, while the Department is pursing the father to try to get the money, will it be able to make extra payments to the mother to compensate her until the money is forthcoming from him?
        Mr. Newton: One of the reasons for our concern about this matter is that, given that the basic purpose of income support is to make people's income up to a given level, the practical effect is precisely that unpaid maintenance is replaced by income support.
        Mr. Frank Field: The right hon. Gentleman is telling the House that he is seeking powers to enable maintenance orders to follow the mother when she starts work. Under the third part of the new clause, will the Department's power to collect money also continue when a mother is in work, or is the measure only to do with saving welfare payments while she is on benefit?
        Mr. Newton: No, I have already said that once an order has been transferred, under the second of the proposals, a lone parent will have the same rights to enforce it as the DSS. Under the current arrangements, once a lone parent was not on benefit and an order had been transferred to her, it would then be her responsibility to enforce it. The hon. Gentleman, with his close interest in this subject, will know that the issue that he has raised is one of those that we shall examine in the broader review of maintenance that we are undertaking—which will include experience from Australia, the United States and various other countries.
        Mr. Field: I promise my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that this will be my last intervention. Neither I nor mothers outside the House can understand why the Government have not sought powers in this measure to help women when they move back to work to take over responsibility for the collection of these funds. That would be quite feasible, but the Government have decided not to do it. Why?
        Mr. Newton: Because it raises much wider issues. Once a maintenance order has been transferred to someone who is not in receipt of social security benefits of the type that I am discussing—primarily income support—there seems no reason to treat it differently from a maintenance order in favour of someone who has never been on benefit. Many such orders exist. I am not saying that such a move could not be contemplated under any circumstances, but it could be considered only in the context of a much wider reform of the maintenance system.
        These three measures form a consistent and sensible package within the constraints of the current system. However, we are doing more than merely making the legal changes that I have announced. I should like to take this opportunity to mention some further steps that we are taking to improve the way in which all these arrangements work at local office level.
        First, we shall shortly issue revised guidance covering the need to do more to emphasise to lone parents the
        570
        responsibility of the absent parent and the advantages of reflecting that responsibility in proper maintenance arrangements established at the outset. Those advantages will clearly be increased by the legal changes proposed in the new clause, not least by easing the way for the lone parent who wants to move back into employment. The guidance will make clearer the fact that the normal expectation should be that a lone parent will co-operate in establishing where responsibility lies and in obtaining maintenance, while continuing to recognise that there may be cases in which, for particular reasons, the lone parent still does not want to name the father.
        At the same time, when lone parents are unwilling to help in establishing the responsibility, we shall seek to build up a clearer picture of the reasons to help our further and wider consideration of the whole problem of maintenance.
        Secondly, the House will be aware that as a result of action initiated last year the amount of maintenance recovered by the DSS in respect of lone parents on benefit rose from £155 million in 1988–89 to an expected £180 million in 1989–90. That improvement in part reflects the extent to which, over a number of years until recently., that work has been given a lower priority than most would think it deserves. In our objectives for the coming year, we shall underline even more strongly the fact that that work should be given proper priority and resources, and I expect a further increase in maintenance paid in this respect, to about £260 million in 1990–91.
        The proposals in the new clause together with the other actions that I have outlined make clear the Government's commitment to ensuring that absent parents do more to meet their responsibilities for their families. We are pressing ahead with work on the more radical options—I have noted the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—but in the meantime we are doing what we can to improve the position because we believe that it is important for everyone involved, especially for lone parents and their children.
        What I have proposed will be widely welcomed, and I commend the new clause to the House.
        Ms. Short: I am extremely angry. It is 8.40 pm and we have a guillotine at 9 pm. We have another whole group of Government new clauses and amendments to come. This is an enormously important matter. The new clause covers three and a half pages, yet we have so little time to discuss it. This could have been considered in depth in Committee. The Government say that they did not have time, but the previous Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), said at the 1988 Tory party conference that there would be measures, and implied that they might be punitive, to get money back from fathers whose children were living on supplementary benefit. That is a long time ago.
        In January the Prime Minister made her speech and, according to the Library, the Secretary of State gave an unattributable briefing on the same day about the Government's intentions. The House is brought into disrepute. This is a serious and important matter and it is intolerable that it is being dealt with in this way. The Government should be ashamed of themselves.
        The Government's main motivation behind the package is to save the cost of social security benefits, not to assist lone-parent families to come off benefit and enjoy a free, independent life. The narrowness of the

        571
        Government's objective is deplorable and sad. Only one of the three measures in the new clause will assist lone parents: when a mother comes off benefit she can take the order which has been obtained by the Department with her. We welcome that. It is entirely good and will help mothers to make the move off benefit and into work.
        The Secretary of State misleads the House when he says that the law of his Department is being brought into line with family law. That is disputed by the National Council for One Parent Families. The Library was surprised by his assertion. I know the one case to which he refers and I suspect that he is misleading the House. I do not suppose that he does it deliberately.
        If a mother is on income support it will be possible to claim the costs of the income support against the father. That is all that the Government are providing. The minute she comes off income support, if she has never been married to the father, she has no right to claim maintenance for herself, because she is caring for the family. The Government's motivation is entirely to save the costs of benefit. There is no intention to help women both to stop being dependent on benefit and to work, if that is what they want.
        The third provision is exactly the same. The Government intend to take action where fathers do not pay, if the mother is on benefit, in order to make him pay and to save benefit costs. Absent parents, who are usually fathers, should pay for their children, but we need to do something for the overwhelming number of lone parents who are living in poverty and caught in the poverty trap. The Government have not attended to that serious issue.
        I am deeply disappointed by the package. It is unworthy of the Secretary of State, who I thought had more to him. The figures are shocking. We have in Britain about 1 million lone parents, of whom about 722,000 are living on income support. The proportion who live on income support has increased considerably under the Government because of the erosion in the value of child benefit and other benefits, and the growth in the poverty trap. The Government's benefit changes have trapped increasing numbers of lone parents and their dependants on benefit. They have removed the right of a woman who lives on supplementary benefit and works part time to offset some of the costs of going to work and of child care against benefit. The Government have changed that and trapped more women in complete dependence on benefits. In 1961, one in six lone parents were on supplementary benefit whereas in 1987 two thirds were.
        The size of the trap is shocking. A lone parent with two children on benefit gets the enormous sum of £65·80 a week to spend on herself and her children. A lone parent on £150 a week wages, paying £55 a week for child care—that is a reasonable cost for two children as child care can cost more—would get £57·26 a week to live on and would be worse off. A lone parent with two children must get at least £172 a week to be better off than when she is living on benefits. That is the problem and the trap.
        The way out is non-means-tested benefits, such as child benefit which the Government have been busy eroding and which they seek to allow to shrivel away, better child care provision, training and access to jobs for women. That is the strategy of the Labour party policy review; our aim is to create pathways out of poverty—stepping stones to
        572
        assist people who are forced to live in poverty. One such group is lone parents. When they choose and when their children are ready, they should be able to step into part-time work and training, and child care should be available.
        The Government are not concerned about that. They are not concerned that many women and children who have been badly treated by the man in their life, not always but often, are living in poverty. Nothing in this package seeks seriously to help. The Government are trying to claw back benefit costs. We cannot discuss the matter properly. The proposal is not good enough to deal with this serious problem. Because one part of the provision is positive, we shall not oppose it, but we are deeply disappointed. The Government have muffed an opportunity to assist lone parents.
        8.45 pm
        Mr. Frank Field: If it is true that there is great rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents, given the line that the Treasury Bench is taking, paradise must be breaking out in celebration this evening because the Government's stance has changed.
        Although the Secretary of State was too modest to mention it, in the past 11 years we have seen a collapse in the idea that wherever possible a male should be responsible for his offspring if the offspring are left to be dependent on welfare. It is to the Government's shame that they allowed that to develop. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, that has resulted in an increasing number of women being forced to be dependent on means-tested assistance. Nevertheless, the Government are turning and I am pleased about it, although I share my hon. Friend's reservations about the measure's limitations.
        I am not against the collection of maintenance to offset it against the cost of income support payments. That is proper. I am not against mothers being asked about the whereabouts of the father or who the father is.
        Ms. Short: I was brief so that my hon. Friend and others could speak. As a result I neglected to mention that I believe that, under the guidance that the Secretary of State announced, women will be pressurised and harassed to name the absent father when, for good reasons, they do not wish to do so. That will be an ugly side of this package.
        Mr. Field: I am not against those questions being asked, but, as my hon. Friend has said, this is a delicate area. Some women will not want to name the father for fear of being beaten up. They will look at the Government's package to see whether it is worth taking that risk. Their lives, like many people's lives, are full of risks and they must make those decisions. They will ask the very questions that my hon. Friend has asked. To what extent are the Government offering a new package?
        The Government are showing considerable interest in moving quickly at the Prime Minister's behest to save on the cost of welfare, while providing a limited bridge to the world of work, in that a maintenance order may remain with a woman when she goes back to work. The Secretary of State gave no explanation why at this stage he could not include in the new clause, which we are discussing for the first time and which looks like a new Bill, the idea that the Department would continue to be responsible for collecting the funds and paying them to the mother,

        573
        whether or not she is on welfare. That would have changed the balance of the package to a mother who is making the crucial decision whether it is worth accepting it.
        There is a further stage. It is right to consider mothers who have never been on benefit and who might want the state at some stage to take over the responsibility of collecting. It is extraordinary for Ministers to argue that, because we cannot do everything, we cannot achieve tonight what is realisable.
        My brief comments are almost identical to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood. One part of the new clause is to be welcomed. Despite the Government's change of heart, this is a missed opportunity to strike out and to begin to offer a new deal to show that the Government are on the side of single mothers, of making parents responsible and of encouraging people, wherever possible, to take up work when it is available. The new clause will be viewed for the measure that it is: although the Government have some interest in these issues, their primary purpose is merely to save taxpayers' money. Although that is important, this is, sadly, a missed opportunity.
        Mr. Newton: I shall respond only briefly, although with some sadness, compared with my feelings during the previous debate, and with some surprise at the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He, of all people, should know that, in essence, we have a system of assessing and collecting maintenance that has proved increasingly unsatisfactory because of the unhappy increases in marriage breakdowns and, for a variety of other reasons, in the number of lone parents.
        My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, other hon. Friends and I have consistently made it clear over some months that we see a need for much wider reform than could possibly be encompassed within the scope of an amendment tabled to the Bill. The matter is complex. In most of the countries that have introduced new systems, considerable preparation time and, because of the number of interests involved, considerable consultations have been required. The system has often had to be introduced by stages—first, by improving the arrangements for enforcement of existing orders and then, to take the Australian example, by coming forward with a new system of assessing maintenance for future cases. Much the same has happened in the United States.
        The hon. Member for Birkenhead implied that somehow, in two or three months, we could have reached the stage of tabling to the Bill amendments containing the kind of sweeping, overall reforms that we both agree would be desirable, if we can find the right basis for them.
        Mr. Frank Field: I was not trying to cause offence to the Minister. I am pleased that he has a grasp of how strongly I feel about this subject. If the Government had gone on to the next stage requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and me and had introduced a separate measure, we probably would not have opposed it. We would have had a full debate and the provision would have been quickly dispatched to the other place and would have returned. It is a matter not of the constraints of the Bill but of the Government having chosen to link this provision to it. We should have welcomed a more comprehensive measure, separate from the Bill, so that we could have a proper debate. The debate
        574
        would not have been held up. The matter would have been considered expeditiously. The Secretary of State has not made an adequate defence.
        Mr. Newton: There may simply be a misunderstanding between the hon. Gentleman and me. The Government are not at this moment in a position to bring forward a comprehensive proposal for reform. We have done a good deal of work. One of our senior officials has looked closely at the Australian system. We have set in hand a significant survey of courts and DSS offices to give us additional information about the way that the present system works. That is all intended to help us shape wider proposals which we hope to bring forward later this year.
        We do not think that it is right, simply because it will take time to bring forward more comprehensive proposals, not to take any steps to make what improvements can be made within the present system. That is what we are trying to do in these proposals. That approach would be widely welcomed outside the House and inside it, if not by those hon. Members who have spoken. It contains useful improvements in the portability of orders obtained by the DSS and in the capacity of the DSS to enforce orders that a lone parent has obtained while she remains on benefit.
        Ms. Short: There is nothing in it for her.
        Mr. Newton: There is something in it for her. The maintenance will go on being paid in a form that at some stage can improve her position if she returns to work.
        Mr. Frank Field: What will happen if the father does not pay up?
        Mr. Newton: That is precisely the point. If the DSS is prepared to enforce the maintenance order that has been made in favour of a lone parent, it is more likely that the absent father will continue to pay up.
        Mr. Frank Field: It is the exact opposite. If the DSS has problems in getting the money off the father, what chance will the mother have without the sanction of the DSS behind her?
        Mr. Newton: We are again talking at cross purposes. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made a point about the third element in the proposal whereby if a lone parent is on income support but has a maintenance order that she has obtained, the DSS will enforce that order. The hon. Lady said that that did not do anything for the lone parent. I think that we would all agree that the position of a lone parent for whom maintenance is paid, for various reasons, is better in a general sense—not necessarily in the immediate monetary sense—than the position of a lone parent for whom maintenance is not paid. The DSS's capacity to ensure that a private maintenance order continues to be paid is therefore an improvement on the present position.
        Mr. Frank Field indicated assent.
        Mr. Newton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Birkenhead at least agrees with me on that point.
        Ms. Short: I wish that the Minister would be straightforward about what he is doing. The fact that the Department will claim for an absent father who does not pay only when the woman is on benefit shows that the Department wants to look after its money, not the woman. The fact that the Department will claim against the man

        575
        for the time that the woman spends in maintaining the child only when she is on benefit shows that the Department wants to save its money. The only tiny provision in the package for the woman is that the order obtained by the DSS can go with her when she goes off benefit. The Department's overwhelming concern in this package is to save money for itself, not to assist low-income, lone parents to have a better life, more freedom and higher incomes. I wish that the Secretary of State would be honest about that.
        Mr. Newton: It would be thoroughly dishonest of me even to begin to suggest that I accept the hon. Lady's comments, which are ridiculous. Her suggestion that securing the more effective collection of maintenance under maintenance orders does not help the interests of lone parents is a piece of absolute nonsense of which she will be ashamed when she has had the opportunity to think about it.
        Clearly, the Opposition are anxious to make further progress, and I understand that. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Ladywood, even with her rather less than generous and less than understanding remarks, does not intend to oppose these proposals. I commend the new clause to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New clause 22

        REIROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF SECTION I 65A OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT
        '(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 165A of the principal Act—
        "Retrospective effect of section 165A.
        165AA.—(1) This section applies where a claim for benefit is made or treated as made at any time on or after 2nd September 1985 (the date on which section 165A above, as originally enacted, came into force) in respect of a period the whole or any part of which falls on or after that date.
        (2) Where this section applies, any question arising as to—
        (a) whether the claimant is or was at any time (whether before, on or after 2nd September 1985) entitled to the benefit in question, or to any other benefit on which his entitlement to that benefit depends, or
        (b) in a case where the claimant's entitlement to the benefit depends on the entitlement of another person to a benefit, whether that other person is or was so entitled,
        shall be determined as if section 165A above, as in force at the time of the claim referred to in subsection (1) above, and any regulations made under or referred to in that section as so in force, had also been in force, with any necessary modifications, at all times relevant for the purpose of determining the entitlement of the claimant, and, where applicable, of the other person, to the benefit or benefits in question (including the entitlement of any person to any benefit on which that entitlement depends, and so on).
        (3) In any case where—
        (a)a claim for benefit was made or treated as made (whether before, on or after 2nd September 1985, and whether by the same claimant as the claim referred to in subsection (1) above or not), and benefit was awarded on that claim, in respect of a period falling wholly or partly before that date, but
        576
        (b) that award would not have been made had the current requirements applied in relation to claims for benefit, whenever made, in respect of periods before that date, and
        (c) entitlement to the benefit claimed as mentioned in subsection (1) above depends on whether the claimant or some other person was previously entitled or treated as entitled to that or some other benefit,
        then, in determining whether the conditions of entitlement to the benefit so claimed are satisfied, the person to whom benefit was awarded as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall be taken to have been entitled to the benefit so awarded, notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above.
        (4) In subsection (3) above "the current requirements" means—
        (a) the provisions of section 165A above, as in force at the time of the claim referred to in subsection (1) above, and any regulations made under or referred to in that section as so in force, with any necessary modifications; and
        (b) subsection (1) (with the omission of the words following "at any time") and subsection (2) above.
        (5) Any reference in any enactment to section 165A of this Act (but not a reference to any specific provision of that section) shall be taken to include a reference to this section.
        (6) This section shall be taken to have come into force on 2nd September 1985."
        (2) In Schedule 20 to the principal Act (glossary of expressions) in the second column of the entry relating to "entitled" and cognate expressions, for the words "section 165A" there shall be substituted the words "sections 165A and 165AA".
        (3) Section 32(4) of the Social Security Act 1985 (which made similar provision to that made by subsection (3) of the section inserted by subsection (1) above) shall be deemed never to have been enacted.
        (4) In paragraph 48 of Schedule 10 to the 1986 Act (which applies sections 87 and 165A(1) of the principal Act to income-related benefits) in paragraph (b), for the words "section 165A(1)" there shall be substituted the words "sections 165A(1) and 165AA".
        (5) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) above shall be taken to have come into force on 2nd September 1985.'.—[Mrs. Gillian Shephard.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 24, 25, 84, 67, 85 and 26.
        Mrs. Shephard: I shall have to be extremely brief if I am to give even the gist of the Government's intention in the new clause and the amendments.
        The new clause amends various provisions of the Social Security Acts 1975 and 1985 to re-establish the accepted policy that, generally speaking, a person shall not be regarded as entitled to benefit for any period unless a claim has been made within the prescribed time limits.
        Hon. Members will recall that it had always been our understanding that the law achieved that effect—until a judgment in the House of Lords in November 1984 in the case of a Miss Margaret McCaffrey, when their Lordships held that entitlement to benefit could exist even where no claim had been made.
        Although that judgment referred specifically to noncontributory invalidity pension, the decision had much

        577
        wider implications across the social security front. It was decided that the effects of McCaffrey should be nullified, and section 165A was inserted in the Social Secrity Act 1975 to achieve that, with effect from 2 September 1985, or so we thought.
        In June of last year, a social security commissioner held, in the case of a Mr. Cartwright, that the word "entitled" where relating to an event before 2 September 1985 meant "entitled" in the McCaffrey sense—that is, without requiring that a claim must be made for the benefit.
        The effect is that, contrary to the policy intention, an understanding that has existed through Administrations of both parties at least back to the start of the national insurance scheme in 1948—
        It being Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Question agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 23

        AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE SOCIAL FUND
        `(1) In section 32 of the 1986 Act, after subsection (8D) there shall be inserted—
        "(8E) The Secretary of State may give general directions to social fund officers or groups of social fund officers, or to any class of social fund officers, with respect to the control and management by social fund officers or groups of social fund officers of the amounts allocated to them under subsections (8A) to (8D) above.".
        (2) In subsection (10) of that section (power to nominate a social fund officer to issue guidance to other officers in his area on specified matters) for the words "to issue" there shall be substituted the words "who shall issue".
        (3) In section 33 of that Act, after subsection (10) (questions to be determined in accordance with general directions) there shall be inserted—
        "(10ZA) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (10) above, the Secretary of State may issue directions under that subsection for the purpose of securing that a social fund officer or group of social fund officers shall not in any specified period make awards of any specified description which in the aggregate exceed the amount, or a specified portion of the amount, allocated to that officer or group of officers under section 32(8A) to (8D) above for payments under awards of that description in that period."
        (4) In subsection (10A) of that section (which specifies certain matters with respect to which directions may be given) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—
        "(f) that a social fund payment such as is mentioned in section 32(2)(b) above shall only be awarded to a person if either—

        (i) he is in receipt of a benefit under the benefit Acts which is specified in the direction and the circumstances are such as are so specified; or

        (ii) in a case where the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (i) above are not satisfied, the circumstances are such as are specified in the direction;".

        (5) At the end of that section there shall be added—
        "(13) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

        (a) make provision with respect to the time at which an application for a social fund payment such as is mentioned in section 32(2)(b) above is to be treated as made;

        (b) prescribe conditions that must be satisfied before any determination in connection with such an application may be made or any award of such a payment may be paid;

        578

        (c) prescribe circumstances in which such an award becomes extinguished.".'.—[Mr. Scott.]

        >
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss New clause 3—Social Fund—
        'In section 33 of the 1986 Act,—

        (a) subsection (9)(e) shall cease to have effect;

        (b) at the end of subsection (10) there shall be added the words "but shall not refuse by reason of the amount of any allocation made under section 32(8A) above to award a payment which he would otherwise award".'.

        Government amendments Nos. 86 and 87.
        Mr. Scott: During my statement to the House on 26 March I outlined our response to the judicial review judgments on the social fund. I explained that, although the court found that some of the guidance on budgets was too prescriptive, its judgment explicitly recognised that Parliament clearly intended that the scheme should be subject to strict monetary limits and that the Secretary of State needed to be able to give directions to achieve financial control.
        In the light of that, and so that there should be no doubt that it is the Government's intention that the social fund should be operated within a firm budgetary framework, we have introduced this amendment to make explicit the power of my right hon. Friend to give directions relating to the financial control of the fund. The amendment will similarly put beyond doubt my right hon. Friend's power to specify who might be eligible for payments from the fund.
        The clause also makes provision for regulations to clarify the date on which an application to the social fund is to be treated as having been made, and operational matters relating to applications and awards.
        I will explain in more detail the effect of the amendments that we are making under the clause. The subsection we are inserting after section 32(8) of the Social Security Act will make explicit the power of my right hon. Friend to give directions to social fund officers on control and management of the sums allocated to them for discretionary payments.
        The directions made under this power will, we envisage, cover the requirement to plan the expenditure from the local allocation through profiles of anticipated expenditure and recoveries and levels of priorities of needs that can be sustained from the allocation. They will require social fund officers to have regard to such factors in reaching decisions in individual cases.
        They will also require the area social fund officer normally the local office manager, as I said on Monday—to keep the profiles and levels of priorities under review and revise them in the light of changing circumstances. The directions will, therefore, clarify and reinforce the present position. That is, they will ensure that social fund officers manage the funds allocated to them responsibly and sensibly.
        At present, the area social fund officer—normally the local office manager—is responsible for controlling the local office budget. Under the existing section 32(10), he may issue guidance on matters which the Secretary of State specifies. This includes guidance on the level of priority that may be sustained from the budget. But the area social fund officer is not under a duty to issue such guidance. The

        579
        amendment we are making to section 32(10) will require the area social fund officer to issue guidance on matters specified by the Secretary of State.
        As I said, it has always been our intention that the social fund should operate within a firm, financial framework. We do not believe that that is incompatible with the proper exercise of discretion by social fund officers. Consequently, it is essential to the successful operation of the fund that its resources are managed so as not to exceed the amounts allocated for payments. Under the present legislation, it would be possible to issue directions on matters relating to the control of the budget. I have already mentioned the power that we are taking in respect of directions for the management and control of local budgets. The additional power that we are taking under the new clause will reinforce the effect of those directions by giving the Secretary of State explicit power to issue directions requiring social fund officers to keep within their allocations.
        Such directions will, therefore, preclude a social fund officer, or a group of social fund officers, from making any award that would result in the sums allocated to that officer or group of officers being exceeded. This must be right if the scheme is to operate within the strict monetary limits, as Parliament originally intended, and as was recognised by the court. We cannot have a situation in which social fund officers may continue to make awards regardless of whether there is money available to fund such awards.
        The purpose is to concentrate help where it is most needed. It is important that the Secretary of State is able to specify who will be eligible for help and where the line is to be drawn. The amendment to section 33(10A) is intended to make explicit his power to do so. The provision is in two parts. The first part restricts eligibility to certain payments from the fund—community care grants and budgeting loans—to persons receiving the benefit or benefits specified in directions. Such payments are available only to persons receiving income support and, in the case of community care grants, to people shortly to leave institutional care who are likely to receive income support upon discharge.
        The second part of the amendment provides explicit direction-making powers governing eligibility to the fund, whether or not the applicant is receiving a specified benefit. This is intended to cover the position in respect of crisis loans, which are available to anyone, whether or not on benefit, who faces a crisis as the result of a disaster or an emergency. Given the Secretary of State's power to issue directions, it may be considered that an explicit power to issue directions on eligibility is overegging the pudding. However, as with the rest of the clause, we are concerned that the position on the fundamental principles of the scheme, like the budget and eligibility, should be absolutely clear to all concerned. This amendment achieves that. By making explicit the power to issue directions concerning applicants' eligibility for help from the fund, it confirms both the inherent flexibility of the fund and its ability to target help on those who need it.
        I turn to the regulation-making powers under the new clause. The principles by which the fund operates are now well known. Although there may be differences between the Government and the Opposition on what those
        580
        principles are, I think that, in general, they are well understood. However, some matters may be less clear to hon. Members. We believe that it will be helpful to applicants, their advisers and local office staff if these matters are spelt out in regulations in the same way as they are for the procedures concerning applications to the fund and applications for review. In spelling these things out, we are also making the way in which the scheme operates more accountable to Parliament.
        The regulations will cover several procedural matters. The first is the date on which an application for help from the fund is to be treated as made. This will clarify that an application is to be treated as having been made on the day of its receipt in the local office. The second procedural matter that the regulations will cover is the conditions that must be satisfied before any application can be satisfied or any award made—for example, where a community care grant has been made in anticipation of the applicant's discharge from residential care, and where the applicant is not actually discharged. The third procedural matter is the point at which an award becomes extinguished. For example, an applicant might die after an award but before payment could be made, or an applicant might fail to cash a giro within 12 months of its issue.
        The new clause will come into effect with the granting of Royal Assent. The amendments that are being made here make it abundantly clear that, as I said to the House on Monday, it is the Government's firm intention that the social fund should continue to operate fairly and flexibly against the framework of a budget and eligibility focused on those who are most in need. On that basis, I commend the clause to the House.
        Mr. Meacher: We have just listened to a desultory and depressing speech from the Minister which he read solidly, without an ounce of conviction. He continues to mouth words about flexibility and discretion, but everything the Government do and the new clauses that they bring to the House are a standing denial of everything that the Minister has just said.
        I admit at the outset that there is one advantage today over the position that existed two days ago when the Minister made a statement on the social fund. We have now got the Government amendment to the Bill in the light of the High Court judgment. However, we might as well not have had it, since it takes us not one iota further forward. It has taken the Minister five weeks to decide that his response to the High Court decision should be to pretend that it never happened. The court's judgment is being treated in the new clause as a minor distraction to which the proper response is to overturn it as soon as possible through more draconian legislation.
        Only one concern guides Government policy on the social fund—how to cut it. Nothing, including the law, will get in the way of that. That is why the social fund has been frozen since its introduction in 1988 and why the supposedly generous increase announced on Monday is actually a further cut in real terms, since the extra £10 million does not even cover inflation.
        Today's statement is not only cynical in its attitude to the law but it is dishonest. The Government know that they cannot issue directions to local offices to cash-limit funds until the Bill becomes law without risking legal challenge. So, instead, they issued guidance in such a way as to tell social fund officers with a nod and a wink to hold back the flood until the dam is in place.

        581
        I have listened and thought carefully about the matter. I am open to challenge if I am wrong, but I believe that the message from the Government today is that it is business as usual but local offices should not shout about it until the Government have squared the courts. Why else does the Minister refuse to agree to contact claimants who have been illegally refused grants? Those people have to find their own way through bureaucracy to make their own claims. That is a wholly improper response by the Government. It is one thing for the Government, having been found to have been acting outside the law, to decide to change the law, but it is another for them to refuse to seek out and compensate those who have been deprived of their rights because current law has not been adhered to by the Government.
        The heart of the matter is that the Government still refuse to face up to the fundamental flaw in the social fund—that there is incompatibility in its two aims of flexibility in meeting needs and rigidity in limiting costs. The Minister referred to it again today. He seems to be able to say that black is white and that he is still preserving flexibility and discretion, when patently he is not.
        The new clause will go further in the other direction. The Government are still trying to have it both ways; they are softening the guidance to social fund officers and muddling through until the summer while cocking a snook in the meantime at the High Court decision by refusing any active review of past claims, even though many of them have been shown to have been improperly handled. When the Bill becomes law the Government will enforce new rules which will ensure that the budget is always the paramount consideration in assessing new claims. At that point any idea of flexibility or discretion will fly out of the window and the fundamental principle of the welfare state, which has prevailed under all Governments, including Tory Governments, since the war—that there is an ultimate safety net for meeting unconditionally the basic needs of citizens—will he finally eroded. That is the message of the new clause.
        Mr. Scott: I am sorry if I interrupt the hon. Gentleman at a comma in the speech that he is clearly reading to the House of Commons. He said that we were cocking a snook at the court but we are not. We accept the judgment of the court about the way that we were administering the intention of Parliament, which found that in one small regard we were at odds with that intention. We have issued guidance to ensure that in the interim period social fund officers interpret the law in the light of the court judgment, but Parliament has the right to change that and to reassert its original intention. That is what we are doing.
        9.15 pm
        Mr. Meacher: That is exactly the point that I am making. The Government are determined that the paramountcy of the budget will prevail over all other considerations. They are changing the law in that respect, but, in the meantime, with the law as it stands, the Government have not properly handled claims that have been made on the social fund.
        If the Government believe in acting in accordance with the law, it is their duty—indeed, it is incumbent upon the Government—to contact past claimants who have been cheated of their rights and to ensure that under the existing law they get those rights until the law is changed.
        Mr. Scott: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making a wider point about cocking a snook at the court, which we clearly are not because we have issued guidance to social fund officers. We are coming down to practicalities—that is far from cocking a snook at the court—and to the best way to ensure that people who may have been turned down in the past can be made aware of their rights. We are doing that by ensuring that our officers, the citizens advice bureaux and other welfare rights organisations are issued with leaflets which will clearly spell out people's right to ask for a review of their case.
        Frankly, I suspect that in the vast majority of cases the circumstances in which the original claim was made and rejected will have changed substantially by now and what the hon. Gentleman suggests would be a waste of time and effort. It would also arouse claimants' expectations and they would certainly be disappointed when they finally came to make their claim. That is not a sensible way to proceed.
        We have no wish to hide the fact that claimants have a right to come forward and ask for a review. Leaflets have been widely distributed and publicity has been accorded to the subject, not least by debates in the House and the appearances by the hon. Gentleman and myself on radio and television. I hope that anyone who feels that they may have been turned down unfairly will come forward to ask for a review. Reviews will be carried out promptly in the light of the instructions that we have issued and because of Justice Pill's judgment that the state of the budget when the original claim was made and the present state of the budget should be taken into account.
        Mr. Meacher: That was a small speech in itself and I shall reply to a number of the points raised in it—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman spoke for several minutes.
        The Minister is saying that his reason for not contacting past claimants who have been deprived of their rights is that their circumstances may have changed in the meantime. Yet he is encouraging them to claim. He is sending out leaflets explaining how they can do so. If they had rights at the time that they made the original claim, those should be met now. They should be adhered to, because that is the law.
        Merely putting leaflets into citizens advice bureau offices and social security offices means—let us be perfectly straight about this—that the Government are washing their hands of the business. The Minister knows perfectly well that the kind of people who are normally claimants of the social fund are not avid readers of the Government's leaflets. They need to be contacted, if the Government are seriously concerned that they should get their rights.
        I believe that the Government are cocking a snook at the High Court judgment. That is exactly what they are doing. All that they have done is to send out guidance to social fund officers. That guidance is less prescriptive than it was before.
        The High Court judgment said that consideration of budget was not the only essential factor. There should also be a test of reasonableness and a test of commonsense application in the assessment of those needs. Those were the other two considerations in the High Court judgment and the Government have totally ignored them.
        The Government have acted in a high-handed manner over the High Court decision. They take the view that the

        583
        claims can no longer be afforded and that is fundamental to the whole argument. The Minister looks puzzled, but he constantly talks about the need for strict cash limiting of the budget—presumably because he believes that the open-ended and unconditional meeting of need that has always existed in the past—even under Conservative Governments—can now no longer be afforded. The Government can afford open-ended mortgage interest tax relief, which has increased sevenfold in the past decade, to about £7 billion. They can afford open-ended subsidies to private residential and nursing homes, which have increased hundredfold over the past decade, from about £10 million in the early 1980s to more than £1 billion now. The Government can afford open-ended subsidies for personal pensions, now costing some £2 billion, to bribe people into ideologically approved but highly speculative pension arrangements. The only thing that the Government cannot afford is to provide open-ended support—at a fraction of those other costs—for those at the very bottom of society whose needs are manifest and intractable.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Do I take it from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the Labour party is against mortgage interest relief and against giving help with the costs of residential care?
        Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Lady cannot follow my line of argument, she will have to listen a great deal more carefully.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have been listening.
        Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Lady had been listening, she would have heard me say to the Government that if they can afford £7 billion in mortgage interest tax relief and £1 billion to subsidise residential and private nursing homes, one might have thought that they could afford a little more than £200 milliona penn'orth in terms of the overall social security budget—to meet the needs of people at the very bottom of society. If there is anyone deeply in need in our society it is those whom we are discussing now.
        The new clause would intensify the two most odious and objectionable features of the social fund. One is the cash limiting of the relief of poverty—something that even Conservative Governments have never done in the past—so that thousands of destitute families, however searing their need, will be denied help because the money has not been made available. That has never happened before.
        The other consideration is the fixing of that budget cap at an aggressively low level, which is only slightly over half of the budget that existed before. That is bound to multiply the numbers who are forced to do without. That is why refusal rates today are soaring at 60 to 70 per cent. Of the other 30 or 40 per cent. who manage to get loans, more than 400,000—nearly 10 per cent. of all claimants—are having to repay social fund loans out of their basic income support, which is meant to provide their basic daily subsistence costs.
        Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Is not it a matter of public record that the Government are paying out £1 billion a week, which I work out at roughly £145 million per day, on benefits to help the very people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred? We all meet such
        584
        people in our everyday work; I certainly do in my part of the world. But there is more help than there has ever been, and that is a matter of fact.
        Mr. Meacher: The hon. Lady is not quite right. For the reasons that I have given, the £1 billion a week of the social security budget is not being directed at social fund claimants. It is being directed at the increasing number of people who are dependent on social security. Their numbers are growing. There are about 500,000 more pensioners than there were at the start of the decade. That is not the responsibility of the Government; the need has to be met. But the increase has come about not because benefits are more generous or because the Government have focused more closely on the need; it is simply that there are more people in the categories that have a right to those benefits. The number of unemployed is still about 60 to 70 per cent. higher than it was at the start of the decade, and the number on income support has almost doubled since then. Those are the reasons for the high figure—not that assistance is being given to the people who really need it.
        The Government's new clause does not even begin to address the ocean of hardship, poverty and debt that is undoubtedly washing over the social fund. I cannot believe that the Minister is unaware of that. The Government's hard line in the new clause, in changing the rules to make budget capping even more pronounced, as a reason for rejecting claims will intensify hardship. We take the opposite view, expressed in new clause 3, that social fund officers should be prevented from refusing payments on the ground that there is not enough money in the local office budget and revert to the system that always operated since 1945. Because we totally repudiate the Government's social fund's strategy, we seek to vote down their new clause.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 197.

        Division No. 144]

        [9.25 pm

        AYES

        Adley, Robert

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Alexander, Richard

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Brazier, Julian

        Allason, Rupert

        Bright, Graham

        Amess, David

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

        Amos, Alan

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Arbuthnot, James

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Burns, Simon

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Burt, Alistair

        Ashby, David

        Butler, Chris

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Butterfill, John

        Atkins, Robert

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Atkinson, David

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Carttiss, Michael

        Baldry, Tony

        Cash, William

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Batiste, Spencer

        Chapman, Sydney

        Bellingham, Henry

        Chope, Christopher

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Body, Sir Richard

        Colvin, Michael

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Conway, Derek

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Boswell, Tim

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Bottomley, Peter

        Cope, Rt Hon John

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Couchman, James

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Cran, James

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Critchley, Julian

        Bowis, John

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        585

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

        Key, Robert

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Day, Stephen

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Devlin, Tim

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Knapman, Roger

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Dover, Den

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Dunn, Bob

        Knowles, Michael

        Dykes, Hugh

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Eggar, Tim

        Latham, Michael

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Evennett, David

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Fallon, Michael

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Favell, Tony

        Lightbown, David

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Fookes, Dame Janet

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Forman, Nigel

        Lord, Michael

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Forth, Eric

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Franks, Cecil

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Freeman, Roger

        Maclean, David

        French, Douglas

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Fry, Peter

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

        Gale, Roger

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Gardiner, George

        Madel, David

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Gill, Christopher

        Malins, Humfrey

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Mans, Keith

        Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

        Marland, Paul

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Marlow, Tony

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Gorst, John

        Mates, Michael

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Mellor, David

        Grist, Ian

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Ground, Patrick

        Miller, Sir Hal

        Grylls, Michael

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Hague, William

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Moate, Roger

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Hannam, John

        Moore, Rt Hon John

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

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Morrison, Sir Charles

        Harris, David

        Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Moss, Malcolm

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Hayes, Jerry

        Mudd, David

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

        Neale, Gerrard

        Hayward, Robert

        Needham, Richard

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Nelson, Anthony

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Neubert, Michael

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Hind, Kenneth

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Norris, Steve

        Holt, Richard

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Page, Richard

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Patnick, Irvine

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

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Pawsey, James

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Portillo, Michael

        Hunter, Andrew

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Irvine, Michael

        Price, Sir David

        Irving, Sir Charles

        Raffan, Keith

        Jack, Michael

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Jackson, Robert

        Redwood, John

        Janman, Tim

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Jessel, Toby

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Riddick, Graham

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        586

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Rost, Peter

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Rowe, Andrew

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Ryder, Richard

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Thurnham, Peter

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Townsend, Cyril D. B'heath)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Tracey, Richard

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Tredinnick, David

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Trotter, Neville

        Shelton, Sir William

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Viggers, Peter

        Shersby, Michael

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Sims, Roger

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Walden, George

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Speed, Keith

        Waller, Gary

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Ward, John

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Squire, Robin

        Warren, Kenneth

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Watts, John

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Wells, Bowen

        Stern, Michael

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Stevens, Lewis

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Wilkinson, John

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

        Wood, Timothy

        Stokes, Sir John

        Woodcock, Dr. Mike

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Sumberg, David

        Summerson, Hugo

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Mr. Tony Durant.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Crowther, Stan

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Cryer, Bob

        Allen, Graham

        Cummings, John

        Alton, David

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Dalyell, Tam

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Darling, Alistair

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Ashton, Joe

        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.

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Eadie, Alexander

        Blair, Tony

        Eastham, Ken

        Blunkett, David

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Boyes, Roland

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Bradley, Keith

        Fatchett, Derek

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Faulds, Andrew

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

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

        Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

        Fisher, Mark

        Buckley, George J.

        Flannery, Martin

        Callaghan, Jim

        Flynn, Paul

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Foster, Derek

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Fraser, John

        Cartwright, John

        Fyfe, Maria

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Clay, Bob

        George, Bruce

        Clelland, David

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Cohen, Harry

        Gordon, Mildred

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Corbett, Robin

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Grocott, Bruce

        Cousins, Jim

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        587

        Haynes, Frank

        Pendry, Tom

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Pike, Peter L.

        Henderson, Doug

        Prescott, John

        Hinchliffe, David

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Randall, Stuart

        Home Robertson, John

        Redmond, Martin

        Hood, Jimmy

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Richardson, Jo

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Robertson, George

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Illsley, Eric

        Ross, William (Londonderry E)

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Ruddock, Joan

        Kilfedder, James

        Salmond, Alex

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Lamond, James

        Sheerman, Barry

        Leighton, Ron

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Litherland, Robert

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Livsey, Richard

        Short, Clare

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Sillars, Jim

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Skinner, Dennis

        Loyden, Eddie

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        McAllion, John

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

        McAvoy, Thomas

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

        McCartney, Ian

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Snape, Peter

        McFall, John

        Soley, Clive

        McGrady, Eddie

        Spearing, Nigel

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        McKelvey, William

        Steinberg, Gerry

        McNamara, Kevin

        Stott, Roger

        McWilliam, John

        Straw, Jack

        Madden, Max

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Maginnis, Ken

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

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Marek, Dr John

        Turner, Dennis

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Vaz, Keith

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Wall, Pat

        Martlew, Eric

        Wallace, James

        Maxton, John

        Walley, Joan

        Meacher, Michael

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Meale, Alan

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'L & Bute)

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Wilson, Brian

        Morley, Elliot

        Winnick, David

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Mullin, Chris

        Worthington, Tony

        Murphy, Paul

        Wray, Jimmy

        Nellist, Dave

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        O'Brien, William

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Mr. Martyn Jones and

        Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

        Mr. Ray Powell.

        Patchett, Terry

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New clause 26

        INCOME SUPPORT IN RESPECT OF ACCOMMODATION CHARGES FOR CERTAIN PERSONS IN RESIDENTIAL CARE AND NURSING HOMES
        'In section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation of income-related benefits) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted
        "(2A) In prescribing, for the purposes of income support, amounts under subsection (1) above in respect of accommodation in any area for qualifying persons in cases where prescribed conditions are fulfilled, the Secretary of State shall take into account information provided by local authorities or other prescribed bodies or persons with respect to the
        588
        amounts which they have agreed to pay for the provision of accommodation in relevant premises in that area.
        (2B) In subsection (2A) above—
        "accommodation" includes any board or care;
        "local authority" has the same meaning as it has in Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948;
        "qualifying person" means any person such as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section 26A of that Act (which is inserted by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and relates to persons ordinarily resident in residential care or nursing homes immediately before the commencement of that section);
        "relevant premises" has the meaning given by subsection (2) of that section.".'
        Brought up, and read the First time.—[Mr. Newton.]
        Mr. Newton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider new clause 14—Persons in residential care and nursing homes—
        '(1) The Secretary of State shall review the amounts specified in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Part I of Schedule 4 to the Income Support (General) Regulations as soon as practicable, in order to determine whether they are adequate, having regard to the reasonable cost of providing suitable accommodation, board and suitable personal care for the persons concerned, and shall lay before Parliament a report on his conclusions and the evidence on which they are based.
        (2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that any of those amounts are not adequate, he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an up-rating order substituting such amounts as he considers adequate, which may include different amounts for different areas, and, if the draft order is approved by a resolution of each House, he shall make the order in the form of the draft.
        (3) The provisions of an order under this section shall come into force on the day on which the order is made.
        (4) Subject to subsection (5) below, if a claimant to whom regulation 19(1) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 applies or, on his behalf, the proprietor of the home in which he lives applies to an adjudication officer for a review of the appropriate amount determined in his case for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 4 to those regulations on the grounds that that amount is not sufficient to enable him to pay a reasonable charge for suitable accommodation, board and suitable personal care provided in that home, the adjudication officer shall refer the questions whether that amount is sufficient for that purpose and, if not, what higher amount would be sufficient to a social security appeal tribunal for determination.
        (5) If an adjudication officer to whom an application has been made under subsection (4) above is of the opinion that he can determine the questions mentioned in that subsection by reference to—

        (a) a determination made by a tribunal under that subsection in the case of another claimant living in the same home, or

        (b) the advice of a local authority with knowledge of the home in question, he may determine those questions instead of referring them to a tribunal.

        (6) If a tribunal to which a question has been referred under subsection (4) above determines that the amount determined by the adjudication officer is not sufficient, or an
        adjudication officer so determines under subsection (5) above, the adjudication officer shall review his determination of the appropriate amount, substituting the higher amount determined by the tribunal or by him.'.
        Mr. Newton: During my speech I shall comment on the three strands of the Government's response to some of the concerns expressed during the debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill two weeks ago, and also on a particular point made in the report of the

        589
        Select Committee on Social Services on the need for greater information about the costs and charges of residential care homes.
        As the House is aware, under the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, the Government's intention is that, from 1 April 1991, local authorities will negotiate prices with voluntary organisations and home owners before making a contract for places in residential care and nursing homes for new cases arising after that time. Obviously, to make a contract, both parties to the agreement—the local authorities and the voluntary organisations or home owners—will have to be satisfied that the prices are fair.
        During an extensive debate on the anxieties about the position that might arise between those whose care would be organised under the new arrangements and those whose support would continue to be made under the preserved income support entitlement under the existing regime, a number of hon. Members—including, not least, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)—suggested that those prices resulting from a contractual arrangement should be used by the Department in setting the appropriate income support limits for those with preserved rights to income support.
        I shall not attempt to repeat everything that' I said during that debate, other than that I could envisage some difficulties in simply taking any price that any local authority negotiated for any person in any home and making that the automatic setting of the level for income support in that home. I think that I carried many of my hon. Friends with me on that and also in my criticisms of the Opposition's new clause that we were then debating.
        As I promised when replying to that debate, since then I have carefully considered the suggestions made. In particular, I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Acton an assurance that if, on examination, it appeared that an amendment to social security law was required to ensure that I could respond properly in taking account of what emerged from local authority negotiations, I would table an amendment to this Bill, as it is the last practicable opportunity to introduce such a power before the community care charges take effect in April 1991. That is why I have tabled the new clause, which ensures that I can act along the lines urged in taking account of what emerges from local authority negotiations with voluntary organisations and home owners in setting the income support rates.
        The power that I am taking in the new clause is designed to help me to set up a system of local limits, if need be. In setting such limits, I want to have regard to both the charges being met by local authorities in homes and also, perhaps, the charges being met by other bodies such as the voluntary sector. In fairness to my hon. Friends, whose concern I understand and respect, I am not saying that it would necessarily be possible to make use of those powers at the absolute starting point in April 1991.
        It is clear that we shall need to gain experience of what local authorities are negotiating. For a long time, there may be many homes in which local authorities have not negotiated and have not placed people. It would be foolish of me to suggest that we can suddenly produce a wholesale change in the system at the point of changeover. However, once we have adequate information on the scale required, the new clause will give me the power to respond in the way
        590
        suggested by many of my hon. Friends. We shall be talking to local authority associations, as soon as possible, about how local authorities can help us in that respect.
        I will be brief in relation to my next point, because our time for debate is limited and many hon. Members want to speak. I want now to consider a need that goes beyond the need for information about what local authorities actually do. I want to consider the need, which I accept, for more and better information about the true costs of running residential care and nursing homes. In particular, the Select Committee on Social Services has recommended that we should commission an early study into that. As I said in our debate on 13 March, I fully accept the force of that request; I hope to approve the commissioning of the necessary research in the near future, and I will let the Select Committee and the House have further details as soon as I can.
        9.45 pm
        My comments so far have responded to the overt purpose of the new clause in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill that was debated two weeks ago. I have responded to suggestions made then about the social security regime in the wake of the community care changes being introduced in April 1991 and also to the request made by the Select Committee on Social Services.
        One of the striking things about the debate on that new clause two weeks ago was that much of what was said, especially—but not only—by my hon. Friends, was not directed to the overt purpose of that new clause, which was concerned with the post-1991 regime. Comments then reflected a wide measure of concern about the income support limits in the present year, quite apart from what the position might be after April 1991.
        As the House knows, the income support limits are due to be increased in virtually all cases by £10 a week in a fortnight's time. For example, that will take the basic residential care home limit to £173 a week in Greater London and £150 a week elsewhere. It will take the basic nursing home limit to £223 in Greater London and £200 a week elsewhere.
        In all, this year's increases will be the biggest since November 1985, at a cost of £100 million. They take the expected total of income support in such cases in 1990–91 to well over £1,100 million. That is a substantial rise, which will undoubtedly help to ease some of the pressures reflected in our debates. However, I have carefully considered whether there is more that I can appropriately do when, as I said to the House in the earlier debate, the information currently available does not provide a sufficiently secure base for more detailed geographical or local variation or for further fine tuning between different categories of case or home.
        It is clear from all the information available, whether anecdotal or from representations that we have received, that the pressure on nursing homes is greater than that on residential care homes. That is understandable, in view of the scale of the increases in nursing pay which have taken place as a result of the Government's actions over the past two years.
        Following on from the uprating that is about to take place, I propose to make a further increase in the limits in mid-August—the earliest time consistent with sensible handling of the case load in the Department of Social Security offices. At that time, all residential care home limits will be increased by a further £5 a week, making a

        591
        total of £15 a week more than at present and taking the figure to £178 a week in Greater London and £155 a week elsewhere.
        All nursing home limits, with one exception, will be increased by a further £10 a week, making a total of £20 a week more than at present. That will take the figure to £233 a week in Greater London and £210 a week elsewhere. The one exception is that, for hospices and other cases covered by the limit relating to people who are terminally ill, the increase will be a further £15 a week, making a total of £25 a week more than now. That will take that very important limit to £283 in Greater London and £260 a week elsewhere.
        That will mean that the cost of increased limits next year will be £45 million more than the £100 million announced in my October uprating statement, giving a total increase of about £150 million compared with 1989–90. In a full year, the total cost of the impending uprating, the one due in a fortnight's time, together with the further increase that I have announced, will be about £170 million.
        Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Newton: No, not at this stage.
        The additions that I have announced can be accommodated in the existing DSS programme of over £50 billion, apart from an addition of just over £20 million from the reserve which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has agreed for 1990–91. What I have been able to say on this clause properly responds to concerns that have been legitimately and responsibly expressed in the House. I commend the new clause to the House.
        Mr. Speaker: Before we continue the debate, I must tell the House that I have selected a manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). It has been available for some time, and for the convenience of the House I shall read it out. It is: to leave out "take into account" and insert
        "determine the amounts required to meet the costs of providing such accommodation of a suitable standard by reference to".
        Mr. Meacher: This new clause was tabled at the last possible moment, late last night, a full fortnight after the matter was debated in the House. Clearly, there has been agonising over exactly what should go into it. With the exception of the extra money, which is certainly welcome and with which I will deal in more detail later, the new clause takes us very little further than the last time the issue was debated.
        What safeguards does the new clause offer? That is the key point. Of course, the Government will consider the information that is provided by local authorities on the charges that they consider acceptable, but they do not need a new clause to do that. The measure does not do anything for those who are facing shortfalls and possible eviction in the immediate future. The Secretary of State, who is always a fair man on such issues, was good enough to make that clear.
        The new clause will not come into effect until April 1991 and that will be too late to help people either this April or next April. The question that was asked on Second Reading continues to be relevant and it is about who will
        592
        meet the shortfall in the meantime. Above all, the new clause does not give any guarantees that it will meet the level of payment agreed between local authorities and homes. It says that the Secretary of State will take the information into account. We certainly wish him to do that, but above all the House wishes him to act on it and there is no specific commitment in the new clause that makes it clear that he will.
        For those reasons the new clause does not give security to the 176,000 sick and elderly people who could face eviction because the Secretary of State is not guaranteeing that they will not be evicted. That is the crucial criterion. It was the criterion on Second Reading and it remains the criterion on which each hon. Member should base his judgment. It does nothing to stop homes charging more for residents not covered by agreements with local authorities, which is another point.
        As I have said, we welcome the extra money. That is certainly important. The Secretary of State has said that the residential care limits rise by £5 over and above what he stated before and the amount for nursing homes will rise by £10 and for hospices by £15. While that is welcome, he must be aware that the gap that has to be filled is often about £30, £40 or even £60.
        What matters is not whether assistance is given to make up the shortfall but whether it is enough to prevent the eviction of the elderly person. Although the money is welcome, I suspect that it will not serve that purpose in many cases.
        New clause 14 requires the Secretary of State to review the income support limits for residential and nursing homes and to enable adjudicating officers and appeal tribunals to decide that the limits should be exceeded, when necessary, to meet reasonable charges for suitable accommodation. To some extent, the Government are following our lead, but the crucial difference is that they are holding back from a commitment to solving the problem.
        There are two elements in our new clause: first, the Secretary of State's review of the limits could and should be done straight away. Both sides of the House agree that there is no need to wait until 1991. We also believe that the Government have a duty to review the limits, for two reasons. The explosion in the number of people in those homes is the result of Government policy. In the early 1980s the Government did not provide the cash for local authorities that was needed for community care, and they encouraged people to go into private care on the understanding that the costs would be covered by social security. Moreover, since 1985 the income support limits have been uprated by less than is required to cover increasing costs. This April's £10 increase, now raised to £15, is still less than inflation requires.
        During the community care debate the Secretary of State said that we need more and better information, and he undertook to present proposals to the Select Committee. We welcome that; it is obviously needed. But we do not believe that the collection of information should be used to stall. There is enough information already to show that some safeguards should be provided. The Government have admitted to the Social Services Select Committee that no fewer than 42 per cent. of people in care and in receipt of income support live in homes that charge more than the income support limits. So tonight we are discussing the fact that two in five of these people face a shortfall. I shall not repeat this at length, because we have already discussed it, but that is not a matter of

        593
        unreasonable charges. The National Federation of Housing Associations found that most of the homes that it surveyed, which were not profit-making, had shortfalls of £30 or more, and one in five had a shortfall of £60. Those figures should be taken carefully into account alongside those that the Minister gave earlier.
        The second part of our new clause ensures that an adjudicating officer or tribunal will have the power to exceed income support limits. The Government say that adjudication officers do not have the capacity to determine reasonable charges, on the ground that when they had that job in 1985 they came up with wildly differing levels in various parts of the country. Surely, however, the answer lies in guidelines and assistance from local authorities. The problem will apply only for this year, because as from April 1991—we are agreed on this—officers and tribunals will have the local authority-agreed charges as a guideline. The Government new clause says that the Secretary of State will take those levels into account, but what is wrong with adjudicating officers and tribunals doing the same?
        While we welcome the Secretary of State's statement, having reviewed the matter with extreme care, we do not believe that it goes far enough—a view that may be widely shared. For all those reasons we intend to press new clause 14 to a Division when the time comes, because it alone guarantees protection against eviction for 176,000 elderly people in residential and nursing homes. We should prefer to press our manuscript amendment to a Division. I sought to achieve the same purpose by tabling it, because it advances protection for elderly residents in a way that I believe commands majority support in the House. Our preference is to vote on that. If for any reason we cannot do so, we shall press Government new clause 26 to a Division because it does not go far enough. It is far too late to say that the Secretary of State shall take into account relevant information. That ignores the spirit and intention of the Division in the House a fortnight ago. Above all, it does not provide security against eviction, which it is unforgivable for any civilised Government to withhold from frail and needy elderly people.
        10 pm
        Sir Anthony Grant: Two weeks ago, it was with great regret that I found myself in the unusual position of being unable to support the Government. I was deeply distressed that, in my constituency, nursing home proprietors were subsidising unfortunate elderly people. I was even more appalled that, if nothing was done, those old people could be evicted. That was the reason for my speech and vote.
        I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has come to the House with a solution. We should recognise the struggle that he has had. We all know that, at the end of the day, one must do battle with the Treasury. I give complete credit to my right hon. Friend for responding to the views expressed on both sides, doing battle with the Treasury and winning that battle. For that reason, we should respond appropriately.
        Unlike the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I am not worried that the Minister
        "shall take into account information provided by local authorities".
        That is precisely what I wanted him to do in the previous debate. Those words fulfil my wishes. I understand that there is to be a gap until April 1991, but we now know that more money will be available and that it is a sensible
        594
        amount, so appropriate arrangements can be made. I hope and believe that nursing homes and residential homes in my constituency can tide over the gap if necessary, as 1 hope, with some assistance from the county council. In any event, they can inform the Minister of that.
        Costs are high in London, but let us not disregard the fact that in some parts of East Anglia, as my right hon. Friend will know, particularly Cambridgeshire, costs are high and obtaining nursing staff is difficult. Therefore, I ask him to consider the geographical position carefully.
        The problem has been going on for some time. I have a file of correspondence going back a long time. It is not a new problem. It is only right that we should recognise the Secretary of State's efforts. This is the House at its best. The will of the House has been expressed, and the Minister has responded to it. In those circumstances, I can best respond by saying that I shall support the Government tonight. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do likewise.
        Mr. John Battle: We are interested to know precisely how the Secretary of State reached the present figure, other than by emergency pressure. 1 wish to put to him some details which may seem to be a side issue, but which are crucial for working out the figure.
        On 24 January, during a debate on residential homes instigated by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security pointed out:
        "The national limits are not rates, but maximum allowances towards fees. In addition, we provide an allowance for personal expenses or pocket money … I must emphasise that it has never been the policy of this Government—nor could it be the policy of any Government—to undertake to meet all fees charged by homes, however high they may be. We set the limits with due regard not only to the interests of the residents and the homes concerned, but also to the interests of the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 24 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 1028-9.]
        I remind the Secretary of State that he may like to have a conversation with the Secretary of State for the Environment. In precisely that context, the housing benefit legislation means that there is no limit on the rents that private landlords can charge people on income support and housing benefit and the amounts that must be repaid to those private landlords.
        Mr. Newton: This is about the third time that the lion. Gentleman has made that point. He is wrong. There are powers to restrict the payment of housing benefit where the rent officer judges that it is an excessive rent—I do not wish to be held to the exact words, but no doubt I can get further advice—and they are often used.
        Mr. Battle: The Secretary of State identifies the exact problem, because the words are crucial. If he checks the legislation, he will see that the words are not "excessive rents" but "market rents". I accept that this point is somewhat to the side of this debate, but we put this question during the housing debate. The amount depends on what the capital values are, because that may blow the budget of the Department of Social Security sky high. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that fact.
        Mr. Newton: I shall try to avoid intervening again, because I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Frankly, this is a slight side-step to the debate. I am told

        595
        by that process of curious osmosis by which information reaches Ministers in these circumstances that the words used are rents "which are unreasonably high".
        Mr. Battle: We shall watch with interest what happens in the private rented sector and how much housing benefit is paid out by the DSS for rents that are excessive in the terms that the Government have laid out in their legislation to remove controls on rents. Without the controls, obviously the Government are in some difficulty.
        I tabled a question to the Secretary of State asking "what regulations govern the administration and use of the pocket money element in the board-and-lodging allowance". The reply stated:
        "Applicable amounts payable for persons in independent residential care and nursing homes are prescribed by Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, as amended. They include an amount in respect of personal expenses which is at present £10·05 each week. The regulations do not prescribe how that allowance is to be used, as this is a matter for the claimant."—{Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 123.]
        The difficulty is that the money never gets to the claimants because the allowance is deducted by the costs of the place at which they reside.
        I received a letter from a Leeds constituent, who said that she wanted to write about
        "the case of my Mother-in-law, who will be ninety-seven in May, and is living in a Residential Home in … Leeds.
        It was the only Home available, at the time she needed to be taken care of, and there are only three ladies residing there as the person in charge cannot accommodate any more, but it is registered.
        The two other ladies residing there do get a little pocket money, as they share a room, but when Mother went there, there was only a single room, and was more expensive, so therefore she was not entitled to any pocket money. The fee then was £140-00 per week. Last year at the pension rise, we thought she would be entitled to a bit of money then—but no —the fee went up to £150-00—therefore Mother was entitled to no pocket money again. This year I expect will be the same…
        We have to provide Mother with Pocket Money and clothing, which has to include hairdressing and chiropody."
        Page 19 of chapter 14 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans" for the Department of Social Security, under the heading "Proposals for changes to benefits to long-term sick and disabled people", states:
        "the hospital personal expenses allowance for single people receiving income-related benefits will increase from £8·70 to £11·75. This will benefit pensioners and other single people as well as sick and disabled people."
        Why has the pocket allowance for those in residential homes not been increased? More seriously, what guarantee do we have that the pocket money will not become part of the cost of board and lodging, so that in practice the money is never recieved?
        It is for the Secretary of State to say clearly that the money that his Department has earmarked for pocket money will not be absorbed in fees. If that were to happen, it would mask hidden costs. I accept that the Department says in good faith that the money is for the use of clients, to be used as they wish. That is why it should not be salted away to cover the cost of fees. May we have an assurance that the money allocated for personal pocket expenses will be used for that purpose and not for board and lodging costs, thereby appearing to reduce those costs?
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the clearly expressed view of the
        596
        House two weeks ago. It could not be right to cover the costs of people who will in future enter residential care and nursing homes and not cover the costs of those already in such homes. I am glad that my right hon. Friend recognised the anomaly and corrected it. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) said and I say to my right hon. Friend: well done, you fought a good battle and you won.
        Mr. Kirkwood: Welcome though the provisions in the new clause are, they do not go far enough, for the reasons that have been stated. The people operating residential homes, certainly in my area, face a difficult problem in trying to bridge the gap between a shortage of funds now and the time when tonight's announcement will bear fruit.
        The Secretary of State was candid enough to say that it will take time before the assessments are studied and the results work through to local authorities. In terms of the solution that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced, that is bound to be so, but he should be more forthcoming by saying how long it will take him to act, should he find that the evidence reaching him is not to his liking. Should the evidence show that a need exists, will it take weeks, months or years before he will be able to remedy the situation?
        It could be a year or 18 months before the Government get round to taking action. Should that be the case, many residential homes in my area might go out of business. It would not be a question of evicting some elderly residents already in homes. That would be bad enough. Some residential homes are unable to make ends meet now.
        I am thinking of homes in my constituency which look after the needs of the demented elderly, a difficult group for whom to care. Some nursing homes do an excellent job in looking after their needs, and considering that they are already finding it difficult to make ends meet, one wonders how long it will take for the extra assistance to work its way through. They already say that it will take time before the community care provisions, through local authorities, come on stream. The help to come from the Government's new proposals, if there is any, may take 18 months or two years to appear, and that gap is worrying nursing homes.
        I would be more sanguine about the new clause and the prospects of the help that we are told it will bring if the Secretary of State could be more reassuring in that respect. I accept that it is a move forward. If the new clause is to mean anything, the Government will find themselves being forced to use it heftily if we are to meet the difficulties that are being faced by many residents and home operators.
        10.15 pm
        Sir David Price: I did not speak on the new clause last week, for the very simple reason that the Select Committee on Social Services, of which I am a member, had produced a short report, which I hope assisted the House in coming to the conclusion that it came to. As to the gap between what people receive in income support and the costs that they have to meet, we know that there are quite substantial regional variations. This was identified by the Committee, and in this regard we are completely at one with my right hon. Friend. There can be variations even within a region, depending on whether a home is owned outright or is being paid for through a mortgage.
        We welcome my right hon. Friend's response. However as has been said by several hon. Members, there will still

        597
        be a shortfall. In this regard, I am particularly concerned about nursing homes. As one or two hon. Members have pointed out, nursing home costs have gone up rather more substantially because of the improved pay for nurses. It seems to me that there is a very simple solution. This suggestion was not in the Committee's report— simply offer it personally. Where this difficulty arises, especially in the intervening months—before implementation of my right hon. Friend's proposals—the district health authority should be allowed to top up. Often we are talking about £30 or £40 a week. My understanding is that, under Treasury rules, the district health authority could take over total responsibility and pay the lot, but is not allowed to top up. In the past, I had correspondence with the Department of Health and Social Security about this matter. As the DHSS has now been split into two Departments, what I am suggesting should not give rise to any ill feeling. The difference between the amount of the top-up and what it would cost the district health authority to take a person into a geriatric ward is very substantial indeed. I shall not detain the House by giving figures to demonstrate cost variations, as I can see that my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend are both very aware of them.
        Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should observe wryly that, whereas two weeks ago, as the Social Security Secretary, I got drawn somewhat unexpectedly into the debate on a health Bill, my hon. Friend is now seeking to draw my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health into a social security Bill. I am happy to leave my right hon. and learned Friend to consider my hon. Friend's proposal.
        Sir David Price: My right hon. Friend will know that, whatever happens in Whitehall, health care in the real world is a continuum. I defended the Government's decision to deal with care in the community and the National Health Service in the same Bill. So we are on the same side. Of course, the common enemy is Treasury rules. I refer not to the best use of public resources, but simply to the fact that the Treasury operates on the basis of its own liturgical rules, rather than on the basis of cost-effectiveness. In terms of cost-effectiveness, we could avoid difficulties over individual cases where the district health authority is willing to take up the difference. Under the existing nursing homes legislation, the district health authority is responsible for inspecting homes, so it knows them. Therefore, the fears of some of us about excessive charges and about care being inadequate are dealt with already because homes are registered and inspected by the DHA.
        I leave that thought with my right hon. Friend. I am delighted that he accepted the Select Committee's proposal that there should be detailed studies of the variations in costs, with a view to producing a more coherent formula. The Committee identified the problem, and I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. But the problem will not go away; it is with us for keeps. The higher the rate of inflation, the more urgent is the problem. While I am thankful for my right hon. Friend's immediate response, I have to say—though I do not want to sound depressing —that this is not the end of the story.
        Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I want to ask the Minister two specific questions about the announcement that he made on the new clause. He may remember that I
        598
        raised with him on Second Reading the plight of war widows in nursing homes and residential homes. Although a constituent of mine had received the extra £40 from the Government, and although a promise had been made in the Chamber that it would be untouched by any decisions about income support, she lost all the £40 increase in her war widows' pension because of the regulations on income support. I am pleased to tell the Minister that the Department agreed to disregard the £40 and to increase her income support to match her nursing home fee. I do not know how that happened, but is it now a general rule? From now on, will the £40 given to war widows be disregarded in calculations for income support?
        Mr. Newton: The point is so specific that it is probably sensible for me to respond to it immediately. I am a little puzzled by what the hon. Lady has said. The increase of £40 is not to be paid to pre-1973 war widows until next month. Certainly her constituent could not have it in January. I can assure the hon. Lady that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said at the time, and as I have subsequently carried into regulations, the whole of the £40 is to be disregarded for the purposes of all income-related benefits. It will not apply to housing benefit, income support or family credit, although probably that will not apply to war widows.
        Ms. Primarolo: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. I am sure that he appreciates that many nursing homes notify in advance increases in charges and that the increases normally take effect in April to coincide with increases in benefit. I agree that war widows' pensions should be protected. I want to know how the shortfall in fees will be made up to ensure that the increase in pension will not be incorporated in the fee.
        My second point relates to the fact that people are on income support because they have no other income. I see the Minister shaking his head. Income support is paid to top up income to make payments to nursing homes. In many instances the top-up of income support does not equal the cost of the nursing home fees. That point has been made frequently in the House.
        Even taking into account the Minister's announcement, in Avon there will still be a shortfall of £15, £20, £25, or £30, depending on the location of the home. Will the Minister explain the position to the House so that we may tell our constituents who still have a shortfall what they should do about it? If the welfare state cannot act as a safety net for the most vulnerable and needy in society, what does it exist for? Perhaps the Minister will tell us how his Department intends the shortfall to be made up in the interim, because many people will still not have enough money to pay their nursing home fees.
        Mrs. Peacock: I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. Two weeks ago, like many of my colleagues, I went into the Opposition Lobby on an amendment. I greatly appreciate what my right hon. Friend said. Obviously, he listened carefully to many of his Back-Bench colleagues on that occasion.
        I have one or two worries. Some hon. Members may have never seen anyone suffering from Alzheimer's disease. I think that it is the most frightening thing that could happen to an individual. Sufferers need special care and their families cannot cope. It is not a matter of them putting Grannie or Grandpa away. It is impossible to cope with someone in that state.

        599
        In Yorkshire there are some specialised homes that can care for such people. Nursing homes send people out and say, "We can't cope," and we know that there have been examples of that. The specialised homes are residential care homes, not nursing homes. Because they provide 24-hour specialised care, their costs are high. A young family living in my constituency have such a problem. The husband, who is a bus driver, is working all the hours God sends to raise an extra £35 per week to pay for his mother-in-law, who needs to be cared for, and they have three young children. We spend so much money on benefits that it cannot be right that such a family should be excluded and have to find the amount somehow or another. Will the Minister consider that carefully? I fear that that old lady will end up out on the street when her family cannot provide £35 or that they will have to make their children do without shoes to provide it. Residential care and nursing homes do not incur such huge costs.
        600
        There is also a problem when pensioners, who are often in their early 60s, and on their own, have to try to provide for one or two parents who are in their 90s and live in residential care homes. Those pensioners do not have the money to pay. One lady brought her bank statement to me, and she had 22p left in the bank. She needs to find £45 to pay for her father, who is 92.
        There must be provision in the system to help such people this week and next week, but we have not found it yet. I appreciate that the increases in August were a tremendous help, and that the rules that come into effect next April will help, but the families that I have described are at their wits' end. That may result in nervous breakdowns caused by worry about their parents.
        Given the amount of money that we spend, we should be able to help such people in the interim period. I plead with the Minister to consider specific cases or to give an idea of what hon. Members could do to help those who are waiting to see what he says tonight.
        Mr. Brian Wilson: I appreciate the announcement tonight, and I think that it is a major step forward. I cannot imagine why Conservative Members, who came into the Opposition Lobby to vote a couple of weeks ago and who find that they have something to be thankful for tonight, do not come into our Lobby more often. It seems to have been a worthwhile exercise.
        Like other hon. Members who represent coastal constituencies, I became aware a few years ago of the extraordinary proliferation of nursing homes. Out of curiosity, I tabled a written question 18 months ago asking how levels of income support had increased. As far as I know, that was the first time that it emerged that residential care had become a billion-pound industry—it had gone from £82 million in 1979 to £1 billion 10 years later. That spiral cannot simply go on indefinitely. We must bear in mind that it was public policy to create that new industry—private residential homes—and to concentrate so many resources in that kind of accommodation, and into income support payments for people in them.
        The tragedy was that, having created that huge expenditure, the Government took fright. The pace of increase in income support has not been sufficient to keep up with the costs of the homes which were created during the great boom period. The Minister has to live with that reality now, as future Ministers will have to.
        The Minister would do well to listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who seemed to speak a lot of sense on the subject. The new clause still has a blanket approach, although it is now within local authority areas. The problem is that we are talking not about problems arising out of what is charged in a town or a district health board area, but about individuals and specific homes. I am sure that Conservative Members will find out as they go along that the wonder of the poll tax is that one discovers that one is not dealing with categories of 1 million people or 100,000 people; every case throws up different circumstances and different individual problems to be dealt with.
        10.30 pm
        Let me describe the kind of problems that I have come across in my constituency. An elderly person is living quite happily in a home until it is taken over by another company, which decides that it does not want to operate a run-of-the-mill home on basic charges but, rather, an up-market de luxe nursing home. The prices go shooting up. The elderly person, who has previously been able to meet the cost of his care, suddenly finds that there has been a large increase in the amount for which he is being asked. Would the new clause meet that happenstance? The new cost of the home might be out of the normal order of things in that particular area and the general rate that the local authority applied in the area might not cover the case of a person caught by such a change of ownership.
        Similarly, as the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) said, there are exceptional cases in which costs are higher because the level of nursing care is higher. Within one area—whether it is a local authority area or a district health authority area—a great range of circumstances may pertain.
        That takes us back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said. The owners of the homes identify an average shortfall of about £40 per
        602
        person per week. At the most generous estimate, what the Minister proposes will go perhaps halfway towards meeting that shortfall. But everything is relative. For a poor person—a person who does not have extraneous income—it does not really matter whether the figure is £20 or £40 a week. It is a substantial shortfall, and if the person has no means to fill the gap, the problem remains the same.
        I welcome the proposals that the Minister has announced—I am not being churlish about them—but the problem remains that people will set a level of charge and many of the clients will not be able to meet it. On the other hand, a blanket approach does not meet the problem either. It takes us back to the initial dilemma to which I referred—that the global sum just goes on increasing and in some cases all that one is doing is encouraging homes to increase charges, for a quality of service that is not necessarily provided.
        Putting those two arguments together, it seems to me that there is a case for the flexibility for which the hon. Member for Eastleigh argued. That may be a big task; such a system may be difficult to administer. But it will mean that there will be an officer in each area looking at specific cases and the genuine human problems and trying to solve them case by case.
        I am grateful for the money that has been awarded, which will come as a relief to many people. The new clause is a step in the right direction and a response to what the whole House voted for a fortnight ago. But the Minister will have to go further—and future Ministers will have to go further—to meet the specific cases to which the problem gives rise.
        Sir George Young: I shall be brief, because there are other Conservative Members who deserve to be heard—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who spoke with such emotion on the subject only two weeks ago. Like other Conservative Members, two weeks ago I voted against the Government and for the all-party amendment. I did so reluctantly, although I make no apology for it, because unless we used the most powerful means available to Back Benchers—voting—there could be no guarantee that we should get a response.
        Having said that, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has listened to the arguments and responded to the debate. In two weeks, which is a very short time scale for Whitehall, he has responded with the new clause before us today. He had to do that against a very difficult economic background. We have had a restrictive Budget, with the downward pressure on expenditure to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred. Against such an economic background, to negotiate this sum of money from the Treasury in such a short time was a genuine achievement, for which my right hon. Friend deserves full credit.
        I am delighted with new clause 26, because it embraces the principle for which many of us spoke two weeks ago —using local authority contracts as the basis for income support. The new clause gives the Department the power to validate the price negotiated between the local authority and the home as the basis for income support, which is the right long-term solution.
        There is no advantage in Opposition new clause 14, which is wholly bureaucratic—involving tribunals and adjudicating officers—by comparison with the Government's solution. My right hon. Friend mentioned

        603
        the time scale. If a local authority makes good progress this year and negotiates a series of contracts to come into effect in 1991, will my right hon. Friend's Department be able to use those contracts in setting the income support level in that local authority's area—or does he propose waiting until the system is nationally tested before allowing progress at a local level?
        In the debate of two weeks ago, it was no part of the proposed new clause to insist on extra help being provided this year. Certainly I did not make that demand in my own speech. I regard as a bonus the additional assistance that my right hon. Friend announced tonight for nursing and residential care homes from August, which will help in cases where the shoe is pinching.
        New clause 26 is an honourable response from an honourable man, and I hope that the House will support it.
        Mr. Allen McKay: I ask the Secretary of State a straight question, and I hope that he will give a straight answer. Who pays? Although we are grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's announcement tonight, it must be seen as an exercise in damage limitation, being the minimum action required to satisfy the Secretary of State's right hon. and hon. Friends.
        The problem remains this year, as it will next year, that there is a gap between the amount charged and what can be claimed. Who will pay the difference? In some cases, it will be the relatives of the individual concerned—but often they themselves will be pensioners. Increasing life expectancy means that many residents of nursing and residential homes are aged 85 or 90, and have relatives who are themselves pensioners and unable to meet any additional costs. In other cases, relatives have moved from the area—which may be the reason why an individual was placed in a home in the first place.
        In both the Local Government and Housing Bill and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, responsibility is ultimately placed in the hands of the local authority, which will have to undertake a case study and determine, through the officer concerned, what form of care is to be provided—care in the community or care in the home. So in many cases the local authority will have to pay the difference if the Department refuses to do so. I hope that Conservative Members will think about that when they vote tonight.
        There is little use taking a local authority to task or placing limitations on its level of poll tax if at the same time the Government deliberately load it with the responsibility for meeting the gap between charges and the money available from central Government. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister for Social Security undertake to hold consultations with local authorities, and confirm that funding will be available for them to make up any difference?
        The Government have brought the problem upon themselves. When they came to power, they decided to encourage private nursing and residential care homes, which was fair enough. But the bill has to be paid, and instead of ducking, weaving, dodging and bobbing we should be honest and above board. Let us ensure that payment stops finally with the Government of the day.
        We must care for those who find themselves in homes, so let us eradicate the problems, worries and concerns that
        604
        face those who are in homes and their relatives. So many families are bending over backwards to try to find the charges. I believe that we can pull together within a proper system. It is right and proper that responsibility should rest with local government, but central Government should ensure that adequate funding is available.
        Miss Ann Widdecombe: The new clause comes as a great reassurance and considerable relief to those who have been campaigning for such a provision for the past year. The question asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House is, "What happens to the existing shortfall?" I was concerned that strong pressure to evict would be the prospect if action were not taken. If those who run the homes had been faced with a long-term problem and had felt that no endeavour was being made to match the level of benefits to the level of reasonable charges, they would have had every incentive to evict quickly. Immediate relief means that they are receiving more money than hitherto, and that should help.
        The homes that face the difficult problem of servicing a large capital investment will be assisted if, in addition to the generous interim measures, there is a fall in interest rates. I feel that there is some hope for home owners. I feel also that proprietors will be much less pushed to evict than they would have been if the measures in the new clause had not been brought forward. The shortfall is of less significance than it was. A perpetual bleakness has been removed.
        Does the new clause provide a sufficient guarantee? I am reassured, first, because account is taken of both nursing and residential homes. There was much speculation that we would be confronted with action only in the nursing home sector. Secondly, the new clause provides that the Secretary of State shall, not may, take into account reasonable levels of charges. There is now, or will be, a clear obligation on the Secretary of State.
        Two questions remain, however, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Does he accept that the new clause will be a cause for future action and that it is not merely an adornment of the statute book? Secondly, does he accept that future action must commence as quickly as possible after April 1991 if we are not to find, once more, that there is pressure to evict?
        I find new clause 14 unacceptable because it places emphasis on adjudication officers. My right hon. Friend has persuaded me that that is not the right approach. As for the manuscript amendment, of which I have had sound if not sight, it provides the blank cheque that we have tried to aviod. If my right hon. Friend will give the assurance that he regards the new clause as a programme for action and not merely a reassuring sop, I think that we may trust him. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to go with him tonight.
        10.45 pm
        Mr. Merlyn Rees: I welcome what the Government have done. My concern about shortfall and future action was expressed clearly by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe).
        I do not believe that the new clause is sufficient to deal with the problems that have been brought to my notice. Half the constituency of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) was joined with half of my constituency for a long time—Batley and Morley—and,

        605
        therefore, we share the problems with former mill towns in the west riding. I should like to express the concern of my constituents.
        The new clause refers to "prescribed" bodies. I declare an interest because I am on the governing board of a Salvation Army home not far from the House. My mother was there for a long time. She was a war widow and received war widows' pension and attendance allowance but not income support.
        Over the years, I have learned about the expertise of the Salvation Army. It does marvellous work for down and outs—it will do such work tonight in London—and it has built homes and altered old buildings. Before being on the governing board, I was not aware of the expertise and professionalism of its staff.
        Whatever information the Department of Social Security receives from local authorities, the Salvation Army could provide, within weeks, a detailed report on the problems experienced in its homes. Such a report would cover a good cross-section, because the people in its homes come from a variety of backgrounds.
        The letters that I have received and the people who have come to see me cause me to worry that the sums being offered by the Government are not sufficient. I have received letters from people on low incomes whose aged parents are in homes. They are concerned that their parents will be evicted because they cannot afford to make the payments. I want to check in the next few weeks what difference the money the Government have offered will make to them. Will there still be a problem of eviction because my constituents cannot afford to pay?
        I have a constituent—a former nurse—who runs an old people's home with her husband. They are devoted to their patients and make only enough money to cover their incomes. I want to check that next year they will not lose money.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) said, we are debating not structures or statistics but the dignity of people living in old people's homes. If in the next few weeks the Minister is told by hon. Members or the Salvation Army that his figures are wrong, will he be able to act on that information in advance of 1991?
        I suspect that we are all in for a surprise. Hon. Members will receive letters and their constituents will say to them, "Thank you for what you have done. We are not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but frankly it is not enough."
        Mr. Peter Griffiths: I shall be extremely brief.
        I welcome new clause 26 and the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I suggest that the success of the arrangements between now and April 1991 will depend not only on the generosity of the Department but on the restraint and tolerance of the owners of residential care homes. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend said that we can look forward to such success.
        The advantage of new clause 26 is that after April 1991 it will not leave the cost of residential care open ended. Although two weeks ago and tonight our attention has been directed to residents who depend on income support, those who manage to pay their own fees must meet the increased costs that inevitably follow when income support is raised.
        606
        New clause 26 meets the objections that I raised two weeks ago. We should be grateful for the tolerance of home owners who will now have a better opportunity to care for our constituents.
        Mr. Newton: I wish to make two crisp points. First, I am grateful to hon. Members for their response to my proposals. Secondly, such is my mellow frame of mind that I shall even co-operate with the Opposition, who wish me to sit down a little early so that they may vote on their amendment rather than on the new clause. I shall respond as best I can to some of the points raised during the debate.
        I say to all hon. Members, but especially to the hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), that I do not think that the complexities of the position have been fully recognised in the debate. I want to explain the difficulty that I or any other Minister would face in coming forward with what would be regarded as a complete solution. As I said in our previous debate on this matter, there are two categories of shortfall with these homes. One is involuntary—where people cannot meet the charge being levied. That is the case that concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and others. The other category—there was a case in my constituency only last week—is where relatives use their freedom to top up what income support will buy because they wish to pay for more than the state can be expected to provide.
        Indeed, many of the charitable bodies have said that they do not expect the full difference between income support and their costs to be met. It is important that that is understood. I am not suggesting that they have expressed satisfaction with the present limits, but they do not demand that the full gap should be met because it is specifically part of their policy to provide a standard of amenity and the like higher than they think it reasonable for the state to be expected to pay for. They view that as a legitimate use of their charitable funds.
        I make that point only to illustrate the difficulties of pitching the figures at the right level. I am not in any way discounting the anxiety felt about the present level, to which I have sought to respond. Indeed, the increases are substantial. The debate has focused on what I shall do in August, but that should be linked with what I have already done, which will take effect next month—that is, £20 on nursing homes, £15 on residential care homes and, at the extreme,£25 for terminal illness limits.
        The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) mentioned the Salvation Army. I am prepared to take into account evidence from that body or any other reputable source, as I sought to do in making my judgments today. I shall be looking for more and better evidence when I have to make a judgment next October about the uprating from next April.
        I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that, even when not on the scale envisaged by the new clause, when information is available in advance of April 1991, I shall use it in making, my judgments at that time.
        The only point that I need to make in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone is that it will be some time—I cannot give an exact time—after April 1991 before we have comprehensive information covering a range of local authorities and a range of homes and circumstances that would make it possible to activate the new clause. I assure her that I tabled it not as a cosmetic

        607
        adornment, but as a sign of the way in which I hope to move in the future when the information is available to enable me to act in that way.
        Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State says that his new clause is not intended to be cosmetic. What guarantee can he give us that as a result of his new clause there will be no evictions after April 1991? What action does he propose to take to prevent evictions before April 1991? He has not answered either of those questions.
        Mr. Newton: The answer was given in the sensible remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone when she referred to the background to some of the anxieties about the future and about the present limits. As my hon. Friend acknowledged very fairly, on both those fronts my actions respond to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
        I owe it to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to respond to his comment about pocket money. I have undertaken to eschew the phrase "pocket money". It is really personal expenses allowance.
        The point about pocket money is not widely understood. The Department of Social Security cannot dictate how people use their pocket money. There is no question of the DSS allocating the personal expenses allowance to pay for residential home or nursing home charges. Some home owners set their charges at the expenses level above the income support rate. If I raised the income support rate, some owners—perhaps not many —would raise their charges to the same amount above the new income support rate. If I set it at £200 and the personal expenses element was £10, some owners would set the charge at £210. I cannot prevent that without controlling charges for homes or taking away an individual's right to spend personal expenses money as he or she wishes.
        My colleagues who organise the business of the House have told me that, in order to fulfil my undertaking about voting that I gave at the outset of my speech, I should curtail my remarks now. I shall do that after expressing my gratitude for the support that my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members have expressed in a very reasonable and constructive way and for the outcome that we have achieved.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time.
        Amendment proposed to the new clause: to leave out "take into account" and insert
        "determine the amounts required to meet the costs of providing such accommodation of a suitable standard by reference to".—[Mr. Meacher.]
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 326.

        Division No. 145]

        [10.57 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Allen, Graham

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Alton, David

        Barron, Kevin

        Anderson, Donald

        Battle, John

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Beckett, Margaret

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Beggs, Roy

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Beith, A. J.

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Bell, Stuart

        Ashton, Joe

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        608

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

        Home Robertson, John

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Hood, Jimmy

        Blair, Tony

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Blunkett, David

        Hoyle, Doug

        Boyes, Roland

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Bradley, Keith

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Hume, John

        Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

        Illsley, Eric

        Buckley, George J.

        Janner, Greville

        Caborn, Richard

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Callaghan, Jim

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Kennedy, Charles

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Kilfedder, James

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Cartwright, John

        Lamond, James

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Leighton, Ron

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Clay, Bob

        Lewis, Terry

        Clelland, David

        Litherland, Robert

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Livingstone, Ken

        Cohen, Harry

        Livsey, Richard

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Corbett, Robin

        Loyden, Eddie

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        McAllion, John

        Cousins, Jim

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Crowther, Stan

        McCartney, Ian

        Cryer, Bob

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Cummings, John

        Mcfall, John

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        McGrady, Eddie

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Mckay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Dalyell, Tam

        McKelvey, William

        Darling, Alistair

        Maclennan, Robert

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        McNamara, Kevin

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Mcwilliam, John

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

        Madden, Max

        Dewar, Donald

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Dixon, Don

        Marek, Dr John

        Dobson, Frank

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Doran, Frank

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Martlew, Eric

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Maxton, John

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Meacher, Michael

        Eadie, Alexander

        Meale, Alan

        Eastham, Ken

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'L & Bute)

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

        Fatchett, Derek

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Faulds, Andrew

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Morley, Elliot

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

        Mooris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Fisher, Mark

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Flannery, Martin

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Flynn, Paul

        Mullin, Chris

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Murphy, Paul

        Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Foster, Derek

        O'Brien, William

        Fraser, John

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Fyfe, Maria

        Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

        Galloway, George

        Patchett, Terry

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Pendry, Tom

        George, Bruce

        Pike, Peter L.

        God man, Dr Norman A.

        Prescott, John

        Gordon, Mildred

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Gould, Bryan

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Radice, Giles

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Randall, Stuart

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Redmond, Martin

        Grocott, Bruce

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Richardson, Jo

        Haynes, Frank

        Robertson, George

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Rooker, Jeff

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Henderson, Doug

        Ross, William (Londonderry E)

        Hinchliffe, David

        Rowlands, Ted

        Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

        Ruddock, Joan

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Salmond, Alex

        609

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Turner, Dennis

        Sheerman, Barry

        Vaz, Keith

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Wallace, James

        Short, Clare

        Walley, Joan

        Sillars, Jim

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

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

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

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

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Snape, Peter

        Wilson, Brian

        Soley, Clive

        Winnick, David

        Spearing, Nigel

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        Worthington, Tony

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Wray, Jimmy

        Stott, Roger

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Straw, Jack

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

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

        Mrs. Llin Golding and

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Mr. Ray Powell.

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Chapman, Sydney

        Alexander, Richard

        Chope, Christopher

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

        Allason, Rupert

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Amess, David

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Amos, Alan

        Colvin, Michael

        Arbuthnot, James

        Conway, Derek

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Ashby, David

        Cope, Rt Hon John

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Couchman, James

        Atkins, Robert

        Cran, James

        Atkinson, David

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Curry, David

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

        Baldry, Tony

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Day, Stephen

        Batiste, Spencer

        Devlin, Tim

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Bellingham, Henry

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Bendall, Vivian

        Dover, Den

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Dunn, Bob

        Benyon, W.

        Dykes, Hugh

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Eggar, Tim

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Body, Sir Richard

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Evennett, David

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

        Boswell, Tim

        Fallon, Michael

        Bottomley, Peter

        Favell, Tony

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Fookes, Dame Janet

        Bowis, John

        Forman, Nigel

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Forth, Eric

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Brazier, Julian

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Bright, Graham

        Franks, Cecil

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Freeman, Roger

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

        French, Douglas

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Fry, Peter

        Burns, Simon

        Gale, Roger

        Burt, Alistair

        Gardiner, George

        Butcher, John

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Butler, Chris

        Gill, Christopher

        Butterfill, John

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Carrington, Matthew

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Carttiss, Michael

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Cash, William

        Gorst, John

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Gow, Ian

        610

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Mans, Keith

        Gregory, Conal

        Maples, John

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Marland, Paul

        Grist, Ian

        Marlow Tony

        Ground, Patrick

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Grylls, Michael

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Hague, William

        Mates, Michael

        Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Hannam, John

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

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

        Mellor, David

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Meyer, Sir Antony

        Harris, David

        Miller, Sir Hal

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Mills, Iain

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Hayes, Jerry

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Hayward, Robert

        Moate, Roger

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Mooris, M (N'hampton S)

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Morrison, Sir Charles

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

        Hind, Kenneth

        Moss, Malcolm

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Holt, Richard

        Mudd, David

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Neale, Gerrard

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Nelson, Antony

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

        Neubert, Michael

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Norris, Steve

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Hunter, Andrew

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Page, Richard

        Irvine, Michael

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Irving, Sir Charles

        Patnick, Irvine

        Jack, Michael

        Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

        Jackson, Robert

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Janman, Tim

        Pawsey, James

        Jessel, Toby

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Portillo, Michael

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Price, Sir David

        Key, Robert

        Raffan, Keith

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        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

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Latham, Michael

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Rost, Peter

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Rowe, Andrew

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Ryder, Richard

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Lightbown, David

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Lord, Michael

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Shaw, Sir Micheal (Scarb')

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Shelton, Sir William

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Shersby, Michael

        Maclean, David

        Sims, Roger

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Madel, David

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        611

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Trotter, Neville

        Squire, Robin

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Viggers, Peter

        Steen, Anthony

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Stern, Michael

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Stevens, Lewis

        Walden, George

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Waller, Gary

        Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

        Ward, John

        Stokes, Sir John

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Warren, Kenneth

        Sumberg, David

        Watts, John

        Summerson, Hugo

        Wells, Bowen

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Whitney, Ray

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Wilkinson, John

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Wood, Timothy

        Thorne, Neil

        Woodcock, Dr. Mike

        Thurnham, Peter

        Yeo, Tim

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Tracey, Richard

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Tredinnick, David

        Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

        Trippier, David

        Mr. Tony Durant.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Clause added to the Bill.

      New Clause 1

        COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFIT
        'In section 22A of the 1986 Act,
        (a) at the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to the provisions of subsection (IA) below,";
        (b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        "(1A) For the purpose of determining such entitlement or such amount in any such case, the amounts of capital prescribed under section 22(6) and (7) above shall be doubled.".'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: (b), at the beginning insert—
        '(1) In section 22 of the 1986 Act, after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        "(6A) Regulations shall make provision for entitling any person to housing benefit in the form of a community charge rebate for any period in respect of which he would have been so entitled if the amount prescribed under subsection (6) above during that period had been £16,000.
        (2)'.
        (a), in new subsection (IA), leave out '22(6) and (7)' and insert '22(7)'.
        Mr. Meacher: It speaks for itself that, since 3.30 pm, we have had seven and a half hours under a Government guillotine, yet only now do we reach the first Opposition new clause. The full absurdity of the Government's guillotine is shown by the fact that we have been allocated the next 47 minutes to debate seven Opposition new clauses and amendments.
        612
        The first concerns the poll tax, and I have little doubt that it will take the full time until 12 o'clock—indeed, the debate could have gone considerably beyond that time. Everyone realises that the Chancellor's proposed concession in the Budget to alleviate poll tax bills has turned out rather less of a sweetener and more of a confidence trick, for two main reasons. The first is that the proposed formula will mean that most pensioners and others will get little or nothing extra in relief. The other is that the Chancellor simply forgot about Scotland and its right to equivalent relief over the past year. The first objection is fully redressed by new clause 1 and I invite support for it from hon. Members on both sides of the House who agree with the statement yesterday by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen):
        "It"—
        referring to the poll tax—
        "needs to be reconsidered in respect of the abatements made and the effectiveness of the transitional arrangements".— [Official Report, 27 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 243.]
        On the first point, I submit that we propose precisely the kind of reconsideration for which the right hon. Gentleman asked.
        11.15 pm
        Under the Government's proposal, most people will find when they come to claim that they will get little or nothing extra. The reason is the rule on tariff income: for every £250 in savings over £3,000, they are deemed, however unrealistically, to receive an income of £1 a week, and that reduces their poll tax rebate by 15p a week. Let me give an example of a pensioner who has just less than £16,000 in savings—presumably, the type of person that this "concession" was designed to assist. The net effect of all the deductions is that his or her poll tax rebate is reduced by £7·65 a week. I am sure that hon. Members will not closely follow these figures, but I assure them that they have been carefully checked and I am certain that they are correct. As benefit is calculated on a maximum 80 per cent. of the poll tax, this equates with a poll tax bill of £497 a year. In other words, that pensioner, who is clearly intended to be a main beneficiary of the great poll tax concession, will not get a penny unless he or she lives in one of four local authority areas in England and Wales —those with a poll tax above £497 a year. So much for the Budget special offer!
        Hon. Members will agree that many pensioners will be bitterly disappointed when they realise that the increase in the capital cut-off allows them merely to fill in a form and then have a zero rebate calculated. It is disgraceful for the Government to raise hopes as they did in the Budget and then dash them when people discover that they will get only tiny amounts of aid to offset their massive poll tax bills.
        The Government's error has been in raising the upper capital limit but not the lower limit. If the lower threshold at which deductions start had been doubled to £6,000—which is what one might expect—the value of the concession would have been greatly increased. That is precisely why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled the new clause. It effects exactly that purpose.
        Only a few days ago, in Committee, the Minister declared that a limit of £16,000 for couples was on the high side. I am glad that, after a presumably deafening outcry from the Tory heartlands, he has decided to recant. For the Government to raise the upper limit but not the lower one can only reflect one of two things—either it shows

        613
        incompetence in that they intended pensioners to get a much bigger gain from this concession, but they bungled the operation, or it shows cynicism, in that they knew well that most of the concession would be diminished or even extinguished in practice, but they wanted the political credit of at least the appearance of making a generous offer.
        I leave it to the Minister to say which of the two motivations applied. I do not know, but whichever it was, it is now in the interest of equity and reasonableness to change the formula, and on those grounds I seek support for the new clause.
        Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I, too, am keen to sort out the anomalies on this issue. I am not sure why he wants to raise the amount of capital that is disregarded, because that would create further anomalies by making people with those amounts of capital have their benefit assessed on the basis of too low an income for them.
        At present, the problem is that people with high amounts of capital up to £16,000 have a notional income for DSS purposes which is way above their actual income because of attributing 20·8 per cent. interest to every extra £1,000 of savings above £3,000. That is the £1 per week per £250—being £52 a year per £250—which is £208 a year per £1,000, and that is 20·8 per cent. interest on every extra £1,000. The problem is—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I hope I may be allowed to complete this, and I promise not to intervene later.
        The problem is that if one raises the lower limit, one is creating as big an anomaly at the bottom by assessing those people's benefit on an income which is lower than their real income. It would be better if the DSS scrapped the 20·8 per cent. interest on extra savings and stuck in annually, at uplift time, the actual interest available based on the best practice in the high street and by building societies, currently about 11 per cent. Putting it simply, if instead of the level being £1 per week per £250 it was 50p per week per £250, that would be available in every high street in Britain.
        Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. I have always thought that the tariff rate of income which suggests that one has a 20 per cent. yield on one's investments must mean that one is getting some extremely good stockbroker advice, and I doubt whether such advice is available to those on income support.
        The rate of 20 per cent. is absurd. I would not care to say what the rate should be, but I would have thought that it should be something less than half that rate, and then there would be the offsetting effect, and the damage in extinguishing the right to benefit would be that much less.
        That is a separate point and, while I do not dispute the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I hope he will agree that until the DSS makes that change, it is important to raise the lower threshold. We cannot tonight change the tariff rate of income, but the way to ameliorate the effect would be to raise the lower threshold.
        Because of the shortness of time, I will not dwell on amendment (b) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I understand, from what was said at Scottish Question Time today, that there is shortly to be a full statement on the matter from the Secretary of State for Scotland. My hon. Friends and I will he looking at that statement on three clear and
        614
        explicit criteria: the adequacy or otherwise of the extra funds that are made available; the ex gratia nature of the scheme; and how it will be ensured that those entitled receive payments retrospectively on a strictly comparable basis to those now made available in England and Wales.
        The view that rebates to alleviate the full horrific force of the poll tax should be maximised is shared on both sides of the House. We do not know whether the formula enunciated by the Chancellor in his Budget was by accident or design, but we know that raising the upper capital limit and not the lower one has the counterproductive effect of extinguishing a large proportion of the relief that presumably was intended. On that basis, I hope that new clause 1, which corrects that error, will command approval in all parts of the House.
        Mr. Hawkins: I said a moment ago that I would not speak again, because I was conscious of the guillotine, but I had not realised that no one else wanted to speak.
        I greatly welcome the fact that the Chancellor responded to representations by raising the capital limit to almost £16,000. It is now important to get the DSS rule on the interest implied in the capital changed. Sympathetic as I am to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is trying to achieve, I do not want to support the creation of another anomaly at the bottom end by assuming no interest on the first £3,000 or £6,000. That would be to underrate the income that those people with savings genuinely have. What I should like to see is a system that is neutral as between saving and not saving. The way to make the system neutral is to impute to savings the best-practice interest rate that a normal human being anywhere in Britain can earn on the high street.
        By doing that, one would, for benefit purposes, be using a person's actual income from savings, added to his actual income from other sources, and comparing the resulting figure with the benefit tables to see whether he qualified for a rebate. I have drawn to the attention of Ministers the situation of a person with savings who, before the Budget, may have had an income one third lower than that of someone who did not save. A couple could have an income of just £100 a week, made up of retirement pension and interest on savings, and fail to qualify for a rebate. Yet a couple in my area, where the poll tax is £400, could have an income of £150 a week and qualify for the rebate, so long as their income was not derived from savings. A couple with savings living on £100 a week fail to qualify, yet a couple who have not saved but whose income is 50 per cent. higher do qualify. That is a ridiculous anomaly. It is a massive penalty on savings—much too great to put right.
        While I support the Opposition's intentions, I have to point out that raising the lower limit would create anomalies similar to those that would arise from playing with the upper limit without changing the interest rate. I should like the Minister to consider a move to a neutral system—a system that would not impose a penalty on savers.
        Of course, I do not expect a considered response tonight. The way to achieve what I have in mind is to impute to capital the interest rate that can actually be achieved on the high street. Magically, at the moment, there is the lovely convenience in that, instead of being £1 a week per £250 of savings, which is the current rule, it

        615
        should be 50p a week per £250 of savings. There is an over-estimate of precisely 100 per cent. What I am suggesting would put the whole matter to rights.
        Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall be very brief. It was strange that the Minister should indicate from a sedentary position his intention to speak at the end of the debate. Many hon. Members, including myself, would have liked to hear an immediate response to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in his opening speech. This is an important debate, and I am surprised at the course that the Minister is adopting.
        The case that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) has made has considerable merit, and is worthy of consideration. Of course, it is not relevant to this new clause. Many constituents have written to ask me where they might get the rate of interest that is used as the notional figure when the DSS is calculating benefit. The hon. Member's case should be pursued and hopefully it will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
        Having listened to the Chancellor's Budget statement last week, I think it would have benefited more people if he had increased the £3,000 limit to £6,000 rather than doubled the £000 to £16,000. There is considerable merit in the new clause. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and say that the Government are prepared to accept the new clause.
        11.30 pm
        Mr. David Nicholson: I listened carefully to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) and by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). On examining the matter, I think that we should proceed on the basis of real figures in the market place.
        Shortly after the Chancellor's excellent concession in the Budget of the increase in the savings limit, I tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking what action he was taking to vary the tapers in calculating housing benefit and community charge concessions. The reply was that no change would be made in the tapers. That may be all right in regard to the community charge because the tapers are extremely low and one loses benefit slowly in relation to increases in income. But I believe that the tapers for housing benefit are much more fierce.
        Obviously the Government cannot deal with the matter in the debate, but in due course we should be given exemplification of the rebates that might be available in relation to various levels of income and capital so that we can pass the information to our constituents. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary for the written answer last autumn, which set out the income levels on which rebates were available. I found the information extremely useful when replying to queries from constituents. All hon. Members want to help their constituents as much as possible to maximise the rebates that they may get in relation to the community charge, housing benefit and other benefits.
        Mr. Timothy Raison: I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will pay serious attention to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins). It would be a strange irony if, after a Budget
        616
        which not only contained the concession of increasing the permitted amount of capital but which introduced specific savings schemes, we should persist with the notion that for every £ 250 of capital a person has he should lose £1 a week. We have seen the strengthening of the PEP scheme and the proposed introduction of the TESSA scheme. Those schemes are directed entirely towards the type of people whom we are talking about. We are trying to encourage those people to save. It is a cruel irony if people who have saved over the years find themselves taxed at a penal rate on their capital. I hope that my right hon. Friend will think seriously about the point.
        Mr. Jim Sillars: Those of us from Scotland are labouring under a great difficulty because we have not had any statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on how he intends to disburse the £4 million ex gratia payment that was announced last week. It was not announced in the House. As I understand it, it was announced at a hastily called press conference. We are not sure whether it was a Lobby meeting or a formal press conference.
        In Scotland there has been a great deal of consternation ever since about the method of handling that announcement. But here we are tonight and the Secretary of State for Scotland is "semi-detached" from the rest of us. He is not sitting on the Front Bench, where he could respond to invitations to intervene and to put the record straight. He is developing a rather shy attitude.
        The chairman of the Tory party in Scotland, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), paid a fleeting visit to the Chamber and then beat it as fast as he could. That is not characteristic of him. He is normally up front, arguing vociferously for Government policy. I am now told that he is up the back somewhere, rather than on the Front Bench where he should be.
        Our other difficulty is that we do not really know what the Government's attitude is, because each time they touch the poll tax some sort of change or a semi-U turn takes place. They would be well-advised to take on board the message contained in new clause 1, moved by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The Government are only just beginning to understand many of the problems that are developing with the poll tax south of the border that people north of the border have understood for a considerable time. When the Chancellor made his statement about poll tax rebates in the Budget I thought that it was a very strange thing to do. That statement on the upper limit of savings for rebates had absolutely nothing to do with the Budget. It was not a Finance Bill measure, and it is interesting that the legislation will come as secondary legislation from the Department of Social Security. Therefore, one can only assume that he included the measure in the Budget speech to gain political benefit at a time that looked pretty bad for the Conservative party. The great problem, if one engages in a con trick without thinking it through, is that one has to live with the consequences. I shall tell the Minister for Social Security of some of the consequences.
        An old lady constituent of mine visited me at my office in Ibrox in Glasgow. She does not have any money in the bank, but with her pension and the pension that she obtains from her husband's work she is above the limit for any rebate on the poll tax and therefore pays the full amount. After a discussion with her family and her

        617
        neighbours she came to me and said, "If they are going to give folk with £16,000 in the bank a rebate on the poll tax, then why don't I get a rebate, as I've got no money in the bank?" The logic was that she thought she must get a rebate. She was going to pay another instalment of the poll tax, but did not do so until she had had a chat with me because she was convinced that justice had to be done. She said, "I do not have £16,000. Why should I be paying the full tax? Surely I'm entitled to a rebate." She was astonished, scandalised and angry when I explained to her that it did not matter whether she had money in the bank; her income carried her above the line and there would be no rebate.
        Then I met someone else who assumed that because he has more than £8,000 in the bank—but not as much as £16,000 —he was automatically guaranteed the full rebate. When I explained the situation, there was even greater anger. Such folk read the Chancellor as they were meant to read him on that particular day. They understood that a massive concession was coming from the Government and that they should be applauding their television screens. Then the cold light of reality struck some days later and they found that there was not a penny piece of help in it for them.
        I am addressing my remarks to Conservative Back Benchers and not to the Government because, from the experience of recent weeks, it seems that the Government will respond only to pressure from them. Conservative Members might think that their crisis on the poll tax is over. I noticed in one Scottish newspaper that the Secretary of State for Scotland is alleged to have told his Cabinet colleagues that the main pressure will be put on them when people learn the level of the poll tax, and that once the bills start dropping through the letter box the anger will start dropping off. That is not true. If he told his Cabinet colleagues that, he has misled them once again. Our experience in Scotland is that it is when the bills rattle through the letter box and people are forced to decide whether to pay and how much to pay that the anger starts.
        The major problems for the Conservative party in England are yet to come. The sensible thing would be for Conservative Members to take a small step backwards, to listen carefully to what has been said on new clause 1 and to accept it as the first step towards a major reconstruction of local government finance in England and Scotland. No matter how much we tinker with the poll tax, it remains fundamentally flawed because it does not take account of people's ability to pay. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here. The message which was sent from Mid-Staffordshire, and which will be sent from Glasgow on Saturday —
        Ms. Short: The alternative is Labour.
        Mr. Sillars: If the hon. Lady is telling me that the roof tax is a sensible alternative to the poll tax, she and I will have to differ.
        Ms. Short: Surely the lesson of Mid-Staffordshire is that the only alternative to the present Government is a Labour Government.
        Mr. Sillars: Believe it or not, if we cannot win independence at the next election, I look forward to the day when we shall have a Labour Government instead of
        618
        a Tory Government in this place because I shall then have the pleasure of watching the Labour party trying to reconcile the contradictions in its policy —
        Mr. Jimmy Hood: The hon. Gentleman will not be here to watch it.
        Mr. Sillars: Whether I am here or watching it on television is immaterial. I recall a period when we had a Labour Government who were cutting the National Health Service, housing and education. How do Labour Members reconcile the policy of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, who goes around the City of London telling all those in the boardrooms that fundamentally nothing will change under a Labour Government, with Back-Bench Labour Members simultaneously telling people in housing, education and the Health Service that they will be able to allocate the additional resources? I reckon that 12 to 18 months of a Labour Government in power here will advance the cause of Scottish independence by a fair number of years.
        I return to the message of Mid-Staffordshire. Of course, I accept that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) interprets it as she has. But I think that there is another important message for the Prime Minister from Mid-Staffordshire and from the great demonstration of non-payers of the poll tax in Glasgow this Saturday. It is quite simple: if the poll tax does not go, she will have to.
        Mr. Scott: Perhaps I should explain that it seemed unnecessary for me to intervene twice in the debate. I felt that it was better to listen to the bulk of the arguments and then to respond, perhaps leaving the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen the last word in the debate. That seemed to be the most effective way in which to deal with the matter.
        I think that we can all agree on one thing—we welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement that he intended to raise the upper capital limit for income support and family credit from £6,000 to £8,000 and the upper limits for community charge and housing benefit from £8,000 to £ 16,000 from April. It is worth reminding the House that the change means that 250,000 people will be helped at a cost, in all benefits, of £120 million. That cannot be regarded by anyone who takes a fair view of matters as anything other than a significant change.
        In essence, the change was introduced to ensure that many people who save conscientiously throughout their lives should not be prevented from claiming help with community charge or with their rents, particularly in retirement. In fact, about two thirds of those who will be helped by this very welcome change announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be pensioners.
        It was suggested that people having capital in excess of £10,000 will not benefit from those changes, but nothing could be further from the truth. We estimate that 70,000 extra benefit cases, affecting 100,000 individuals, will involve capital in excess of £10,000 and that the vast majority of them will concern pensioners. There are still gainers even among those having capital of between £14,000 and £16,000. We estimate that 15,000 people in that bracket, again mainly pensioners, will also gain. That should be the starting point for our consideration of new clause 1.

        619
        11.45 pm
        The Opposition's new clause. which doubles upper and lower limits for couples only, should be rejected. We extended the upper capital limit for all claimants, and right hon. and hon. Members should be aware that the Opposition's new clause contains a serious anomaly. 1 take the example of a couple having capital greater than £8,000 and being entitled to community charge benefit. Under the Opposition's proposals, if one of them were to die, the surviving partner would not be entitled to benefit because the upper capital limit of £ 8,000 would be relevant when her benefit was reassessed_ It follows that new Clause I might deprive people of community charge benefit at a very vulnerable moment in their lives.
        The Opposition make general points, but they should think through the practical effects of their proposals. In this case, a serious anomaly would result, with widows, for example, losing entitlement to community charge benefit in the circumstances I described.
        Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Scott: No. because I want to allow time for the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to respond.
        My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) suggested that imputed interest should be taken into account rather than tariff income. That proposal would cause problems, and it would be difficult to administer. However, I am happy to discuss the implications of my hon. Friend's proposal with him to see whether those practical difficulties can be tackled. Obviously we want to monitor the results of different—
        Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
        Mr. Scott: No, because I must—
        Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Then we shall vote against the Government.
        Mr. Scott: I understand that, but the debate must end in 12 minutes. I said that I am perfectly prepared to discuss with my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak his proposals, but I assure him that they would present serious practical difficulties. If we can overcome them, I shall take his suggestions into account when we reconsider these matters in due course
        The hon. Member for Oldham, West suggested that pensioners having capital of £16,000 will not benefit unless the community charge is greater than £9·75 per week.
        Mr. Meacher indicated dissent.
        Mr. Scott: The effect of tariff income depends on other income of which the claimant is in receipt.
        Mr. Meacher: The Minister could not have been listening. I did not cite a figure of £9·75 but one of ·7·65.
        Mr. Scott: I am sorry if I misheard the hon. Gentleman. The fact remains that a pensioner aged over 75 with capital of £16,000 or other income of less than about £20 per week will still receive the maximum rebate. I repeat that about 15,000 pensioners having capital of between £14,000 and £16,.000 will still gain from the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) asked for examples of benefit entitlement. I am
        620
        only too willing to provide that information. If my hon. Friend will table a suitable question, I shall ensure that he receives examples of exemptions at different levels.
        There is still widespread misunderstanding about the precise way in which tariff income operates. It is not true that the tariff income rule reduces benefit entitlement by the same, equal amount. Where a person's income is greater than the set applicable amount only 15p per week is deducted from maximum benefit for every £1 of weekly excess income over the applicable amount.
        Hon Members have expressed concern about the interest applied by the tariff income. As I have said the benefit system has to be considered in totality. I shall give an example to the House. A person with tariff income of £25a week would not see benefit reduced by £25 a week_ The benefit would be reduced by 15 per cent. of £25 a which would be only £3·75 a week. That should be understood. It is being spread around the system that once a certain amount is exceeded there is a pound for pound reduction in benefit. That is not true. Only 15 per cent. is taken into account. I leave it to those on the Opposition Front Bench or Back Benches to speak.
        Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am appalled by the Minister of State's approach. The debate is limited to 47 minutes and it is dear that as many Conservative Members as Opposition Members wish to question him. It would have been suitable and appropriate for him to respond immediately after my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) resumed his place. The Minister would then have had the time to allow his hon. Friends to intervene. I do not understand why he is so shy about being accountable to the House. He chose to intervene shortly before midnight to promise secret discussions —it seems that they are to take place behind closed doors — in an endeavour to shut up his right hon. and hon. Friends.
        Conservative Members have cottoned on to the con of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether the percentages are 20·8, 20 or 15, those outside this place know that last week's Budget statement contained a con. Who are the 15,000 with £16,000 in the bank who will benefit? These people will have an ordinary income of less than £20 a week. Who is sitting on £16,000 with an income of less than £20 a week? We are talking of a total income of about £20 a week, not extra income.
        I shall follow with interest the questions that are tabled over the next few months to ascertain what the DSS knows about these people. Did those in the DSS know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to say, or the consequences of it? Did they understand the effect of not raising the lower limit, and especially the effect of his statement in Scotland? If they did know, did they tell the Chancellor before he made his speech? The Minister of State must know that his Department is the repository of expertise on these matters. His officials know what is happening. The problem is —this became dear during a sitting of the Public Accounts Committee last year—that they do not tell Ministers unless Ministers ask.
        We discovered that the effect of the housing benefit changes was known to all the officials. They said, "We never said anything about this, because the Ministers never asked us." The PAC took a dim view of the official who said that. The problem was that Ministers were not asking, What are the effects and the consequences of this change of policy?"

        621
        In this instance—let us concentrate on the doubling for poll tax for the moment— did Ministers ask the departmental officials what would be the effects, pitfalls and anomalies that would result from the change in policy? If Ministers do not put that question to their officials, they are not fit to be Ministers. The House knows that officials will not provide information freely unless they are asked to do so. That is a great worry to all hon. Members, and especially to members of Select Committees. I shall give way if the Minister wants to answer those questions. The House should be aware of the views of Ministers.
        Mr. Scott: Before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his announcement, he discussed it with Ministers at the Department of Social Security. We welcome, as I believe does the whole House, his announcement on the increasing of the limits.
        I respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) by asking some other questions. Does the Labour party welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to increase the limits? Does it accept that new clause 1 is incompetent and ineffective and contains anomalies? Does it accept that I am prepared to listen to my hon. Friends and to others who want to discuss this, to answer parliamentary questions and to give examples of exemptions? Does it accept that the rather superficial acceptance that 20·8 per cent. is assumed as income on capital is a misapprehension of the true position? When income from £3,000 to nought is averaged out, one gets nowhere near 20·8 per cent. When one takes account of the taper of 15 per cent. instead of 20 per cent., which operated under the rating system, it is even more beneficial. Does the Labour party, particularly the hon. Member for Perry Barr, accept those points?
        Mr. Rooker: Before the Government took office, we had a much fairer system of taking account of people's savings than capital cut-off. The Government have sought to squeeze people who have few savings and a bit of extra pension to cut benefits, and that has led to this anomaly. The anomaly will continue with benefit after benefit unless there are major changes to the policy.
        The Minister knows that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition welcomed the doubling of the limit by the Chancellor, but we are entitled to attack the consequences of making that change but not changing the lower limit. The message that that gave to the British people was not the one that the Government intended to give. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) said, the message was intended to make people think: "I am now entitled to a rebate, whereas previously I was turned down for being over the £8,000 limit. What will my rebate be?" I have had to give the same answer to my constituents as other hon. Members have had to give theirs—"The chances are that you will not get a penny piece. If you do, it will be a few bob rather than a few pounds."
        Mr. Hawkins: I know that the hon. Member would not want to mislead the House. He knows that I share his concern, but a couple under 75 with savings of £16,000 —a tariff income of £52 a week—can receive the state pension and still qualify for community charge rebate in any area where the community charge, or poll tax, is more than £300.
        Mr. Rooker: The capital limit is exactly the same for a single person as for a couple.
        Mr. Hawkins: Not a single person—a couple.
        Mr. Rooker: I am talking about an individual. I was asking how people with savings of £16,000 survive on such meagre incomes. The Secretary of State said that 15,000 people with savings of £16,000 would benefit. I want to know where they are, what their incomes are and how they survive on such low incomes.
        It is easy for Ministers to say, "We do not like new clause 1; it has a technical defect." What a defence for a Minister who has an army of civil servants and who will have a chance to correct any defect in the new clause in the other place. If he had the good grace of some other Ministers, he would have said, "We shall consider the new clause" and would not have nit-picked. I shall happily vote for new clause 1, because any technical defects can be corrected at a later stage.
        Mr. Wilson: When we support the new clause, we shall do so soberly and with good sense. However, when the Chancellor made his announcement—which we have since discovered is worthless—during the Budget statement, Conservative Members waved their Order Papers as though it was Christmas and as though the Chancellor was dispensing millions of pounds to tens of thousands of pensioners. Conservative Members should have been a little more circumspect and found out what it was worth. Will not their embarrassment on the poll tax, as in so many other areas, be heightened when, once again, they return to their constituents and have to tell them that this so-called concession is a con?
        Mr. Rooker: Conservative Members thought that they were waving goodbye to us, when what they did not know was that the Government were waving goodbye to the rebate—
        It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        The House divided; Ayes 204, Noes 307.

        Division No. 143]

        [12 midnight

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Callaghan, Jim

        Allen, Graham

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Alton, David

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Anderson, Donald

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Cartwright, John

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Ashton, Joe

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Clay, Bob

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Clelland, David

        Barron, Kevin

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Battle, John

        Cohen, Harry

        Beckett, Margaret

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Beith, A. J.

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Bell, Stuart

        Corbett, Robin

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Corbyn, Jeremy

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

        Cousins, Jim

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Crowther, Stan

        Blair, Tony

        Cryer, Bob

        Blunkett, David

        Cummings, John

        Boyes, Roland

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Bradley, Keith

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

        Darling, Alistair

        Buckley, George J.

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Caborn, Richard

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        623

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

        Marek, Dr John

        Dewar, Donald

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Dixon, Don

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Dobson, Frank

        Martlew, Eric

        Doran, Frank

        Maxton, John

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Meacher, Michael

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Meale, Alan

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Eadie, Alexander

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Eastham, Ken

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Morley, Elliot

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'Shawe)

        Faulds, Andrew

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Fearn, Ronald

        Mullin, Chris

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Murphy, Paul

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

        Nellist, Dave

        Fisher, Mark

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Flannery, Martin

        O'Brien, William

        Flynn, Paul

        O'Neill, Martin

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Foster, Derek

        Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

        Fraser, John

        Patchett, Terry

        Fyfe, Maria

        Pendry, Tom

        Galloway, George

        Pike, Peter L.

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Prescott, John

        George, Bruce

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Radice, Giles

        Gordon, Mildred

        Randall, Stuart

        Gould, Bryan

        Redmond, Martin

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Richardson, Jo

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Robertson, George

        Grocott, Bruce

        Rooker, Jeff

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Haynes, Frank

        Rowlands, Ted

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Ruddock, Joan

        Hinchliffe, David

        Salmond, Alex

        Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Home Robertson, John

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Hood, Jimmy

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Short, Clare

        Hoyle, Doug

        Sillars, Jim

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

        Hume, John

        Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

        Illsley, Eric

        Snape, Peter

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Soley, Clive

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Spearing, Nigel

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        Kennedy, Charles

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Kilfedder, James

        Stott, Roger

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Straw, Jack

        Lamond, James

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Leighton, Ron

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

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Lewis, Terry

        Turner, Dennis

        Litherland, Robert

        Vaz, Keith

        Livingstone, Ken

        Wallace, James

        Livsey, Richard

        Walley, Joan

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Loyden, Eddie

        Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

        McAllion, John

        Weish, Michael (Doncaster N)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Wigley, Dafydd

        McCartney, Ian

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        McFall, John

        Wilson, Brian

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Winnick, David

        McKelvey, William

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Maclennan, Robert

        Worthington, Tony

        McNamara, Kevin

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        McWilliam, John

        Madden, Max

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Maginnis, Ken

        Mrs. Llin Golding and

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Mr. Ray Powell.

        624

        NOES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Evennett, David

        Alexander, Richard

        Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Fallon, Michael

        Allason, Rupert

        Favell, Tony

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

        Field, Barry (Isle of wight)

        Amess, David

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Amos, Alan

        Fookes, Dame Janet

        Arbuthnot, James

        Forman, Nigel

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Forth, Eric

        Ashby, David

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Atkins, Robert

        Franks, Cecil

        Atkinson, David

        Freeman, Roger

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        French, Douglas

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Fry, Peter

        Baldry, Tony

        Gale, Roger

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Gardiner, George

        Batiste, Spencer

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Bellingham, Henry

        Gill, Christopher

        Bendall, Vivian

        Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Gorst, John

        Body, Sir Richard

        Gow, Ian

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Grant, Sir Antony (CambsSW)

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Boswell, Tim

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Bottomley, Peter

        Gregory, Conal

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Grist, Ian

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Ground, Patrick

        Bowis, John

        Grylls, Michael

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Hague, William

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Brazier, Julian

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Bright, Graham

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Hannam, John

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

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

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Burns, Simon

        Harris, David

        Burt, Alistair

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Butcher, John

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Butler, Chris

        Hayes, Jerry

        Butterfill, John

        Hayward, Robert

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hicks, Mrs. Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Carttiss, Michael

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Cash, William

        Holt, Richard

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Chapman, Sydney

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

        Chope, Christopher

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

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

        Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Colvin, Michael

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Conway, Derek

        Hunter, Andrew

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Irving, Sir Charles

        Cope, Rt Hon John

        Jack, Michael

        Couchman, James

        Jackson, Robert

        Cran, James

        Janman, Tim

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Jessel, Toby

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

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Day, Stephen

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Devlin, Tim

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Key, Robert

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        King Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Dover, Den

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgewater)

        Dunn, Bob

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Dykes, Hugh

        Knapman, Roger

        Eggar, Tim

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Knowles, Michael

        625

        Latham, Michael

        Rowe, Andrew

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Ryder, Richard

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Lightbown, David

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        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

        Shelton, Sir William

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Maclean, David

        Shersby, Michael

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Sims, Roger

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Madel, David

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Speller, Tony

        Malins, Humfrey

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Mans, Keith

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Maples, John

        Squire, Robin

        Marland, Paul

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Marlow, Tony

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Steen, Anthony

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Stern, Michael

        Mates, Michael

        Stevens, Lewis

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Stokes, Sir John

        Mellor, David

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Sumberg, David

        Miller, Sir Hal

        Summerson, Hugo

        Mills, Iain

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Moate, Roger

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Morrison, Sir Charles

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Thorne, Neil

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Thurnham, Peter

        Mudd, David

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Neale, Gerrard

        Tracey, Richard

        Needham, Richard

        Tredinnick, David

        Nelson, Anthony

        Trippier, David

        Neubert, Michael

        Trotter, Neville

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Viggers, Peter

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Norris, Steve

        Walden, George

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Waller, Gary

        Page, Richard

        Ward, John

        Patnick, Irvine

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

        Warren, Kenneth

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Watts, John

        Pawsey, James

        Wells, Bowen

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Whitney, Ray

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Portillo, Michael

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Wilkinson, John

        Price, Sir David

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Redwood, John

        Wolfson, Mark

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Wood, Timothy

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Woodcock, Dr. Mike

        Riddick, Graham

        Yeo, Tim

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Mr. Tony Durant.

        Rost, Peter

        Question accordingly negatived.

      New Clause 8

        RADIATION EXPOSED CROWN EMPLOYEES
        `(1) In the principal Act, after section 78, there shall be inserted the following Chapter:—
        "CHAPTER VA: RADIATION EXPOSED CROWN EMPLOYEES
        78A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to a benefit or benefits, to be known as radiation exposure payments, payable at a prescribed rate or rates, if he is—

        (a) a radiation exposed Crown employee who suffers from a relevant disease;

        (b) the widow or widower of a radiation exposed Crown employee who suffered from a relevant disease; or

        (c) a person entitled to child benefit in respect of a child of a deceased radiation exposed Crown employee who suffered from a relevant disease.

        (2) Subsection (1) above shall come into force six months after the passing of the Social Security Act 1990.
        (3) In this Chapter—
        'a radiation exposed Crown employee' means a person who, while serving as a member of Her Majesty's forces or in any other prescribed employment under the Crown, was, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to have been, exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of his participation in activities connected with a prescribed test or series of tests of a nuclear device or devices;
        `a relevant disease' means a disease presumed to have been caused by service as a radiation exposed Crown employee.
        (4) For the purposes of this section, any disease specified in column 1 of Schedule 9A to this Act, which a radiation exposed Crown employee develops or has developed at any time after the last day on which he was, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to have been, exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of his participation in activities connected with a prescibed test or series of tests of a nuclear device or devices, but not longer after that day than the maximum period specified for that disease in column 2 of that Schedule, shall be presumed to have been caused by service as a radiation exposed Crown employee, and no other disease shall be presumed to have been so caused.
        (5) The Secretary of State may at any time make an Order amending Schedule 9A to this Act in such manner as he considers appropriate in the light of medical evidence.
        (6) Where, on the day before such an Order comes into force, a person is treated as suffering or having suffered from a relevant disease for the purposes of this section, or would have been so treated if his claim for benefit under this section had been determined, the provisions of Schedule 9A shall apply in his case as if the Order had not been made.
        (7) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a claim for benefit under this section is to be determined as if an Order under subsection (5) above which came into force after the date of the claim had been in force on that date.
        (8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) above, the first regulations under subsections (1) and (3) above shall be made before subsection (1) comes into force.
        (9) Before making the first regulations under subsection (1) above, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the benefit or benefits payable under that subsection by virtue of those regulations will be on the whole as favourable as the benefits that would be payable under section 76 above to persons in similar circumstances if the relevant disease were prescribed for the purposes of that section and the other conditions of entitlement to benefit under that section were satisfied.
        (10) A claim for benefit under subsection (1) above made within 12 months after the day on which the Social Security Act 1990 was passed shall be treated as if the provisions of

        627
        that subsection and of the first regulations under subsections (1) and (3) above had come into force on that day and as if the claim had been made on that day or on the first day on which the claimant satisfied or would have been satisfied the requirements for entitlement to the benefit, whichever is later."
        (2) In section 93(1) of the principal act, there shall be added at the end—
        "(f) a question whether a person is or was on any day a radiation exposed Crown employee for the purposes of Part II, Chapter VA."
        (3) In section 113(1) of the principal Act, for the words "Chapter V" there shall be substituted the words "Chapters V and VA".
        (4) In section 115(3) of the principal Act, for the words "those relating to industrial injuries benefit" there shall be substituted the words "Chapters IV to VA".
        (5) After Schedule 9 to the principal Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule—

        "SCHEDULE 9A

        DISEASES PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY SERVICE AS A RADIATION EXPOSED CROWN EMPLOYEE

        Disease

        Maximum period

        Leukaemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukaemia)

        40 years

        Cancer of the thyroid

        40 years

        Cancer of the breast

        40 years

        Cancer of the pharynx

        40 years

        Cancer of the oesophagus

        40 years

        Cancer of the stomach

        40 years

        Cancer of the small intestine

        40 years

        Cancer of the pancreas

        40 years

        Multiple myeloma

        40 years

        Lymphomas (except Hodgkin's disease)

        40 years

        Cancer of the bile ducts

        40 years

        Cancer of the gall bladder

        40 years

        Primary liver cancer (except if caused by cirrhosis or hepatitis B)

        40 years"

        (6) In section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986 (annual up-rating of benefits)—
        (a) the following paragraph shall be inserted after subsection (1)(i)—
        "(j) specified in regulations under section 78A(1) of the Social Security Act 1975,"; and—
        (b) in subsection (3)(b), for the words "or (ee)" there shall be substituted the words "(ee) or (j)".'.—[Mr. Clay.]
        Brought up. and read the First time.
        12.15 am
        Mr. Bob Clay: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The new clause stands in my name and in the names of hon. Members from both sides of the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and other hon. Friends for not moving new clause 7, thus enabling this debate to take place. New clause 8 is about the 22,000 British service men and approximately 3,000 Crown employees who participated in the British nuclear weapons test programme between 1952 and 1958. Tragically, it is more about the dependants of those men, since the men are dying disproportionately from leukaemia, myeloma and many other cancers.
        For years, successive Governments have argued that those involved in the British nuclear testing programme were not exposed to danger from radiation and that there was no connection between the incidence of cancer that they have suffered and their participation in the tests. For years, too, increasing scientific, medical and statistical evidence has contradicted Governments' assertions.
        Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have interviewed many constituents who took part in these exercises at Christmas island, Maralinga or other test sites and have been told stories of how the men wore no protective clothing or dosimeter film badges to measure radiation. It is possible to believe that one or two of them were cranks, or that their memories had faded, or that one or two did not know what they were talking about. But when so many serious, sober people with clear recollections tell us that that was their experience, we cannot go on believing the claims of successive Governments that everyone was protected and wore radiation-measuring badges, and that there was no evidence that anything went wrong.
        Leaving aside anecdotal evidence of this kind, however, we can turn to a newly declassified document written before the test programme started, on 20 September 1951. It was sent by Rear Admiral Torlisse to Rear Admiral Brooking. The former was the military commander of the first British nuclear test. I do not have time to read the whole letter, but I want to quote two key passages from it:
        "Radiological safety must be one of the chief concerns of the naval commander, but equally evidently, some degree of risk must be run by some people if we are to achieve the full purpose of the trial. As naval commander I must expect to have to order or approve the acceptance of some degree of risk. This is a customary service obligation, but it is performed in the knowledge that the Admiralty accept liability for those killed or injured in duty … I believe that all Government servants are in fact entitled to compensation for injury on duty, but the particular points to be covered in Hurricane arise from the fact that

        (a) the ill effects may be long delayed

        (b) illness unconnected with the operation might have caused the same symptoms."

        So before the test programme had even started the military commander recognised that, uniquely, the detrimental effects on men's health might be long delayed —precisely what has happened.
        The scientific and medical debate has dragged on for years. Eventually the National Radiological Protection Board was asked to commission a study, which was duly carried out, and the board reported to the Government. No doubt the Minister will tell us tonight that that report found that, with the exceptions of leukaemia and myeloma, there was no evidence that other cancers could have been linked with participation in the test programme.

        629
        But that is not what the NRPB report says. It came up with two hypotheses: first, that leukaemia' and myeloma probably were caused by participation in the programme; secondly, that other cancers probably were not. The report said that neither hypothesis was proven and that more research and study were required.
        Tonight the House must face up to the issue of how much longer we shall go on studying and debating while men continue to die. I hope that the Government will finally accept this point: only a limited number of these service men are now receiving pensions; mostly, we are talking about widows receiving pensions because their husbands died from leukaemia or myeloma. They are receiving those pensions because the NRPB study finally decided, in 1988, that there probably was a connection.
        For any service man who died of leukaemia or myeloma before 1988, that deasion was too late. For any widows of the service men who died before 1988, that decision was too late, If, at the end of 1991, when the next NRPB report comes out—nearly two years from now—it finally concludes that, for example, cancer of the larynx was possibly caused by participation in the test programme, it will be too late for many more who will have died of that disease and for their widows.
        We cannot go on and on neglecting this closed universe of people. This is not happening any more. It happened in the 1950s. Time has moved on. The fact that it is a closed universe should make the Government say that on a no-fault, benefit-of-the-doubt basis they will compensate those who were affected by particular diseases.
        Mr. Michael Colvin: I do not say that this country should always follow everything that the United States does, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Americans can pay compensation to their nuclear test veterans, surely we can too?
        Mr. Clay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He anticipates the next but one part of my speech.
        Many believe that the NRPB study is fundamentally flawed in several ways. There is not time to cite all the examples, so I shall give the most stunning point. It was discovered that the records of service supplied by the Ministry of Defence to the NRPB did not include all those who participated in the test. An important category was missing. All the files of those who had claims outstanding for pensions as a result of their participation in the test were not included. By definition, those who ware most likely to weight the statistics to show a high incidence of cancer were not included. It is claimed that the study was to some extent weighted to take account of that, but, again, without going into the most laborious statistical detail, it is difficult to deal with that in a brief speech. Many people have concluded that the study was flawed in many other ways and that the Government should not rely on it.
        The new clause is modelled, as nearly as possible in the terms of our legislative procedure, on existing legislation in the United States. It simply says that if one participated in the test and one of a list of cancers has manifested itself within 40 years of participation, it will be presumed that there is a service connection and one will benefit accordingly.
        There was some debate in the United States before the legislation was passed. In January when I went to
        630
        Washington to research this and met the Bush Administration, I said, "We know that President Reagan faltered before signing the legislation passed by the House and Senate. How do you feel about it now?" They said that they were glad it happened and tha if it happened again President Bush could sign legislation happily. It has taken away the hassle of going to court, stopped an enormous sense of injustice and offence felt by veterans and is not costing large sums. The United States has 250,000 men involved whereas we have oly 25,000. Moreover, their men went into Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I asked whether I could convey their view to the British Government and they said that their advice to the British Government, in so far as it was their place to give such advice, would be to do the same. The message has already been conveyed to the Government, but I convey it again tonight.
        Progress is so far ahead in the United States because the research that has been conducted there is far ahead of any such research in this country. The existing American legislation is almost certainly due to be improved this year, with manifestation caps being lengthened and more diseases that are compensatable being added to the list. Report No. 5 of the National Research Council, "Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation", concluded that all the previous understandings about which low level, of radiation cause various diseases have been wrong. The Americans have exhaustively studied what happened in their nuclear test programme and have taken much evidence from many parts of the world. The report—which the Ministry of Defence had not bothered to obtain or study until a week or so ago—concluded that further legislation was needed in the United States. It is believed that it will pass through the House of Representatives and the Senate without much difficulty.
        In a sense, we do not need another report from, the NRPB if we assume two things—first, that the radiation yields from American nuclear explosions must have been much the same as British ones and, secondly, that American service men must be much the same physiologically as British service men. The Government must either say that the Americans have got it totally wrong and are compensating people for no reason or acknowledge that they have got it wrong themselves and face up to that.
        The new clause is a modest measure. It is carefully drafted to ensure that considerable scope is left to the Secretary of State to fix the compensation levels, to add to or to subtract from the list of prescribed diseases and to change the manifestation levels. I hope that the Minister will not say that some technical problem exists. The new clause has been carefully drafted with, I acknowledge, technical assistance from her Department. If the Government have any problem with the detail of the clause and how it is set out, they can easily amend it in another place.
        It may be argued that if we legislate for a service connection presumption, we will automatically compensate some people who are suffering, but not because of their participation in a test programme. There is nothing to be done about that. Those people will, after all, suffer and will be compensated only if they have one of these diseases. Better to have the generosity to compensate those who have leukaemia or cancer for some other reason than not to compensate those who have it because of service. For the sake of argument, take 10 people with cancer of the stomach who we know were all at Christmas island. I

        631
        have been told that, whatever the records and even if there could be an action replay, any physician would say, "We may know that statistically of the 10, five had cancer from radiation at Christmas island and five had it for some other reason." No physician will ever establish which five were which. Better to compensate the five who did not get it because of being on Christmas island than deny justice to the five who got it because they were there. We are trying to establish that fundamental principle.
        It is disingenuous for the Government to argue that some of the evidence, anecdotal as it might be, could and should have been tested in the courts and that, if service men believed that they could prove that they got these terrible diseases as a result of the test programme, they should prove that in the courts and claim compensation in that way. That is a disingenuous argument, because, until recently, they could not get into the courts because of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Even the abolition of that section was not retrospective. The Government having appealed all the way, Mr. Melvyn Pearce from Bristol won in the House of Lords the right to sue retrospectively. The first case will soon go into the courts, but by the time the Government have appealed that case all the way to the House of Lords, many more people will have died. We cannot have a situation in which this issue is eventually settled through the courts. It is a difficult issue to take to the courts and, in any event, by the time the courts have eventually settled the matter, it will be too late for far too many people.
        12.30 am
        These people believed that they were serving their country. This issue has nothing to do with one's view on nuclear weapons. If, like me, one is totally opposed to their possession, one obviously takes the view that it is horrific that people should have contracted these terrible diseases while participating in the testing of them. If, like many Conservative Members, one believes that nuclear weapons have kept the peace for many years, one should be all the more grateful to those service men who participated in the programme to test them. This is not a pro or anti-nuclear weapon issue. It is an issue of basic justice.
        Radiation kills just as a bullet kills. It is less obvious, it happens later and it is more difficult to prove. I urge the Minister to reflect on the words of President Reagan, who had great difficulty before deciding to sign the legislation that was passed in the United States. He said:
        "Enactment of this legislation does not represent a judgment that service-related exposure of veterans covered by the Act in fact caused any disease. Nor does it represent endorsement of a principle of permitting veterans to receive benefits funded through veterans' programmes which bear no relationship to their former military service. Instead, the Act gives due recognition to the unusual service rendered by Americans who participated in military activities involving exposure to radiation generated by the detonation of atomic explosives. The nation is grateful for their special service, and enactment of H.R. 1811 makes clear the nation's continuing concern for their welfare."
        If the British Government have any concern for the continuing welfare of those who are suffering and for the widows who have lost husbands as a result of those men participating in the test programme, they will end the statistical nit-picking tonight, say enough is enough and accept the new clause.
        Mr. John Wilkinson: I cannot match the eloquence of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) on this subject. Nor can I match the depth of his knowledge. The consistent commitment that he has shown to the cause of justice for those who have exposed themselves in the service of the Crown to ionising radiation deserves the praise of the House and a favourable response from the Government.
        I was always aware, in a background sense, if that is the right analogy, that perhaps we were not doing justice to those who were exposed to such radiation in our test programmes in the 1950s and 1960s. It was brought home to me just how great the concern was when we had a particularly unedifying occasion here on the afternoon of Friday 2 March, when the hon. Gentleman sought a Second Reading for his admirable Radiation Exposed Crown Employees (Benefit) Bill. It is sad to recall that there was a filibuster, and the many members of the Royal British Legion and veterans who came to witness what they thought would be an important debate went home disappointed. This debate may be taking place late at night and we may not have much time to discuss the new clause, but it is all the more important in view of the fact that the matter did not get the attention that it deserved on 2 March.
        It can be clearly established that there is a pathological connection between exposure to ionising radiation and the list of diseases, mostly cancers of various types, in the schedule, which is taken from the United States legislation. Indeed, one could draw up an actuarial connection between the level of ionising radiation received and the likelihood of contracting a number of illnesses subsequently. That is well understood.
        Thus—I say in unparliamentary language—we need not nit-pick about the causes or consequences of exposure to ionising radiation. What we have to do is ensure that ex-service men who served the Crown well, and their dependants, receive the appropriate compensation. That would be achieved by acceptance of the proposed new clause. Under the present war pensions provisions, compensation can be achieved, but there is an element of doubt. The order says that, in deciding whether disablement or death is attributable to service, benefit will be given if there is reasonable doubt. But it is extremely difficult to establish what constitutes reasonable doubt.
        On 15 May 1989, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, answering a question on this point, said:
        "One war disablement pension and six war widows' pensions have been awarded because servicemen who took part in nuclear tests contracted or died of leukaemia … or multiple myeloma."—[Official Report, 15 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 73.]
        In other words, the precedent has been set. It has been established that the state has a duty to look after the welfare of those unfortunate people. We now have to put the appropriate legislative framework in place to guarantee that compensation is received as of right, and not by peradventure.
        I most earnestly beg right hon. and hon. Members to do the honourable thing—to vote on the new clause as their consciences dictate, to make sure that we do our duty by those who have done their duty by us.
        Mrs. Shephard: As there is a great deal of interest in this matter among hon. Members on both sides of the House, I shall be brief.
        I want to begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), who has been so assiduous in his pursuit of this cause and in his research. I understand perfectly the concerns that have been expressed in the House and elsewhere about the nuclear weapons test programme conducted in the south Pacific in the 1950s, and the suggestion that that programme has bequeathed a legacy of illness to those who participated. The Government's view is that there is no evidence, either medical or scientific, to link participation in the nuclear weapons test programme with the ill health that some of the participants have suffered subsequently. [Interruption.] If hon. Members listen, I shall attempt to develop my argument.
        Most of those who took part in the tests were young. Indeed, many were doing their two years' national service. The scientists, too, were mostly young, and because the physical conditions were tough, those who took part had to be fit. Those young men of the 1950s are now, inevitably, middle-aged or elderly. Some of them have developed ill health, and, sadly, others have died. The new clause that we are debating is based on the presumption that exposure to radiation during participation in the nuclear weapons trials was responsible for these illnesses and these deaths. The Government believe that this presumption is not well founded.
        It is a sad fact, but a fact nevertheless, that in the western world, where we enjoy a relatively high standard of living, more than 20 per cent. of deaths are due to cancer.
        Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend explain why, in the legislation enacted by the United States Congress, compensation is extended to American service men who took part in the occupation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima even if there was doubt about the adverse consequences of doing duty in those cities?
        Mrs. Shephard: Obviously arrangements in the United States are a matter for that country, but I am coming to the provisions in war pensions which may go some way to give comfort to my hon. Friend.
        I was saying that, tragically, there are well over 100,000 cancer-related deaths a year in this country. Sadly, many of those who participated in the nuclear weapons test programme would by now be suffering from cancer or might have died, even if they had spent their national service in this country and had never gone anywhere near the south Pacific. Of course, it is understandable that some of them, knowing that radiation can cause cancer—
        Mr. Frank Cook: Is the Minister aware that, despite the fact that documentary evidence exists on MOD files that there is no such thing as a harmless increase in radiation, some service men and women were given protective clothing but some were barred from having it and were asked to roll in the dust on the ground at ground zero? Is the Minister aware of that when she tells us that their health could have been the same if they had spent their national service in this country? It was a deliberate test. Does not the Minister accept that? Their health was deliberately put at risk to find out the results.
        Mrs. Shephard: I shall deal in a moment with the way in which the tests were conducted.
        It is generally impossible, medically speaking, to distinguish between cancers caused by one factor and those caused by others.
        Mention has been made of the test programme. The tests were implemented with professional thoroughness and bear favourable comparison with the standards in force today. There is much evidence of the importance attached at the time to the safety of those who took part. Individuals who might be exposed to radiation were issued with dosimeters, usually of the film-badge variety, to record the actual exposure experienced. Readings were taken after each possible radiation exposure, and they provided objective and reliable evidence that the exposure limits set before the tests were respected and complied with. The regulations in force were consistent with recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and advice from the Medical Research Council.
        Mr. John McFall: I received a letter last week from the Ministry of Defence stating that workers at the Clyde submarine base in my constituency were exposed to nuclear radiation because the dosimeters were faulty. That was in 1990. Can the Minister be sure that everything was working to perfection in the early 1950s when the equipment is not working properly in 1990? I have that on record.
        Mrs. Shephard: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have confirmed on more than one occasion that they are satisfied that a positive effort was made to monitor the observance of the safety procedures and that, if there has been significant non-compliance, that fact would have been observed by those responsible for implementing the safety regulations.
        Mr. Clay: Is the Minister aware that literally hundreds of those directly involved have stated categorically that they were not issued with badges, defective or otherwise? In the Minister's view, are they daft, or are they liars?
        Mrs. Shephard: I can only repeat what I have just said. Had non-compliance been observed by those responsible for the safety of the tests, criticisms would have been made at the time.
        Despite the fact that the Government have remained confident that the safety precautions were adequate and that the personnel who took part were protected by safety checks, we were anxious to alleviate the concern expressed, understandably, by participants that their involvement in the nuclear weapons test programme might well have been the cause of their subsequent ill health in later life.
        As a result, the National Radiological Protection Board study was commissioned in 1983. It has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. The purpose of the study was to examine statistically the health of men who participated in the tests and experimental programmes carried out in Australia and the Pacific between 1952 and 1967.
        Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
        Mrs. Shephard: I shall, but I am beginning to be a bit nervous about the time.
        Mr. Thompson: Can she tell me the number of badges issued against the number of personnel involved in the explosion?
        Mrs. Shephard: I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Thompson: I am sorry. Please will the hon. Lady give the number of badges issued at the time compared to the number of personnel who were on the island and who were exposed to radiation?
        12.45 am
        Mrs. Shephard: Dosimeters were issued to people at the beginning of the tests. After the tests had proceeded and the appropriate authorities were satisfied that the arrangements were satisfactory, dosimeters were no longer issued.
        The National Radiological Protection Board has been somewhat rubbished by comments in the Clamber this evening. I must point out that the report was conducted by eminent scientists from the NRPB, from the cancer epidemiology and clinical trials unit of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and with the participation of people eminent in the field such as Sir Richard Doll.
        The results were published in the British Medical Journal, and the conclusion was that participation in the nuclear weapons test programme has not had a detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life or on their total risk of developing cancer, apart from a possible effect on the risks of developing multiple myeloma and leukaemia, other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia. The authors of the study acknowledged that the evidence relating to these two diseases was confusing, but on balance they concluded that there may well have been small hazards of both diseases associated with participation in the programme, although this had not been proved.
        Mr. Stan Crowther: Has the hon. Lady read the Cabinet papers released under the 30-year rule last year, which make it quite clear that the Government were well aware that people were being exposed to risks which were not made public at the time? Has she read those papers?
        Mrs. Shephard: I have not read those papers, but they do not alter the position as far as the NRPB report is concerned. When the authors of that study produced their report in January 1988, they recommended, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said, that observations on the two defined groups of participants and controls should be continued for the first 10 years. The Government welcomed that proposal and they confirmed their willingness to co-operate with the NRPB to implement the recommendations to continue to observe the—
        Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Mrs. Shephard: May I finish my sentence?
        —to continue to observe the mortality and cancer incidents for participants over a further 10 years as a means of testing the hypotheses formulated by the NRPB.
        Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend but is she aware that she is, I am afraid, quoting selectively from the NRPB report? It says in an earlier section:
        636
        "Some aspects of the results, however, suggest that a real hazard was associated with the programme. The most striking is the very low probability of finding by chance such large differences as those observed Specifically for two diseases"—
        like the ones she quoted.
        Mrs. Shephard: I do not accept that I am in any way quoting selectively. The simple fact is that the conclusions of the report were that small hazards of leukaemia and multiple myeloma may well have been associated with participation in the nuclear weapons programme.
        Mr. Jack Ashley: I am the patron of the Nuclear Tests Veterans Association and I can tell the Minister that that association will be shocked by her statement tonight. I suggest that she is guilty of misinterpreting the NRPB report, and of selectively quoting from that report. I offer the Minister one phrase from the report which should burn in her mind:
        "Some aspects of the results suggest that a real hazard was associated with the programme."
        That is what the NRPB report said. What is the Minister's answer to that?
        Mrs. Shephard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I should like to move on to what is being done under the war pensions scheme, which is administered by the Department of Social Security.
        There only needs to be reliable evidence which raises a reasonable doubt about whether a condition is caused or aggravated by service. The Department's doctors are satisfied that the report's evidence raises sufficient doubt in the case of participants suffering from multiple myeloma or leukaemia and any claim to a war pension by such service men or their widows is likely to succeed. Seven awards have already been made, and there are more in the pipeline. The appropriate machinery is in place to provide for war pensions when there is reliable evidence that raises reasonable doubt as to whether a condition is caused or aggravated by service.
        I must emphasise that the Government would be willing to pay compensation—
        Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the Minister give way?
        Mrs. Shephard: I really think that I cannot.
        I must emphasise that the Government would be willing to pay compensation wherever the Crown's legal liability is established and when there is firm evidence to show, on a balance of probabilities, that those who took part in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons programme did, indeed, suffer ill health as a result of exposure to radiation in the course of their duties.
        Perhaps I may conclude by repeating that the Government cannot just ignore—
        Sir Rhodes Boyson: I know that the Royal British Legion and many others are deeply concerned about this matter. What amount of money is involved? And is the Minister saying that what happened in America is wrong and that there was no basis for the different decisions reached there following American research?
        Mrs. Shephard: To answer the second question first, I have already said that arrangements in the United States are a matter for that country. The amount of money involved as a result of the Bill, which is not flawed, is £4

        637
        million to £5 million. I reiterate that my Department already accepts reasonable doubt in the case of awarding war pensions to people who may be suffering from multiple myeloma of the other condition to which I referred.
        The Government cannot just ignore the evidence from the expert advisers in this field that not only is there no such evidence available but there is the conclusion that those who took part in the nuclear weapons test programme did not suffer harm. But we shall await the NRPB's further report with interest and we will take full account of the findings to the extent that they provide any additional information that might affect participants' entitlement to war pensions.
        Mr. Boyes: It is disgraceful that the Government should guillotine a Bill and then take up a disproportionate amount of time in a debate, thus excluding Opposition Members who would have liked to speak on this matter. The Minister has given us a most disappointing reply. Some of her remarks have been disgraceful and most hurtful to those involved.
        We are discussing the future of a number of men who have suffered over a long period, either because they were too near to the test of a nuclear device or because they had inadequate protective gear or even a combination of the two. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) said, plenty of research has been carried out already, at a cost that could possibly have compensated the victims. Some of the research has cost more than £200,000. It is unacceptable to suggest that there should be even more research.
        Surely after 40 years it is time for the Government to take action rather than trying to find further means of delaying payment. There is more than enough evidence already to justify payment to the nuclear test veterans. The Government should treat claims for compensation much more sympathetically. That is what other countries have done. President Reagan signed legislation in May 1988 granting compensation to United States test veterans who participated in the nuclear programme—for those who were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki between August 1945 and July 1946.
        A survey of 1,000 American nuclear test veterans revealed twice as many cases of cancer as were expected, and an incidence of sterility 12 times higher than usual. Consequently, the United States are compensating those with 10 per cent. or more disablement within 30 years of exposure to radiation. In Australia, a Mr. Rick Johnstone could receive as much as £300,000 compensation. If compensation can be paid to Americans and Australians, surely British nuclear test veterans should also be compensated.
        The conditions that test veterans suffered are well documented, but I shall cite a couple of examples. I have a copy of a MOD memo dated 20 may 1953, classified top secret, which states:
        "Tests were vital to discover detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men, without various types of protection."
        The 1983 Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council found that service personnel were used as guinea pigs in testing the effects of radiation. In 1956, 200 British and 62 Australian service men experienced the effects of an atomic blast
        "at a closer range than normally allowed."
        638
        Recently, the Government changed the rules concerning post-1973 war widows' pensions, which was welcomed by right hon. and hon. Ministers in all parts of the House. The Secretary of State should make a statement to the House at an early opportuniy, which I am sure all right hon. Members will welcome, confirming that proper and adequate compensation wil be paid to those who participated in British nuclear tests and who now suffer illness as a consequence.
        I have in my possession the names of many nuclear test veterans who have already died as a result of their presence at test sites. The House is debating the future of some very brave men who served their country loyally, and who, as they grow older, continue to suffer both physically and financially. There is no excuse for not dealing speedily with the financial predicament.
        Among the many organisations that I have consulted was the Royal British Legion, which holds the view that ex-service men with a clearly defined condition that can be related to their involvement in nuclear tests should be given the benefit of the doubt. I believe, as does the Nuclear Tests Veterans Association, that public opinion is clearly on the side of the test veterans.
        I hope that the Government will prove their flexibility tonight, acknowledge public opinion, and welcome the support given to nuclear test veterans by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I believe also that the House is broadly with me when I ask that nuclear test veterans be given the benefit of the doubt and adequate compensation. I assure the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary that this matter will not go away. It will surely come before the Government again.
        Mr. Clay: The Under-Secretary's admission that seven veterans are already receiving compensation after contracting leukaemia and multiple myeloma emphasises that many others died before they had an opportunity to receive any compensation. The Minister said that studies will continue and that another report will be published in two years, so she must recognise that those studies may discover further cases that the Government might finally acknowledge were caused by radiation during the test programme.
        By then, it will be too late for other veterans. The House has a simple choice to make. I hope that it will make the right choice, and that we shall not have to return to this matter again. If right hon. and hon. Members choose only for research to continue, week by week more veterans will die and their dependants will suffer. The importance of the new clause is not so much the financial compensation it will provide but the feeling of justice it will engender among the victims and their families.
        The debate will continue for as long as it is necessary to maintain it, but in the meantime people die. The House should have resolved the matter by now. In 100 years' time we may know for certain who is right and who is wrong, but it will then be known for certain that everyone who was concerned is dead and that the finding is too late. Let us end the issue tonight. I implore Conservative Members to take that approach. I ask for support for the new clause from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
        The Government have hardly produced an argument. They have merely repeated what they have been saying for years. Let us put ourselves in line with what the Americans

        639
        have already done, in the knowledge that they will be even further ahead of us by the end of the year. We must end this nonsense.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 276.

        Division No. 147]

        [1 am

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Allen, Graham

        Faulds, Andrew

        Alton, David

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Anderson, Donald

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

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Fisher, Mark

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Flannery, Martin

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Flynn, Paul

        Ashton, Joe

        Fookes, Dame Janet

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Forman, Nigel

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Foster, Derek

        Barron, Kevin

        Fraser, John

        Battle, John

        Fyfe, Maria

        Beckett, Margaret

        Galloway, George

        Beggs, Roy

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Bell, Stuart

        George, Bruce

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

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

        Gordon, Mildred

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Gould, Bryan

        Blair, Tony

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Blunkett, David

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Boyes, Roland

        Grocott, Bruce

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Hannam, John

        Bradley, Keith

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Haynes, Frank

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Buckley, George J.

        Hinchliffe, David

        Caborn, Richard

        Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

        Callaghan, Jim

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Holt, Richard

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Home Robertson, John

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Hood, Jimmy

        Cartwright, John

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Hoyle, Doug

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Clay, Bob

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Clelland, David

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Cohen, Harry

        Illsley, Eric

        Colvin, Michael

        Irving, Sir Charles

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Corbett, Robin

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Kennedy, Charles

        Cousins, Jim

        Kilfedder, James

        Cran, James

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Crowther, Stan

        Lamond, James

        Cryer, Bob

        Leighton, Ron

        Cummings, John

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Lewis, Terry

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Litherland, Robert

        Dalyell, Tam

        Livingstone, Ken

        Darling, Alistair

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Loyden, Eddie

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

        McAllion, John

        Dewar, Donald

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Dixon, Don

        McCartney, Ian

        Dobson, Frank

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Doran, Frank

        McFall, John

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        McKelvey, William

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Maclennan, Robert

        Eadie, Alexander

        McNamara, Kevin

        Eastham, Ken

        McWilliam, John

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Madden, Max

        640

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Mans, Keith

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Marek, Dr John

        Short, Clare

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Sillars, Jim

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Martlew, Eric

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Maxton, John

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

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

        Meacher, Michael

        Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

        Meale, Alan

        Snape, Peter

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Soley, Clive

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Spearing, Nigel

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Morley, Elliot

        Stott, Roger

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

        Straw, Jack

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Summerson, Hugo

        Mullin, Chris

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Murphy, Paul

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Nellist, Dave

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

        O'Brien, William

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Turner, Dennis

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Vaz, Keith

        Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

        Wallace, James

        Patchett, Terry

        Waller, Gary

        Pendry, Tom

        Walley, Joan

        Pike, Peter L.

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Prescott, John

        Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Randall, Stuart

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Redmond, Martin

        Wilkinson, John

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Richardson, Jo

        Wilson, Brian

        Robertson, George

        Winnick, David

        Rooker, Jeff

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Ross, William (Londonderry E)

        Worthington, Tony

        Rowlands, Ted

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Ruddock, Joan

        Salmond, Alex

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Mrs. Llin Golding and

        Sheerman, Barry

        Mr. Ray Powell.

        NOES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Alexander, Richard

        Burns, Simon

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Burt, Alistair

        Allason, Rupert

        Butcher, John

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

        Butler, Chris

        Amess, David

        Butterfill, John

        Amos, Alan

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Arbuthnot, James

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Carttiss, Michael

        Ashby, David

        Cash, William

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Atkins, Robert

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Atkinson, David

        Chapman, Sydney

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Chope, Christopher

        Baldry, Tony

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

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Bellingham, Henry

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Conway, Derek

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Cope, Rt Hon John

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Couchman, James

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Boswell, Tim

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

        Bottomley, Peter

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Day, Stephen

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Devlin, Tim

        Bowis, John

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Brazier, Julian

        Dover, Den

        Bright, Graham

        Dunn, Bob

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Durant, Tony

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

        Dykes, Hugh

        641

        Eggar, Tim

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Evennett, David

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Fallon, Michael

        Maclean, David

        Favell, Tony

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Madel, David

        Forth, Eric

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Malins, Humfrey

        Franks, Cecil

        Maples, John

        Freeman, Roger

        Marland, Paul

        French, Douglas

        Marlow, Tony

        Fry, Peter

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Gale, Roger

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Gardiner, George

        Mates, Michael

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Gill, Christopher

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Mellor, David

        Gorst, John

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Gow, Ian

        Miller, Sir Hal

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Mills, Iain

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Gregory, Conal

        Moate, Roger

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Grist, Ian

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Ground, Patrick

        Morrison, Sir Charles

        Grylls, Michael

        Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

        Hague, William

        Moss, Malcolm

        Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Mudd, David

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Neale, Gerrard

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Needham, Richard

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

        Nelson, Anthony

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Neubert, Michael

        Harris, David

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Hayes, Jerry

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Hayward, Robert

        Norris, Steve

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Page, Richard

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Patnick, Irvine

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

        Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Pawsey, James

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Portillo, Michael

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Price, Sir David

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Irvine, Michael

        Redwood, John

        Jack, Michael

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Jackson, Robert

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Janman, Tim

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Jessel, Toby

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Johnston, Sir Russell

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Rowe, Andrew

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Key, Robert

        Ryder, Richard

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Knapman, Roger

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Shelton, Sir William

        Knowles, Michael

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Shersby, Michael

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Sims, Roger

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Lightbown, David

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Lord, Michael

        Speller, Tony

        642

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Tredinnick, David

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Trippier, David

        Squire, Robin

        Trotter, Neville

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Steen, Anthony

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Stern, Michael

        Walden, George

        Stevens, Lewis

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Ward, John

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

        Warren, Kenneth

        Stokes, Sir John

        Watts, John

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Wells, Bowen

        Sumberg, David

        Whitney, Ray

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Wood, Timothy

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Woodcock, Dr. Mike

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Yeo, Tim

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Thorne, Neil

        Thurnham, Peter

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

        Tracey, Richard

        Mr. Nicholas Baker.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        It being after One o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
        Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  RATING AND VALUATION (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
  That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
  That the draft Mercury Communications Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March be approved.
  That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
  That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
  That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
  That the draft Forth Ports Authority (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
  That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
  That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
  That the draft British Waterways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
  That the draft British Telecommunications plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.

  643
  That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
  That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
  That the draft British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  Question agreed to.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION BILL [Lords]
  Ordered.
  That, notwithstanding that such provisions could not have been proposed in Committee without an Instruction from the House, amendments may be proposed on consideration of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords] to provide for the seizure, detention and forfeiture of drug trafficking money imported or exported in cash.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

  WAYS AND MEANS

    CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION) BILL [Lords]
    Resolved,
    That any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords] may provide for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of money representing cash, and accrued interest on cash, forfeited under provisions of that Act conferring powers in respect of drug trafficking money imported or exported in cash.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

  PETITIONS

    Human Embryos
    1.13 am
    Mr. Tim Smith: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Mr. G. J. Welsh of Hawthorns, Hammersley Lane, Tylers Green, Buckinghamshire, and another on behalf of Mrs. T. Coppin of 55 Robinson Road, Loudwater, High Wycombe. The second petition is signed by 67 other constituents—[Interruption]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly so that we can hear the petition?
    Mr. Smith: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    644
    The second petition is signed by 67 of my constituents who are all concerned that the human embryo should be protected. The petitions states:
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure that involves:—

    (a) the purchase or sale of human embryos;

    (b) the discarding or freezing of human embryos;

    (c) the use of human embryos as sources of transplant tissue;

    (d) the use of human embryos as subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned);

    (e) the cross-fertilisation of humans with other species.

    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  A46-A47 Link Road
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I have two petitions to present. I present the first on behalf of Councillor Mike Preston of 60 Barry road, Leicester and Mr. Frank Kerr of 131 Humberstone boulevard, Leicester and 36 other residents of Humberstone who are protesting against the proposed extension of the A46-A47 link road and the fact that the local authority has made no provision for pedestrian safety as outlined in the plans for the link road.
  Your petitioners pray that your Honourable House encourage the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider the views of the residents of Humberstone during his consideration of the appeals against compulsory purchase orders by Leicestershire County Council submitted for this planned road,
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Vaz: I present my second petition, which is against the poll tax, on behalf of David Roy Winder of 4 Rawsthorne walk, St. Marks, Leicester and 1,020 other residents of Leicester. A demonstration was held in Leicester last Saturday in which more than 1,000 people protested against the introduction of the poll tax which in Leicester will be more than £400 per person. The petitioners are concerned that the tax is unfair, unjust and will cause misery and hardship to thousands of people in Leicester and to millions of people throughout Britain.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House demands that the Secretary of State for the Environment withdraw this tax and listens to the views of the people of Leicester.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  National Insurance
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Patnick.]
  1.17 am
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: This Adjournment debate arose from the fact that some time last year I received one of those brown envelopes from a whistleblower. That letter asked me to raise the matter of the mighty scandal of employers across the country not paying into the Inland Revenue the amount of money that they have taken from employees.
  As a result of that letter, I raised the issue on the Floor of the House with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He was able to reveal that that was the case and that the Comptroller and Auditor General thought that the position was so bad that he was inclined to look at it as well.
  As a result of my questions, the matter was reported in the press and a great deal of publicity arose in many parts of Great Britain. I am indebted to the northern regional low pay unit, the west midlands regional low pay unit and many others who wrote to me saying that I had raised an issue of scandalous proportions in which employers in large and small firms are breaking the law, but the Government are doing nothing about it.
  The whistleblower wrote:
  "Dear Mr. Skinner,
  I am the legal adviser to a large … organisation which is why, to my shame, I am remaining anonymous.
  Over the past eight years the publications emanating from the Government's Departments"—
  that is,Employment News—
  "have gradually ceased to give (as they used) basic facts and statistics and become a mere vehicle for Government propaganda. There is no other word for it. The enclosed publication used to give facts … The centre pages mark the lowest it has yet reached."
  The centre pages referred to fraud squad snoopers who turned into a potato field in Lincoln and managed to find a few people who were getting unemployment benefit. It got the proper tabloid treatment, as we expect. The writer went on to say:
  "The unholy glee exhibited by whoever wrote the article is unpleasant.£1 million a day 365 days a year is the estimate of monies deducted by employers from the wages of employees in Tax and Social Security contributions which are never paid over. That is a hell of a lot more than the £62·55 million the article boasts of."
  That was about the potato pickers, the social security claimants. The letter goes on:
  "It says nothing of the alleged 'frauds' which were successfully fought by the beneficiaries.
  Last year 157 people died on building sites. Over the past 8 years there has been a 20 per cent. cut in the numbers of safety inspectors—there are 12 for London and 90 for the rest of the country. Employment News never mentions that."
  That is the scale of the fraud. As people have said, it is a licence to steal from the lowest-paid in Britain. That is usually the case because of the way in which people have to scramble for jobs.
  According to the northern regional low pay unit, it all arose from the change in the law instituted by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who has now left to look after his family. He was the Secretary of State for Social Services, and in 1984 he changed the rules to allow employers off the hook. He said:
  "I have examined carefully the special power contained in section 152(4) of the Social Security Act 1975, under which
  646
  directors can become personally liable for the national insurance contribution debts of their company if they knew or should have known that the contributions were not being paid.
  From the date of this announcement, I propose to take no further action in any case in which my Department is currently involved."—[Official Report, 12 November 1984; Vol. 67, c. 139.]
  That prompted a person called Mr. Justice Harman no less to say that contributions that were being held by employers in a quasi-trust fund had been stolen from the employees when employers did not pass them on. He said:
  "But the thieves are not prosecuted, as they are no longer held personally liable for payment of the contributions, and all too frequently remain in business, or set up new companies should the first go into liquidation. Meanwhile, the taxpayers meet the cost of the fraudulent practices, and the individual ex-employees suffer weeks of anxiety and trouble until benefit is restored."
  Of course, some of them have to suffer even more than that.
  In 1980 the amount not collected by the Inland Revenue was estimated at £40 million. By 1987, after the Act had been changed and employers were let off the hook, the amount of fraud had risen to £264 million. The estimate now is that it is approaching £400 million. In the same time those who commit social security fraud—we are talking about people on low pay. one-parent families and such people— have been prosecuted 400 times more than employers who are defrauding their employees and the tax system.
  The Government talk to us about the rule of law and the poll tax and the millions of people who refuse to pay it, yet they allow employers to get off the hook. Employers cheat in an incredible number of ways. First, there is creative accounting, which is very handy. Employers deduct contributions from the wages of employees and keep the money in the company account. The second fiddle is not to provide pay slips, and where there is high unemployment people are frightened to ask for a pay slip. By and large there are no unions in the small places and people are frightened to say anything. The employers say, "Everything is okay. You don't need a pay slip and here is money in the hand." They are not paying over the insurance and tax.
  The third fiddle is to list full-time workers as part-time workers. If they earn less than £46 a week, as from April of this year, they do not have to pay insurance. If the workers earn more than that, the employers pocket the money and make a fine killing. No stamps are needed, and many of these people are paid as little as £2 an hour.
  Another gimmick is to cut the hours of employees who earn more than £46 a week. Two and a half million women fall into the category of people I am talking about; they are affected more than men. As I have said, this information comes from the northern regional low pay unit.
  Not only small companies are involved; multinationals are, too. They use an old gimmick: they falsify the numbers of people working for them in the Common Market. Also, they sometimes pay enhanced wages in the Common Market and tell the Inland Revenue here in Britain that those people are on lower wages. They make small fortunes in that way; they declare phantom wages to the Inland Revenue.
  Another fiddle is used when a firm is in trouble. Let us say that a company realises that it faces bankruptcy. If it is not already pocketing the money, that is the moment when it begins to do so. Insolvency stares a firm in the face,

  647
  so for six, nine or even 12 months such a firm can pocket all its employees' national insurance and tax contributions. Then, when it is declared insolvent, the money is not claimed back from the firm. Throughout the Thatcher years there have been 20,000 bankruptcies or insolvencies a year, so we can imagine how many casualties there must be.
  Then there are what I call the phoenix companies which rise from the ashes. A company is set up in one area and seems to flourish for a while. It then goes into liquidation, only to emerge somewhere else with the same machines and sometimes with the same work force. Then the pattern is repeated. Each time, many people are thrown out of work. Debts are left unpaid and company directors pick up the profits and go on to set up somewhere else.
  A certain northern firm was set up originally by a couple and an accountant with a Department of Trade and Industry grant. It went bust in 1983, with £310,000 debts, and £195,000 of unpaid VAT, pay-as-you-earn and national insurance contributions, including those deducted from workers' pay. The directors were not prosecuted. The Inland Revenue said that it would "bear with the company". Due to the change effected by the Secretary of State in 1984, the directors were saved from paying £90,000 in PAYE and national insurance.
  The name of the company was changed, but it crashed again in January 1985, with £20,000 taken from workers' pay in income tax and national insurance contributions. Again, the Revenue said that it would bear with the directors. The company changed its name again, and went bust again in August 1985, owing £26,679 in income tax and national insurance that had not been passed on, and £16,000 in unpaid workers' wages.
  By August 1988, the court had disqualified the first director from holding company directorships. The law finally caught up with him after all those years, and he was not allowed to be a director for three years. He had to pay the small sum of £500 costs. But the bent accountant got off scot free. The other director started another company with another DTI grant—that is what happens in the Government's entrepreneurial society.
  This second director set up two more clothing firms, which went bust owing thousands to the Inland Revenue. Altogether, this man, his co-director wife and the bent accountant had started up four companies with debts totalling £500,000. They have not paid back a single penny, or been fined, or been imprisoned for a single day. Those phoenix companies are being set up on a large scale.
  That case and others were so outrageous that the official receiver in the north-east said:
  "It is common place to find that firms run for 2 years with no intention to pay their debts to the Crown. It is licensed theft."
  Mr. Dave Nellist: It is dreadful.
  Mr. Skinner: Yes, my hon. Friend is right.
  The Government talk about the rule of law and how we have a law in Britian that is equal for everybody, yet these employers are running rings round the Inland Revenue. They are not the casualties. The real casualties are the people who go for their unemployment benefit and the DSS says, "Sorry, you haven't got enough stamps. We can't pay you." People go for sick pay. Women go for maternity benefit. All my hon. Friends present know of
  648
  constituents who have found that they have insufficient contributions. Then there is the person who wants his old-age pension. Thousands of people go through life working for these companies and end up finding out that they have lost three, four and, sometimes, 10 years of contributions, and their retirement benefit is reduced as a result.
  Why does that happen? It is partly because of the changes in the law in 1984, but also because the Inland Revenue does not have enough inspectors to do the job. It is different for social security fraud inspectors checking on people on £40 a week. In 1979 when the Government came to office, there were 2,311 full-time equivalent posts for detecting fraudulent social security claims. By 1989 there were 413 more. Those people deal with one-parent families, those who are supposedly co-habiting and potato pickers in East Anglia. In the same period the Inland Revenue lost 18,000 posts. That is how the Government allow their friends, the bosses, to get away with breaking the law.
  What needs doing? We want an increase in the number of Inland Revenue inspectors to follow up employers who are breaking the law. We want the 1984 legislation changed back so that employers can be prosecuted for these debts. We want the Labour Government, because this one will not do it, to ensure that local authorities, regional development agencies and the Department of Trade and Industry fully investigate all companies that apply for grants. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister for Social Security is sleeping."] He will drop to sleep because he has just voted against the veterans.
  We want local authorities to be able to use their purchasing power so that the companies from which they buy materials have to conform to proper employment regulations. We want all employees, whatever their hours, to have a proper documented pay slip. We want stronger employment laws and a return to the right to a tribunal. Instead of having to wait two years, we want to return to the pre-1979 position. We want protection against unfair dismissal.
  We say to employees: demand and keep pay slips. Ask employers to see the records. Is national insurance being paid? Is tax being paid? If unsure, contact the DSS and have the records checked regularly. Contact the Inland Revenue to make sure that it is receiving the tax. Join a trade union. Every union has a legal department that can help with cases. Too many people think that trade unionism is just about conditions and getting extra money each year. Although they are important, it is also about having a protective armoury so that that legal protection can be used in cases against employers.
  The Government should introduce this legislation and stop this business. The Minister should tell the Prime Minister and every other Minister that we are fed up to the back teeth with trade unionists being slagged off because they fight for their rights, such as the ambulance workers and workers who have been described as the enemy within. We do not want that when we know that employers are getting away with blue murder and making money hand over fist. It is time that the bosses were brought into line and got off the workers' backs.
  1.35 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the important points made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and to reassure him that the Government share his concern. I should also like to take the opportunity to trail a little advance publicity for a launch of the new contributions unit and agency which is to be made on Monday. The hon. Gentleman's timing could hardly be more impeccable. I am deeply grateful to him, as will be the whole Government.
  I should like to explain the current arrangements. Of course we know that fraud exists, but I shall reassure the hon. Gentleman about the checks that are made. As he knows, it is the employer's responsibility to ensure that the appropriate employee contributions are deducted when earnings are paid, that full and proper records are maintained and that contributions are paid over regularly, together with the appropriate secondary or employer's contributions.
  Most class 1 contributions are collected by the Inland Revenue. To emphasise the scale of the operation, at the moment, there are some 1·5 million annual returns from employers, covering well over 20 million contributors and nearly £30 billion of contributions. Although the hon. Gentleman was right to express concern, in the huge majority of cases these arrangements work smoothly with the correct contributions being deducted and paid over to the national insurance fund.
  It is not correct to say that checks are not done. When, at the end of every tax year, an employer submits his PAYE return for each of his employees, it is subject to a series of detailed checks within the department. They ensure that the money paid over by the employer corresponds with the amounts recorded on the individual employees' returns. Further checks ensure that individual national insurance records are accurately maintained and that benefit entitlement is properly recorded. That is done by checking the feasibility of every individual contribution received. The checks can also help to identify failures by employers to deduct and pay the correct contributions. Those errors are generally referred to our teams of specialist contributions staff and inspectors for investigation and correction. Many thousands of queries are investigated each year and, as a result, contribution records are amended and arrears of contributions are collected or refunds made.
  Although some contribution errors arise from deliberate fraud, it is fair to say that they do not typically arise from it but are the result of genuine mistakes, misunderstandings or even—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have accepted that some are the result of fraud, but others result from simple errors in the computer software used to control payrolls. Most employers are more than happy to correct errors that my Department finds, but where arrears cannot be collected legal proceedings have to be, and are, taken. In the past five years, an average of about 1,300 cases annually have been brought by the Department against employers in respect of arrears amounting to over £20 million. That is in addition to the action taken by the Inland Revenue, which also takes enforcement action against employers who default in their periodic payments of NICs and PAYE income tax.
  650
  Complaints from employees about failure by employers properly to pay NICs are not widespread and the majority of my Department's investigations arise from our chasing mechanism. If the hon. Gentleman has information about failures by employers, I should be glad to have details. I shall ensure that those instances are vigorously investigated.
  In addition to the regular and routine checking procedures that I have described, national insurance inspectors also co-operate with the Inland Revenue to conduct surveys of employers' premises—a series of co-ordinated visits to employers aimed at uncovering tax and/or contribution irregularities.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to people working in fields in East Anglia. I represent a constituency in East Anglia that is full of fields and the people who work in them are subject to visits of that kind, as are employers. The present system of survey has been in operation since the beginning of the 1986–87 tax year and in its first three years DSS inspectors conducted 270,000 survey visits and, as a result, an additional £37 million of contributions were recovered. The surveys also corrected many thousands of minor errors by employers.
  As one would expect with any system as large and complex as the national insurance scheme, we take stock regularly of how well our procedures are operating and whether there are any improvements to be made. In the last two years there have been two internal departmental studies into contributions work which have examined every aspect of the work that is done.
  Those studies have concluded that there is undercollection of national insurance contributions. That is not surprising, given the large number of employers and employees who are required to make contributions and the large sums of money involved. No collection system can be 100 per cent. effective or perfect. There will always be a small proportion of employers who try to avoid their responsibilities, and mistakes are bound to happen. We have taken the reports very seriously indeed. We have reviewed our existing arrangements for collection and compliance and we have concluded that improvements can and should be made.
  I must thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, because the results of that work will be seen shortly. With effect from Monday 2 April, a new contributions unit will be established to take responsibility for all operational aspects of the national insurance scheme. The unit's HQ will be at Newcastle and the network of locally based staff responsible for collection and compliance work will no longer be under the general control of local social security office managers but will come instead under a central management structure which will be dedicated exclusively to this important part of the Department's work of contributions and compliance.
  The unit will place a high priority on compliance. There will be better training for national insurance inspectors and in the first instance there will be 100 more of them to perform that task, with rising numbers year on year. They will be trained better so that they can keep up to date with changing business practice. Their existing jobs will be reorganised so that they can spend more time visiting employers and investigating national insurance irregularities.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the unit be more successful than the last special unit that was set up, which managed to find

  651
  only £6·8 million? How many additional inspectors will be employed to hound employers who are fiddling? How much additional money does she expect to rope in as a result of these efforts?
  Mrs. Shephard: I did not think the hon. Gentleman was listening. I said that 100 more inspectors would be employed instantly and that the numbers would increase year on year in the unit, rising to more than 2,000 inspectors in all.
  Our reorganisation will not stop there. From April of next year, the unit will be given agency status and there will be increased management accountability and flexibility to allow the development of a more professional approach to contributions work—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister must be heard.
  Mrs. Shephard: I fear that, from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman displays his misunderstanding of the meaning of agency status, but I ask him to watch the press after the launch of the contributions unit and agency, which I am sure will be reported fully on Tuesday. That will extend his understanding.
  We have taken careful note of the promise made by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the national insurance fund account, in which he drew attention to departmental studies that cited deliberate evasion by a minority of employers. Of course we recognise and share his concern. We shall continue to do all that we can to prevent this form of abuse and to ensure that the correct amounts of contribution are recovered. We also share his concern about the level of resources mentioned in the internal studies, and, as I have said already, we plan to increase the number of inspectors during the coming year.
  However, it is obvious that additional resources are not the only answer. It is quite clear that the work of the
  652
  inspectors must be prioritised—and it will be. The inspectors will be working in a unit dedicated to compliance and contribution work. It is clear also that their training needs to be improved. That, too, will be achieved by the existence of the unit. It is the job of the Department to provide more resources for this very important work, but it is extremely important that staff —an existing resource—be well trained and experienced in the sort of work that modern business practice will oblige them to do.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by all of that.
  Mr. Skinner: No.
  Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps not, if he is not listening.
  The Government are taking very careful note not only of internal studies of the problem, which I have described, but of the NAO report, which the hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid. It is unfortunate that in his contribution. which, as usual, was colourful, he displayed such animosity towards employers. Employers do, after all, provide employment. Our experience in the Department is that it is a minority of employers who cheat the system in this way, and we are absolutely determined that they will be pursued.
  The problem of underconection came to light as a result of investigations initiated by the Department and aimed at improving the service that we provide. Since receiving these reports, we certainly have not allowed the grass to grow under our feet. Instead, we have urgently examined the findings and have decided to embark on a major reorganisation of our contributions work. That is the proper response of a Government determined to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration.
  Once again I thank the hon. Gentleman most sincerely for giving me the opportunity to point this out.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Two o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Science Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the cost of educating a science student to Ph.D. level in a university in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Japan, (c) the United States of America, (d) Scandinavia and (e) the countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Jackson
  The data requested are not available by subject and level of course.

  Universities (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the figure for 1990–91 for planned capital expenditure for universities in the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 1011, is on a basis consistent with that for polytechnics and colleges.

  Mr. Jackson
  I regret that the figures for planned capital expenditure by the Universities Funding Council in table 11.1 of the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1011) are not shown on a consistent basis for each year. Figures on a consistent basis are shown in the following table. The percentage increase in planned capital expenditure in 1990–91 is broadly the same for each sector of higher education.

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Universities

  Funding

  Council

  Capital

  141

  139

  152

  (175)

  Current

  1,585

  1,713

  1,685

  (1,661)

  Note: Figures as shown in Cm. 1011 in brackets.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This Department spent £685,000 on computer and management consultancies in the 1989–90 financial year and has budgeted for £540,000 for 1990–91. Contracts awarded in 1989–90 were as follows:

  Peat Marwick McLintock—Financial management survey of SERC

  184

  Peat Marwick McLintock—Student loans

  Price Waterhouse—Student loans

  PAS Limited—Parent awareness survey

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—Financial computer system consultancy

  Peat Marwick McLintock—Financial computer system consultancy

  SCOLL—IT Specialist productivity

  FI Group—Grants payments system

  BIS—CRAMM Reviews

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—Network security

  LBMS—INGRES

  Digitus—Desk Top Publishing

  Fernhart—Service Desk

  Butler Cox—Further Education Statistical Records

  BIS—Telecommunications Darlington

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—Mainframe replacement

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—Financial system testing

  ICL—CRIS-F Report writing

  CMG—Data modelling

  BIS—Data collection and electronic data interchange

  History Working Party
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when he first received the draft of the final report of the history working party;

  (2) when he first received the final report of the history working party;

  (3) on what dates in the last year he has met Commander Saunders Watson, chairman of the history working party;

  (4) when he expects to publish the final report of the history working party.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend saw a draft of the history working group's report just before Christmas, and received the final report on 31 January. He will publish it soon. He met Commander Saunders Watson on 4 August last year and 10 January this year.

  Pensions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the average pension paid to head teachers who retired in 1989; and what was the average pension received by head teachers who retired in(a) 1979 and (b) 1969;

  (2) what is the value at current prices of the average pension received by lecturers in higher education on their retirement in (a) 1979 and (b) 1969;

  (3) what is the value at current prices of the average pension received by lecturers in further education on their retirement in (a) 1979 and (b) 1969;

  (4) what is the value, at current prices, of the average pension received by head teachers on their retirement in (a) 1979 and (b) 1969;

  (5) what is the value at current prices of the average pension received by teachers on their retirement in (a) 1979 and (b) 1969;

  (6) what was the average pension paid for lecturers in higher education who retired in 1989; and what is the average pension currently received by lecturers in higher education in (a) 1979 and (b) 1969;

  (7) what was the average pension received by lecturers in further education who retired in (a) 1979 and (b) 1969;

  (8) what was the average pension paid to teachers who retired in 1989; and what is the average pension currently received by teachers who retired in (a) 1979 and (b)
  185
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 March 1990, c. 35-36]: The average rate of pension paid to teachers, head teachers and lecturers who retired in 1989 was as follows:

  £

  Teachers

  5,010

  Head teachers

  8,460

  Lecturers

  5,990

WALES

  Footpaths and Bridleways
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for each of the years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989, the number of temporary traffic regulation orders made by local authorities under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to restrict or prohibit the use of footpaths or bridleways for which he gave consent under section 15(2) of that Act for an extension of the period for which the order was in force.

  Mr. Roberts
  Temporary traffic orders affecting footpaths and bridleways are not separately identified from those affecting road traffic and no records are kept.

  Infertility Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the infertility services provided by each health authority in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on infertility services provided by health authorities is not held centrally.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to charge-cap any Welsh local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I will decide whether to introduce community charge limitation in Wales in 1990–91 in the light of my consideration of Welsh authorities' expenditure plans.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the rules he intends to use for poll tax-capping in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the number of additional staff employed to administer the community charge in Wales(a) in total, (b) by county council and (c) by district council.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the present pupil-teacher ratio for(a) primary and (b) post primary schools in Wales.

  Mr. Roberts
  At January 1989, pupil-teacher ratio was 22·3 for primary schools and 15·4 for secondary schools.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the figures provided to him by each health authority in Wales in respect of(a) the authority's own estimate of the shortfall due to inflation in 1989–90 and (b) the figure by which each authority estimates it is underfunded for 1990–91.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend and I have seen copies of reports from the treasurers of district health authorities in Wales to their chairmen's committee concerning the financial position of Welsh DHAs generally in the current financial year and their projections for 1990–91. These reports give estimates of shortfalls in funding in both years on the basis of estimates of inflation and other financial pressures. However, they fail to take account of the resources to be released to supplement allocations through the attainment of targets for cost improvements and income generation. They therefore understate the resources available to authorities to meet the financial pressures which they face. So long as minimum cost improvement and income generation targets are achieved—which should be possible in any well-managed authority—allocations in both years should be more than sufficient to meet these financial pressures.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount spent by the Welsh Development Agency in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Welsh Development Agency in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that the Welsh Development Agency has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh Development Agency has spent £139,534 on the following consultancy contracts in 1989:

  Company

  Assignment

  Ernst and Young

  Documentation for users of new computer systems and advice on implementing new systems.

  P J Sullivan

  Development of integrated data bases from existing computer systems.

  Beaufort Research

  Monitoring effectiveness of Agency marketing campaign in Wales

  Numbers Research

  Monitoring effectiveness of Agency marketing campaign outside of Wales.

  Taylor Nelson

  Monitoring effectiveness of Agency food initiative marketing campaign.

  BJM

  Customer attitudes monitoring.

  The agency estimates that £150,000 will be spent on such contracts in 1990.

  Myodil
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of people in each health authority area in Wales who have been affected adversely by the use of myodil in connection with X-ray tests.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

ENERGY

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department spent £618,000 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, in the financial year 1989–90.

  Contracts placed with private sector firms and companies for management and computer consultancies during 1989–90 were:

  Consultants

  Subject

  Price Waterhouse

  Advice on, and implementation of, databases related to North Sea oil and gas activity.

  KPG

  Transfer of data from magnetic tape to optical disk.

  J. P. Kenny

  Advice on electronic storage of petroleum maps.

  BIS

  Advice on local area networks for computers.

  Businessland

  Advice on data communication links.

  Specialist Services

  Development of industrial capabilities

  Scotland

  database for the Offshore Supplies Office

  Oracle (UK) Ltd

  Development of a database for recording offshore safety incidents.

  Saxton Bampfylde

  Recruitment consultants for chairman of North Western Electricity Board.

  Russell Reynolds

  Recruitment consultants for chairman of National Power.

  TDA Consulting group Ltd.

  Management training.

  Jonathan Coates and Associates

  Management training.

  TFC Ltd.

  Management training.

  Brewster Computer Training Ltd.

  IT training.

  FI Word Processing Services Ltd.

  IT training.

  PST Ltd.

  IT training.

  My Department has budgeted to spend an estimated £750,000 on management and computer consultancy in the financial year 1990–91.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Disarmament
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the current fora in which east-west disarmament talks are taking place.

  Mr. Maude
  NATO and the Warsaw pact are negotiating on conventional armed forces in Europe in Vienna, and at the open skies conference due to resume in Budapest next month; and (together with the neutral and non-aligned countries) on confidence and security-building measures in Vienna. Forty nations take part in 188
  the chemical weapons talks at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. The United States and the Soviet Union are negotiating on START and on nuclear testing, also in Geneva.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there is likely to be a conference on security and co-operation in Europe this year.

  Mr. Maude
  A meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the CSCE participating states is likely to be held in the course of this year. The CSCE intersessional meetings for 1990 agreed at the Vienna follow-up meeting will also take place.

  Purchasing Costs
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department achieved the target of a 5 per cent. saving in purchasing costs in 1988–89 through use of the central unit on purchasing.

  Mr. Maude
  Yes. In 1988–89, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office achieved purchasing savings of 9·1 per cent.

  Cuba
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States of America to restore normal relations with Cuba; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request the Nigerian authorities to expedite the issue of temporary employment visas for United Kingdom nationals carrying out duties in Nigeria with a stay of less than 90 days.

  Mr. Maude
  Under Nigerian rules, applications for temporary employment visas have to be referred to Nigeria for decision. We regularly press the Nigerian authorities to reduce delays to a minimum, and have been able to help with some individual cases.

  German Democratic Republic
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the elections in the German Democratic Republic.

  Mr. Maude
  We welcome the recent elections in the GDR, which all observers consider to have been free and fair. We look forward to developing relations with the new Government once formed.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards self-determination in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
  189
  Mr. Maude
  We have never recognised de jure the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union in 1940. We recognise the right of the Baltic peoples to say what their own future should be.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards political developments in(a) Lithuania, (b) Estonia and (c) Latvia.

  Mr. Maude
  We support the right of the Baltic peoples to decide their own future, and have welcomed the considerable progress made in the past two years.

  Against the background of recent developments we now think it vital that the dialogue between the Soviet authorities and the Lithuanians should continue. We attach particular importance to the repeated statements by the Soviet leadership that there is no question of use of force.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet leaders of the Sajudis Popular Front of Lithuania.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans for any such meeting.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the political situation in(a) Lithuania, (b) Estonia and (c) Latvia.

  Mr. Maude
  The Soviet Union is well aware of our view that the Baltic peoples should be enabled to determine their own future. We have made clear to the Russians our concern about the situation in Lithuania and our firm view that continued dialogue between the Soviet authorities and the Lithuanians is essential.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by the Baltic states to the British Government concerning the Baltic gold deposited for safekeeping with the Bank of England at the outbreak of the war.

  Mr. Maude
  The criteria which we apply to the recognition of a state are explained in the answer which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) gave to a question by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 19 March. It would be open to the Government of any future independent state in Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania to make representations on the subject of gold deposits.

  Buchenwald Exhibition
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to Buchenwald concentration camp to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Maude
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have 190
  been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 11 to 15 June.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Maude
  We estimate that our expenditure in the financial year 1989–90 on management and computer consultancy will be:

  £

  Management consultancy

  232,100

  Computer consultancy

  1,691,710

  Individual contracts awarded during the year were:

  Management consultancies

  W. S. Atkins Energy Limited—Energy survey

  MWH Project Services Limited—Refurbishment project

  The Anne Shaw organisation—Review of car pool

  Pergamon Technical Services—Revision of regulations

  Coopers and Lybrand—Study of Personnel Department

  Coopers and Lybrand—Entry clearance study

  Market and Opinion Research International—Staff communications Survey

  Duhig Berry Limited—Scoping study of Project Support Office

  Computer consultancies

  BIS Applied Systems Limited—Systems Development

  Casu Electronics Limited—Systems Development

  Logica UK Limited—Requirements Analysis

  The Instruction Set Limited—Requirement Analysis

  Price Waterhouse—Project Management

  BRS Europe—Systems Development

  Software Sciences Limited—Systems Development/Training Consultancy

  Infosound Limited—Training Aids

  Secure Information Systems Limited—Systems Strategy

  Towngate Software Limited—Systems Development

  Technological Solutions Limited—Programming

  Praxis Systems plc—Systems Analysis and Design/Project Management

  Applied Learning International Limited—Training Aids

  Management Systems Development Limited—Feasibility Study/Systems Development

  Casu Europe Limited—Systems Development

  SCICON—FOLIOS Development

  Duhig Berry Limited—Project Control Systems

  Computer Learning Centre Limited—Traning Aids

  Ashford Associates Limited—Post-Implementation Review

  Softlab Limited—Risk Analysis

  Kinesis Computing Limited—Systems Development

  Mega Consultancy—Building and Cabling Works

  Absolute Solutions—Technical Documentation

  Digitus—Systems Development

  System Assurance Limited—Strategy Support

  PA Limited—Organisational Issues

  P + P Corporate Systems Limited—Systems Development

  NCR Limited—Systems Development

  BOS Software Limited—Systems Development

  There is no specific budgetary provision of management consultancy for the financial year 1990–91, but our present estimated expenditure is £37,500. The budget for computer consultancy is £1,430,000.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the number of cases where the Crown prosecution service has failed to prosecute when a coroner's court has brought in a verdict of unlawful killing during the last five years.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  The Attorney-General
  No expenditure on management and computer consultancy contracts was incurred by the legal secretariat to the Law Officers in 1989–90, and no such expenditure is expected by the Treasury Solicitor's Department. In 1989–90 the Crown prosecution service spent £550,000 on management and computer consultancy contracts, while the Serious Fraud Office estimates its expenditure to be nil in respect of management consultancy contracts, but £213,000 in respect of computer consultancy contracts in 1989–90. The contracts awarded by the Crown prosecution service in 1989–90 were as follows:PA Management Consultants—staffing model development study,
  The Human Science and Advanced Technology Research Centre, Loughborough University—evaluation of the use of information technology to present evidence in court,
  Kinesis Computing Limited—assistance with legal information feasibility study,
  Cumulus Software Limited—training and assistance with changes to case tracking software,
  Aims Systems Limited—assistance with formal specification of SCOPE case management project,
  Yale Data Management Limited—assistance with the production of the SCOPE operational requirement and procurement.

  The computer consultancy contracts awarded by the Serious Fraud Office were as follows:
  Digitus—systems analysis, design and implementation of computerised case tracking system,
  ITL—preparation of computer manual for document control system,
  Digitus—programming amendments to computer system for document control,
  Digitus—systems acceptance of case tracking and investigation system,
  Ultracomp—preparation of performance tests for case tracking and investigation system,
  CCTA—IT strategy study,
  S & S Enterprises Limited—recovery of data from disc.
  The total amounts the legal secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown prosecution service and Serious Fraud Office have budgeted to spend in 1990–91 are nil, £5,000, £395,000 and £200,000 respectively.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total amount spent by the Land Registry in 1989 on 192
  management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Land Registry in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that the Land Registry has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  The Attorney-General
  Management and computer consultancy contracts were awarded by the Land Registry in 1989 as follows:

  Management Consultancy
  Industrial Training Service Ltd.—Programme to develop management training.

  Computer Consultancy
  Business Information Management—Technical advice on a requirement document for procurement of a new digital mapping system.
  PAFEC Ltd.—An investigation into techniques for the colour scanning of map records.
  Intergraph (UK) Ltd.—Software development of the Registry's Intergraph System.
  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency—Departmental Support Agreement providing ongoing technical advice support and Information Technology procurement services.

  The Land Registry estimates that its expenditure in the financial year 1989–90, including expenditure on CCTA will be £42,899·70, and for 1990–91 a budget of £50,000 has been set.

PRIME MINISTER

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total amount spent by the Cabinet Office in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if she will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Cabinet Office in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that the Cabinet Office has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  The Prime Minister
  The expenditure by the Cabinet Office on management and computer consultancies, excluding purchases of hardware and software, is estimated to be £163,900 in 1989–90. The management and computer consultancy contracts let by the Cabinet Office during 1989–90 are as follows:

  Firm

  Assignment

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Pilot study on evaluation

  Infomet Ltd

  System building for local area network

  National Children's Bureau

  Advice on the London Childcare Project

  Nettel Ltd

  Adapting software to user requirement

  Oracle Corportation UK Ltd

  Redevelopment of management information system

  Peter Williams Associates

  Advice on the London Childcare Project

  Praxis Systems

  Assistance in the analysis, design and formulation of software

  Price Waterhouse

  Advice on performance indicators and management information systems

  193

  Firm

  Assignment

  Price Waterhouse

  Design and write database system

  Psytech Ltd

  Development of computerised system to support use of psychometric testing in recruitment schemes

  Shaista Faruqi

  Design of recruitment monitoring system

  Systematika Ltd

  Software development for personnel record system

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  AIDS
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the reasons for the resignation of Dr. Jonathan Mann, the director and founder of the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS; and if he will make it his policy to freeze the British contribution to that programme until he is satisfied about the future effectiveness of that programme in the absence of Dr. Mann.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The reasons for Dr. Mann's resignation are a matter between him, the World Health Organisation and its director general. The Government's interest is to work for the continuation of an effective global programme on AIDS.

  An acting director of the WHO global programme on AIDS, Dr. M. Merson, has taken office. We shall be working closely with him and will continue to monitor carefully, with other donors, the progress of the programme. We shall consider future United Kingdom support and its timing in the light of real practical progress and developments.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drugs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many intravenous drug users in Her Majesty's prisons were HIV sero-positive in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  Because HIV antibody tests are carried out only with informed consent, the antibody status of intravenous drug users identified while in prison custody will not always be known. Since June 1987 prison medical officers have reported the risk category or categories of identified HIV-infected prisoners. In the last seven months of that year, 41 of the cases were reported to be in the intravenous drug user category. The corresponding figures for the full calendar years 1988 and 1989 were 60 and 44 respectively.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the breakdown of known drug users on the Home Office notification index by enumeration districts of the small area statistics of the 1981 census in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is not readily available. The tables on addicts notified to the Home 194
  Office in 1989 published in "Statistics of the Misuse of Drugs: addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1989 Area tables", a copy of which is in the Library, break down some information by police force and local authority areas. Figures for district health authorities are also available on request, for England, from the Department of Health.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of(a) black or other ethnic minority and (b) white drug possession offenders were (i) cautioned and (ii) charged for each police force in 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the ethnic background of drug possession offenders is not held centrally.

  Deportation
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many defendants found guilty of crimes of violence have been recommended for deportation by the courts over the past five years;

  (2) where the Home Office has served a notice to deport, in how many cases over the last five years this was following a drugs-related offence; and in how many cases it was following an offence of violence to the person.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not readily available.

  Farzad Bazoft
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what name Farzad Bazoft first entered the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On entry the name was recorded as Farzad Robati-Bazoft.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what grounds the recommendation of the judge for the deportation of Farzad Bazoft was overruled;

  (2) what evidence was available at the time the decision was made not to deport Mr. Farzad Bazoft to indicate that his life would be at risk if he were to return to Iran; and what was the source of that evidence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It was decided not to deport Mr. Bazoft to Iran because of documentary evidence that he would be arrested by the Iranian authorities because of his political opinions. It is not the practice to disclose sources of evidence in individual asylum cases.

  South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the result of the discussions he had with members of the South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority in respect of their 1990–91 financial situation.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met at their request a delegation from South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority on 15 January to listen to their concerns about the standard spending assessment for the authority for 1990–91, which is 11·8 per cent. greater than their grant-related expenditure assessment for
  1989–90.
  195
  My right hon. and noble Friend took note of the concerns expressed and Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services will monitor closely the operational capacity of the South Yorkshire fire service. Ministers have agreed to consider any new evidence on standard spending assessments with regard to the possibility of making changes for 1991–92 if this should prove necessary.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning value added tax on food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has received a number of representations.

  Payroll Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the implementation of a payroll tax similar to that in the United States of America.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has no plans to introduce such a tax.

  Married Couple's Allowance
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer at the 1990–91 tax rates announced in the Budget of the married couple's allowance; and how much of this cost is attributable to taxpayers aged below 65 years.

  Mr. Lilley
  The direct revenue cost in a full year, at 1990–91 levels of income, of the married couple's allowance is estimated to be about £5·5 billion, of which £4·8 billion is attributable to married couples where both the husband and wife are aged under 65. The extra relief is worth £8·27 per week to a basic rate taxpayer not entitled to a higher, age-related, allowance.

  Estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are provisional.

  Budget (Gains)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the gain per individual arising from each relevant component of the 1990 Budget, both at current prices and net of indexation for those at one half and three quarters of average earnings, average earnings and one and a half, two, five and 10 times average earnings; and if he will provide comparable figures for each Budget since 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  Individuals will benefit directly or indirectly from many Budget measures. These gains will vary

  Consultancy firm

  Contracts

  A. Palmer

  Development Training

  Aims Systems

  SSADM

  Alkemi

  Standby Disaster Plan

  Ashvent Limited

  Computer Training

  196
  according to their specific circumstances, as well as their level of earnings, and it would be impracticable to attempt to estimate the effects of all the measures listed in table 4.1 of the 1990 FSBR, let alone for each Budget since 1979. Information on the effects of specific measures may be found in the press notices issued each Budget day by Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) of 15 March,Official Report, column 654, if he will give for the years 1988 and 1989 the total amount of mortgage interest paid, distinguishing between changes due to changes in the level of interest rates and changes due to changes in the stock of mortgages; and what is the number of mortgages outstanding and their average size as at 31 December 1987, 31 December 1988 and 31 December 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  The latest estimates are that total mortgage interest payments grew from £22·1 billion in 1988 to £32·3 billion in 1989; 53 per cent. of the increase was due to the effect of the increase in interest rates on the stock of mortgages in 1988 and 47 per cent. to the effect of the increase in stock in 1989, including the effect of the rise in the interest rate on the increase in stock. Estimates of the numbers of mortgages outstanding and their average size in the last three financial years are given in the table:

  Mortgages qualifying for income tax relief

  Outstanding mortgages (thousands)

  Average size of mortgage (£)

  1987–88

  8,750

  17,000

  1 1988–89

  9,100

  21,000

  1 1989–90

  9,300

  24,500

  1 Provisional.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Ryder
  The total amount spent by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the financial year 1989–90 was £3,251,798.

  The consultancy firms awarded contracts in management and computer consultancy, excluding hardware arid software purchases, are as follows:
  197

  Consultancy firm

  Contracts

  BIS Applied Systems

  Cabling Requirement Partnership Agreement

  Branton Kenton

  General Training Consultancy

  British Telecom

  DAS Network Consultancy

  Bull HN

  Cedric Technical Support

  CCTA

  Service and Support Agreements

  Change Matters

  Development Training

  Comshare

  Operational Planning System

  Consultancy Lecturing

  Computer Training

  Coopers Lybrand

  Management Information System

  D. Megginson Associates

  Development Training

  Datafit

  VAT System Software Development

  Deloitte Haskins Sells

  Personnel System

  EOSYS

  Cabling Study

  Ernst and Young

  Information Management Study Expert System for VAT Control Staff

  Expertech

  Expert System Development

  F. E. J. Peach

  Computer Training

  Hoskyns Group plc

  Chief Consultancy

  ICL

  Local User Requirement Analysis Computer Training

  Inforem

  Business Analysis

  Langdon Systems Ltd.

  Computer Training

  LBMS

  VAT II Consultancy

  Logica UK Ltd.

  Seizure System for Heathrow Partnership Agreement

  M. E. Parkinson

  VAT Training

  Max A. Eggart

  General Training Consultancy

  Meritkeen Ltd.

  General Training Consultancy

  Metron

  Capacity Management Planning

  MFT Computer Systems

  Central Tariff Quota Unit Mini Computer Strategy Study

  Oasis Ltd.

  Knowledge Based System

  Octagon

  Telephone Management Initiative

  Onsite Training Ltd.

  Computer Training

  P. A. Consulting Group

  Chief Project Support Forward Plan Study Project Management Cadre VAT II Relocation Study

  Performance Systems Incorporated

  Capacity Management Consultancy Personnel Recruitment System

  PPA

  Computer Training

  Praxis

  Project Planning System Performance Related Pay

  198

  199

  Consultancy firm

  Contracts

  Price Waterhouse

  Single European Market Strategy

  Rede Group

  Quality Management Initiative

  Regional Software

  Consultancy Support

  Samna

  Word Processing Study

  SJB Communications

  Telecoms Consultancy

  Soft Options

  Software Evaluation

  Style Conferences

  Audio Visual Study General Training Consultancy

  TDA Consultancy Group

  Development Training

  Thorn EMI

  VAT Measures Consultancy

  Touche Ross

  Operational Planning System Chief Technical Assurance

  University of Bath

  Local Delegation Study

  Welcom Software International

  Chief Project Cost Management

  Yale Data

  Integrated Tariff

  The total amount budgeted to be spent in the year 1990–91 by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is £4,544,000.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that Her Majesty's Stationery Office has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Ryder
  The total amount spent in 1989 was £290,000 and the budget for 1990 is £480,000.

  The following contracts were awarded in 1989:

  Firm

  Subject of Assignment

  NCC

  Advice on electronic data interchange

  Batalas

  Quality assurance audit (BS 5750)

  Mortiboys

  Quality assurance audit (BS 5750)

  David Hutchins Associates

  Total quality management

  CCTA

  General IT consultancy

  OASIS

  Business supplies development

  Touche Ross

  Data administration standards

  Touche Ross

  Preliminary accountancy system design

  D. Harris Associates

  Post implementation reviews of IT projects

  Technigraphic Bristol Ltd.

  Design and manage building works

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by the Inland Revenue in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Inland Revenue in 1989, giving in 200
  each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that the Inland Revenue has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Lilley
  The amount spent by the Inland Revenue in the financial year 1989–90 on management and computer consultancy contracts excluding hardware and software purchases is expected to be about £16·1 million.

  The Inland Revenue has awarded the following consultancy contracts in 1989–90:
  Touche Ross Management Consultants: Records Management
  Printing Industry Research Association: Reprographics
  HMSO Technical Services: Reprographics
  Organisations and Systems Innovations Ltd.: BROCS Project Office
  Oracle (UK) Ltd.: Systems development
  Henley Business Systems Ltd.: Evaluation of MIDAS software
  Expertech: Expert systems for BROCS
  Gmb Support Ltd.: IR Suggestions Scheme
  BIS Applied Systems Ltd.: Security risk assessment of systems
  IMB UK Ltd.: Systems development
  Trident Computer Services Ltd.: COVA project support
  Inforem: Technical support

  A budget of £17 million has been allocated by the Inland Revenue for the financial year 1990–91.

  Default Surcharge
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the review of the operation and impact of the default surcharge has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The review we announced in July 1988 has been completed. A very thorough examination of the operation and effectiveness of the default surcharge was carried out and very careful consideration was given to the submissions made by many interested parties. We have, however, no plans for changes at the present time, although the matter will be kept under constant review.

  Commemorative Coins
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government have plans to issue any new commemorative coins.

  Mr. Major
  Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that a special £5 crown be issued to commemorate the 90th birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. There will be a normal version of the coin issued at face value, and collectors' versions in precious metal and base metal, issued at a premium.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be published.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Finance Bill will be published on Thursday 19 April.

ENVIRONMENT

  Deputy Secretaries
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the responsibilities of each of the deputy secretaries in his Department and the numbers and ranks of staff reporting to each.

  Grade 3

  Grade 4

  Grade 5

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Industrial

  Total

  Planning, inner cities and rural affairs

  3·0

  1·0

  13·0

  10·0

  49·0

  43·0

  57·0

  67·0

  80·0

  20·0

  —

  343·0

  Local government and central finance

  3·0

  0·5

  14·0

  7·0

  44·0

  28·0

  63·0

  83·0

  94·0

  36·5

  —

  371·5

  Environmental protection

  5·0

  —

  22·5

  33·0

  123·0

  48·0

  60·0

  85·0

  95·0

  23·0

  —

  494·5

  Legal

  2·0

  —

  10·0

  10·0

  15·5

  —

  1·0

  6·0

  10·0

  2·0

  —

  56·5

  Housing, construction and sport

  4·0

  —

  21·0

  14·5

  77·5

  27·0

  81·0

  127·0

  149·0

  40·0

  —

  541·0

  Establishments

  3·0

  1·0

  10·0

  13·0

  40·0

  74·5

  149·5

  214·5

  207·5

  348·5

  —

  1,067·5

  Heritage and Royal Estate

  1·0

  —

  2·0

  1·0

  7·0

  7·0

  37·0

  156·0

  38·0

  7·0

  371·5

  627·5

  Planning inspectorate

  1·0

  2·0

  11·0

  114·0

  85·0

  4·0

  24·0

  68·5

  160·5

  100·0

  —

  570·0

  Regional offices

  6·0

  1·0

  19·0

  14·0

  105·5

  85·0

  149·5

  212·5

  222·0

  77·5

  —

  892·0

  Hindu Temple, Hertsmere
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce his decision concerning the planning application for a Hindu temple to be built in the borough of Hertsmere.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 20 March at columns 600-17.
  202
  Mr. Chris Patten
  There are six deputy secretaries in DOE (central). Their responsibilities are planning, inner cities and rural affairs; local government and finance; environmental protection; legal services; housing, construction and sport; and establishments and the built heritage. The planning inspectorate and regional directors also report to the deputy secretary responsible for establishments and the built heritage. There are a further three deputy secretaries in the Property Services Agency.

  The numbers of staff by grade reporting to each of the deputy secretaries in DOE(C) on 1 February are set out in the table.

  There are also certain groups within DOE(C) which do not report through a deputy secretary. These consist of private offices (with 63 staff) and information (with 44 staff).

  The figures also exclude staff at the Historic Royal Palaces Agency which became an executive agency on 2 October 1989, and the Building Research Establishment, which it is proposed should become an executive agency on 2 April 1990.

  I will write to my hon. Friend with further information regarding the Property Services Agency.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to encourage local housing authorities to provide home improvement agency services to disabled home owners where voluntary sector agencies do not operate.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department is currently reviewing the best way of using the provisions in section 169 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 relating to the provision and long-term funding of home improvement agency services, including those for the disabled. I hope to be able to make an announcement later this year.
  203
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will take steps to place a duty on local housing authorities to replace properties sold to disabled people under the right to buy.

  Mr. Chope
  No. Such properties are not lost to the housing stock, and would in any case not be available for re-letting so long as the secure tenants remained in occupation.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a table showing the Government's percentage contribution to local expenditure for each year since 1978–79 together with a forecast for(a) the current financial year and (b) 1990–91 based on the budgets which have been agreed by the local authorities to date.

  Mr. Chope
  The available information is as given in the table:

  Aggregate Exchequer grant as percentage of relevant expenditure

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  59·8

  1979–80

  58·6

  1980–81

  57·2

  1981–82

  54·9

  1982–83

  51·7

  1983–84

  50·1

  1984–85

  50·0

  1985–86

  49·0

  1986–87

  45·4

  1987–88

  44·4

  1988–89

  42·5

  11989–90

  40·5

  1 Based on local authority budgets.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by local authority area the total amount paid in lieu of non-domestic rates by formula-rated properties in 1989–90 and the equivalent contribution being made to the non-domestic pool in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 27 March 1990]: The information that the hon. Member has requested is not held centrally for 1989–90. For 1990–91 the aggregate of the rates bills of those industries appearing on the central rating list for England whose rateable values are set by order is estimated to be £863 million.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish figures showing how the contribution paid in lieu of non-domestic rates by Oxfordshire formula-rated properties is to be redistributed in Oxfordshire in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 27 March 1990]: From 1 April rates paid by the industries whose rateable values are fixed by order will be collected by the Secretary of State and paid into the non-domestic rate pool. Attribution of rateable values to properties occupied by these industries in particular local authority areas will no longer be necessary. The proceeds of the non-domestic rate pool will be distributed to charging authorities in proportion to their population of community charge payers.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he is next going to issue new regional planning guidance for the period up to the year 2006.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The current regional planning guidance for the south-east region is contained in planning policy guidance note PPG9. SERPLAN (the London and south-east regional planning conference) is conducting a regional review, and hopes to submit advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment after its July 1990 conference. After considering that advice, my right hon. Friend will issue a draft for consultation, before finalising his new regional planning guidance. This will probably occur during 1991.

  West Midlands Residuary Body
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given to the West Midlands residuary body in relation to the disposal of land at Church lane, West Bromwich, known as the former Johnsons Rolls site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In response to a request from the board of the West Midlands residuary body I issued a direction on 20 March 1990, under section 65 of the Local Government Act 1985 requiring the residuary body to dispose of all its interests in the land at Church lane, West Bromwich to the Black Country development corporation on or before 30 April 1990. I have today placed a copy of the direction in the Library of the House.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future status of the Building Research Establishment.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am pleased to announce that on 2 April the Building Research Establishment (BRE) is to become an executive agency in the Department of the Environment under the next steps initiative. This will provide the establishment with new freedoms and will improve its ability to serve the needs of Government, the construction industry and building users. I am placing a copy of the policy and resources framework document for the new agency in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The key performance indicators of the agency are set out in the framework document. The principal targets for 1990–91 are:

  the average overhead rate

  the average technical man day rate

  the utilisation rate for chargeable staff

  non-Exchequer income as a percentage of total income

  In addition, the target net vote cost of the agency will be £1·764 million in 1990–91. The agency will be expected to make efficiency savings equivalent to at least 2 per cent. a year.

TRANSPORT

  Ro-Ro Ferries
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce regulations to change the layout of roll on/roll off ferries, in order to ease the evacuation procedure in case of emergency.
  205
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Evacuation procedures are governed by regulations made under the Merchant Shipping Acts. The Department of Transport has sponsored research into evacuation from roll on/roll off passenger ferries in an emergency. The results and recommendations of this research have been put to the International Maritime Organisation for consideration by the Maritime Safety Committee later this year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had on the poll tax rebate system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had concerning poll tax rebates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Ministers receive correspondence on a range of issues, both from hon. Members and from their constituents. In the last six months, 1,053 items of correspondence have been received by the Department about the community charge benefit scheme, but it is not possible to identify the number relating particularly to rebates in Scotland.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to extend the period for poll tax rebate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on 23 March at column 788.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will benefit from the new measures to help disabled people who do not qualify for attendance allowance or mobility allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that some 140,000 people will benefit from the new lower rate of the care component of the new disability allowance and some 150,000 from the initial rate of the mobility component.

  Ex-Miners (Reduced Earnings Allowance)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retired or redundant miners are eligible for an increase in their reduced earnings allowance following the successful appeal to the social security appeal tribunal on 8 March by Gerald Linsdell; and what steps he is taking to notify potential claimants.

  Mr. Scott
  The decision of the social security appeal tribunal dealt only with the circumstances of Mr. Linsdell's claim and is not considered to have wider implications.

  Community Charge
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the community charge of a pensioner couple, living in a district with a community 206
  charge of £380, will be reduced as a result of the Chancellor's statement, where their only income is the state retirement pension and they have savings of (a) £8,000, (b) £12,000 and (c) £16,000.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Pensioner couple aged 60 to 74, receiving state retirement pension for a couple of £75·10 a week, with a community charge of £380 each.

  Savings £

  Community charge benefit (per week) £

  8,000

  8·72

  12,000

  6·32

  16,000

  3·92

  Pensioner Premium
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce regulations to pay the higher pensioner premium to all persons on income support who were in receipt of invalidity benefit when they reached retirement age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the cost of paying higher pensioner premium to all those who fail to be entitled to it solely because they transferred from invalidity pensions to retirement pensions on the advice of his Department; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of people who fail to be entitled to higher pensioner premium solely because they transferred from invalidity pensions to retirement pensions on the advice of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The formal and informal advice given by the Department reflects the contemporaneous position in law and any known forthcoming changes in it. Information on which to base the requested estimates, of people who are not entitled to the higher pensioner premium because they retired before the introduction of income support, is not available.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the budgetary totals for(a) DSS offices relating to Leyton residents, (b) Londonwide and (c) nationally for (i) grants and (ii) loans from the social fund in 1988–89 and 1989–90 and his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about the social fund grants and loans budget allocations nationally, for each social security region and each local office for 1988–89 and 1989–90 is in the Library. I refer the hon. Member to my statement on Monday 26 March concerning the budget allocations for 1990–91. I have placed that information in the Library.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest figure for the total repayments of social fund loans in the current financial year.

  Mr. Scott
  Loan repayments in 1989–90 as at 28 February 1990 were provisionally £99 million.

  Independent Living Fund
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total expenditure for the independent living fund for the year 1989–90 for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the London borough of Lewisham.

  Mr. Scott
  The total expenditure for the independent living fund from 1 April 1989 to 28 February 1990 for the United Kingdom is £8·3 million. Information for Lewisham is not available separately.

  Table 3

  Staff-in-post in regional offices—1st March 1990

  Mids

  LN

  LS

  Scot

  NW

  NE

  WSW

  Totals

  Executive/Director

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·0

  Assistant/Secretary

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  0·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  6·0

  Senior/Principal

  5·0

  5·0

  5·0

  4·0

  5·0

  5·0

  5·0

  34·0

  Principal

  6·0

  6·0

  7·0

  7·0

  8·0

  6·0

  6·0

  46·0

  Senior Executive Officer

  22·5

  24·5

  25·0

  27·0

  29·0

  24·5

  22·0

  174·5

  Higher Executive Officer

  78·5

  81·5

  87·5

  81·0

  85·0

  79·5

  71·0

  564

  LOI

  111·0

  145·0

  139·5

  141·0

  92·0

  154·0

  74·0

  856·5

  Executive Officer

  116·5

  83·5

  118·0

  117·5

  141·5

  85·5

  111·0

  773·5

  LOII

  123·0

  139·5

  77·0

  137·0

  26·0

  145·5

  5·0

  653·0

  AO

  130·0

  44·5

  108·5

  61·5

  192·0

  114·5

  131·0

  782·0

  AA

  9·0

  60·0

  58·0

  38·0

  49·5

  33·5

  27·5

  275·5

  Typ Manager

  1·0

  2·0

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  2·0

  2·0

  16·0

  Typist

  13·0

  18·5

  22·5

  19·5

  21·5

  20·5

  19·5

  135·0

  PES

  8·0

  4·0

  6·0

  7·0

  8·0

  10·0

  4·0

  47·0

  MED/Board/Assistant

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  2·0

  0·0

  2·0

  4·0

  SM3

  0·0

  0·0

  1·0

  0·0

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  2·0

  Supp Grade 1

  1·0

  2·0

  2·0

  0·0

  3·0

  6·0

  4·0

  18·0

  Supp Grade 2

  2·0

  8·0

  11·0

  0·0

  18·0

  11·0

  16·0

  66·0

  Professionals

  2·0

  2·5

  2·5

  0·0

  2·0

  3·0

  0·0

  12·0

  TOTALS

  629·5

  627·5

  674·5

  644·5

  687·5

  701·5

  501·0

  4,466·0

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 26 February,Official Report, columns 16-17, when he expects to publish the inspectors' reports hitherto not published.

  Mr. Redwood
  Of the inspectors' reports listed in my reply, the decision whether to publish remains under consideration in respect of 12 reports relating to the following companies:

  Alexander Howden Group plc

  British Anzani plc

  Medway Secondary Metals Limited

  Guinness plc (interim)

  Aldermanbury Trust plc (interim)

  Consolidated Gold Fields plc (two interims)

  Graylaw Holdings Limited and

  Link Service Stations Limited

  Bank Street Securities Limited

  Pennine Commercial Holdings plc

  The Animal Defence Society Limited

  Minet Holdings plc and

  WMD Underwriting Agencies Limited (final)

  House of Fraser Holdings plc was published on 7 March. The other reports will not be published.

  Accountancy Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his policy as a condition of recognition, to require the accountancy

  Regional Offices
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what functions his Department carries out at the regional level; where the regional offices are located in each of the regions; what staff are employed and at what grades; what proportion of his Department's budget is spent in each of the regions; and what geographical boundaries determine his Department's regions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [pursuant to her reply, 21 March 1990, c. 639-41.]: The information in table 3 was found to be incorrect. The corrected information is given in the following table.

  bodies seeking supervisory recognition under the Companies Act 1989 to hold their meetings in the open, with access for members.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. It is for a supervisory body itself to decide what arrangements are appropriate for informing its members of matters of concern to them.

  Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who advises him on the appointment of inspectors from accountancy firms.

  Mr. Redwood
  I select the appropriate person for appointment as an accountant inspector; in doing so I take into account the views of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

  Investment Businesses
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications by investment businesses for authorisation under the Financial Services Act have been rejected to date; and how many of those applications were made to each of the self-regulatory organisations and to the Securities and Investments Board, respectively.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulatory organisations, but I understand that the figures are not available because of difficulties of definition.
  209
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many investment businesses are trading with interim authorisation under the Financial Services Act at the latest available date; and if he will provide an analysis of these showing(a) those subject to the appeals procedure, (b) those awaiting a memorandum of understanding with an overseas country and (c) any others; and a further analysis showing how many of these applications were made to each of the self-regulatory organisations and to the Securities and Investments Board, respectively.

  Mr. Redwood
  At 21 March, a total of 98 businesses held interim authorisation:

  Interim authorisations

  AFBD

  7

  FIMBRA

  48

  IMRO

  7

  TSA

  34

  SIB

  2

  The number subject to appeal is not available. Of the total, 10 applications to FIMBRA and 22 applicants to TSA are businesses incorporated abroad on which a decision is postponed awaiting entry into satisfactory arrangements with the regulatory authorities in the country of incorporation.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any individuals as opposed to businesses are vetted when applications are made for authorisation under the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for the particular regulatory body to which a business makes application for authorisation. I understand that all the regulatory bodies vet individuals of significance to the shareholdings or management of the business when they consider application for authorisation of that business. Some self-regulatory organisations have membership requirements that go further.

  Rover Sale
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the dates in 1988 and those present when the tax arrangements governing the sale of Rover were discussed.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: I understand that tax aspects of the sale of the Government shareholding in the Rover Group to British Aerospace were the principal subject discussed at the following meetings held in 1988:

  Date

  Organisations represented

  29 February

  DTI and Inland Revenue

  8 March

  DTI, Inland Revenue, Baring Brothers and Slaughter & May

  10 March

  Inland Revenue, Baring Brothers and Slaughter & May

  24 March

  DTI, Inland Revenue, British Aerospace, Slaughter & May, Peat Marwick McLintock and Linklaters & Paines

  28 March

  Inland Revenue, British Aerospace, Rover Group, Slaughter & May, Peat Marwick McLintock, Linklaters & paines and Ashurst Morris Crisp

  210

  Date

  Organisations represented

  28 April

  Inland Revenue and Slaughter & May

  29 June

  DTI, Inland Revenue, Her Majesty's Treasury, Rover Group, British Aerospace, Slaughter & May, Peat Marwick McLintock and Linklaters & Paines

  6 July

  DTI, Inland Revenue, British Aerospace, Slaughter & May, Linklaters & Paines, Peat Marwick McLintock

  Footwear and Leather Goods
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is the value of footwear and leather imports under the GSP scheme from Thailand into the United Kingdom since 1 January; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps the Government are taking to restore full duties where imports of shoes and leather goods have already exceeded the European Economic Community ceilings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: Footwear and leather goods enter the United Kingdom under a number of tariff headings and different categories are monitored differently, according to their treatment under the GSP. My Department has asked the European Commission to reimpose duty on footwear under tariff headings 6401 and 6402 from Thailand and Indonesia. The total value of imports from Thailand for tariff headings 6401 and 6402 from 1 January—14 March 1990 was 2,506,331 ecu. If the hon. Member requires figures for any other tariff headings, I should be happy to write to him.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Debt
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had concerning repealing the Payment of Debt (Northern Ireland) Act.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government keep the working of the Act under review. We also receive representations about the Act from time to time, including a recent letter from the hon. Gentleman.

  Strangford Lough
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside met to give him advice about the proposed Strangford Lough (ASSI) (Part 3) declaration; and whether such advice given is in written form.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland was advised on nature conservation matters by the Committee for Nature Conservation (CNC) until 16 May 1989 when that committee (and the Ulster Countryside Committee) was replaced by the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside (CNCC).

  On 20 November 1986 the CNC endorsed the Department's proposals for an area of special scientific interest (ASSI) at Strangford Lough. A revision to the proposed boundary was agreed by CNC at a meeting on 12

  211
  October 1987. The ASSI was declared in three parts, the third part, the Strangford Lough (Part 3) ASSI, being declared on 21 April 1989.

  At a meeting on 7 July 1989 the CNCC endorsed the views of the CNC about the declaration of the ASSI. The views of the CNC and the CNCC were conveyed to the Department by means of copies of the minutes of their meetings.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he received prior advice from the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside before he confirmed the Strangford Lough (ASSI) (Part 3) declaration; and whether he made available to the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside information about objections from private individuals and public bodies to the proposed ASSI.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At a meeting on 3 November 1989 the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside was informed by officials of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland about the representations and objections to the declaration of the Strangford Lough (Part 3) area of special scientific interest (ASSI). The CNCC advised the officials of its support for the confirmation of the ASSI. The ASSI was confirmed on 16 November 1989.

  Social Security Benefits
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for how long records of social security benefits paid to claimants are retained; and whether it is possible to obtain details of the period March 1985 to August 1987 relating to someone who qualified for and was in receipt of family income supplement in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The length of time records of social security benefits paid to claimants are retained varies with the benefit and with certain other circumstances (for example, the death of a claimant). Records of family income supplement are normally retained for two years after the last date of payment and it is therefore unlikely that details of a claim relating to the period from March 1985 to August 1987 are available. However, if the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind my noble Friend —Lord Skelmersdale—will be pleased to look into it.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish details of the criteria used to reach the decision to increase electricity charges in Northern Ireland by 8 per cent. from 1 April.

  Mr. Needham
  The main criterion was that electricity charges should reflect the economic price of supply in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated level of profit likely to be produced by Northern Ireland Electricity in the period 1990–91 by the increase in charges to consumers from 1 April.

  Mr. Needham
  It is not practice to publish estimates by boards of public undertakings of their forecast performance.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Her Majesty's Government and Northern 212
  Ireland Electricity have proposals to reduce electricity prices in Northern Ireland and to reduce the energy burden on industry and domestic consumers.

  Mr. Needham
  As regards electricity prices I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Secretary of State's answer to a question from the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) on 13 March,Official Report, columns 139-40.

  On reducing the energy burden, the Government actively encourage consumers to use energy efficiently so as to reduce their energy costs.

  St. Louis School, Ballymena
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy on the inclusion by the grant-aided St. Louis R.C. voluntary grammar school, Ballymena, in its enrolment criteria of the statement, "Any prospective entrant must accept the Catholic ethos of the school".

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under the new open enrolment arrangements all secondary schools must have regard to parental preference. If they are oversubscribed the criteria which they will use in selecting pupils is a matter for the board of governors. I will be considering the need to issue further guidance on criteria in the light of experience in the 1990–91 school year.

  Ballinamallard Primary School
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Ballinamallard primary school, County Fermanagh, which was bomb-damaged in 1985 will be given priority for capital funding; and when a permanent extension will be provided to replace mobiles.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Extensive damage to the school as a result of a van bomb in September 1985 has been repaired. The provision of a permanent extension at the school has recently been the subject of an investment appraisal which is still under consideration by the Department of Education. It will depend upon the future detailed planning of the scheme, on the priority which will be attached to it by the Western education and library board and the level of financial resources available to the Department for the education capital programme. I cannot, therefore, predict a time scale for the project at this stage.

  Fair Employment Legislation
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to expedite the formulation of new guidelines for the Local Government Staff Commission in accordance with the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Local Government Staff Commission has a statutory responsibility to recommend the procedures to be followed by district councils in making appointments or promotions. It is currently setting up a working party, which will include representatives of staff associations, to review the existing employment and promotion procedures. It anticipates the completion of this review in two to three months.
  213
  There is no statutory requirement under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 for employers, including district councils, to formulate new guidelines on fair employment matters.

  All employers should have regard to the code of practice on fair employment published by the Department of Economic Development on 31 December 1989. The code exhorts employers to draw up a clear policy of promotion and equality of opportunity in the workplace and to make this widely known, especially among employees and job applicants.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many of the staff, other than home helps, of the Western health and social services board in Northern Ireland are(a) Protestants, (b) Roman Catholics, (c) religion not known because they were educated in the Irish Republic and (d) religion not known because they were educated elsewhere than the island of Ireland;

  (2) what information he has on the religious composition of the 110 home helps mentioned in his reply of 7 March, Official Report, columns 660-61, who were educated outside Northern Ireland;

  (3) what information he has on the religious composition of the 767 home helps mentioned in his reply of 7 March, Official Report, columns 660-61, for whom no record of primary school attended is held;

  (4) what information he has on the religious composition of the 989 home helps mentioned in his reply of 7 March, Official Report, columns 660-61, who were educated in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The information requested by the hon. Gentleman is not available. All health and social services boards are required to monitor the composition of their work force and to make returns to the Fair Employment Commission. No board has yet completed its analysis of the data concerned.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Fair Employment Commission will publish detailed information on the religious composition of(a) its staff and (b) its applicants who are not appointed.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: In due course such information will be published by the Fair Employment Commission.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to publish a White Paper on community care in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  My noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale will tomorrow be publishing a policy paper on community care in Northern Ireland. The paper will explain how the national objectives in the White Paper "Caring for People" are to be pursued in the context of Northern Ireland's unique integrated health and social services. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Electoral Registration Office, Strangford
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what instructions have been given to the electoral registration office for Strangford as to the times of day that telephone calls should be made.

  Mr. Cope
  Routine administrative matters of this nature are the responsibility of the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of hepatitis B there have been in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and in each year, how many have been fatal.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Cases

  Deaths

  1987

  9

  1

  1988

  8

  nil

  1989

  8

  11

  1 Up to 30 September 1989.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland have been unemployed for more than 10 years and more than 15 years; and for each period, how many are(a) male and (b) female.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The information, at 8 February 1990, is as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Total

  More than 10 years

  4,104

  381

  4,485

  More than 15 years

  650

  60

  710

  The figures are not mutually exclusive since those unemployed for more than 15 years will also be included in the more than 10 years category.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the longest period of continuous unemployment for any person in Northern Ireland at the present time; and whether the person concerned is a male or a female.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The information requested, at 8 February 1990, is 28 years nine months and the person concerned is male.

  Security Vetting
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many persons selected as suitable applicants for posts for which they had applied by the Eastern health and social services board during each of the last three years have subsequently been refused an appointment because an adverse security report was received by the board from the Northern Ireland Office;

  (2) whether there is any appeal against an adverse security report issued by the Northern Ireland Office on an otherwise suitable applicant for a job with a health and social services board;
  215
  (3) who is (a) responsible for and (b) carries out security vetting of otherwise suitable applicants for posts with the Eastern health and social services board.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: It has been the policy of successive Governments not to give detailed information about security vetting procedures.

  Higher Education
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of young people who became, or will become, 19 years old during the current academic year and who are refused Department of Health and Social Security benefit although they are undergoing a course of education entered into before they became 19 years old.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: No such estimate is available.

  Salmon (Bushmills)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate the Department of Agriculture (Northern Ireland) commitment to the continuation of scientific studies of salmon at the Bushmills site; how long the Department's lease on the site and river has to run; and whether it is intended to continue to base scientists on this site for the remainder of the lease.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: The Department's future strategy for research on salmon is currently under review with a view to expansion across Northern Ireland. The Department's lease on the Bushmills site and river extends to 2002. Until now no DANI scientists have been based on this site—they visit as required by seasonal factors.

  Marine Research
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions a fisheries scientist from his Department has attended meetings of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  3

  1988

  4

  1989

  3

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the projected annual savings to his Department which will arise by transfer of all fisheries research laboratory staff and the freshwater biological staff to Belfast; what percentage of the research vessel Lough Foyle annual running costs in a full year this represents; and what percentage of the research vessel's total annual costs this represents, including depreciation and replacement costs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: An investment appraisal estimated that over a 25-year period, relocation of staff from fisheries research
  216
  laboratory, Coleraine and freshwater biological investigation unit, Antrim to Belfast and the location of the scientific staff from the research vessel on the same site would have the lowest discounted net cost compared to other options.

  The decision to relocate was driven primarily by the scientific benefits to be gained from having a unified division located at the Department of Agriculture's scientific base in Belfast.

  The question of savings expressed as a percentage of research vessel costs is not relevant.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what scientific evidence is put to meetings of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on behalf of his Department.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: Scientific evidence presented to ICES consists of fish population parameters obtained from samples of the Northern Ireland sea-fish catches and fishing vessels. These Northern Ireland input data are combined with analogous data supplied by scientists from other EC countries exploiting Irish sea stocks and stock assessments are carried out using internationally agreed modelling techniques. Results derived in future through the MV Lough Foyle will provide essential fishery-independent data hence greatly enhancing accuracy of stock assessments and the resultant total allowable catches.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what would be the total savings for(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93 if the research vessel Lough Foyle were now to be sold.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: Total savings from selling the Lough Foyle have not been estimated as our current policy is to enhance marine research through the facility of a sea-going research vessel.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether a place on the United Kingdom delegation of scientists to meetings of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is reserved for a scientist from his Department.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]:

HEALTH

  Drugs (Education Programmes)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost in the latest year for which figures are available for education programmes designed to reduce the demand for drugs.

  Mr. Freeman
  Last month, at a cost of £3·8 million spread over two financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91, the Department launched the latest national drug publicity campaign warning young people of the dangers of becoming involved with drug misuse. Complementary regional campaigns are being run in Yorkshire, Mersey and west midlands.

  Residential Homes, Easington
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds are provided in the Easington constituency by private residential and nursing homes; and if he will indicate the number of beds home by home.
  217
  Mr. Freeman
  Information about nursing homes and residential care homes is not collected centrally in this form. Details of nursing homes and residential care homes registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 are kept by district health authorities and local social services authorities respectively.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those years in the period 1974 to 1989 when financial cuts in real terms were made in the National Health Service in England and Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  Over the period 1974–75 and 1989–90 there has been a reduction in real terms in spending in the NHS in England in only one year—1977–78. Over the same period there were real terms reductions in NHS spending in Wales in 1976–77 and 1977–78.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which disability organisations his Department has met this year to discuss the Government's proposals contained in "Caring for People."

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Ministers have met a number of organisations this year as part of the consultation process for implementing the community care proposals. These organisations have included the Prince of Wales Advisory Group, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the Keighley Disablement People's Council.

  Health Care Research
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the establishment of the post of chief of research and development at the Department of Health; and what role he expects the research and development division to have in the support of research into nursing care.

  Mr. Freeman
  The post of chief of research and development (CRD) has been advertised in the press, and once the closing date has passed a short list of candidates to be invited for interview will be drawn up.

  The Department's present research management division, suitably strengthened and perhaps renamed, will form the basis of the support to be provided for the CRD. The CRD will be responsible for advising Ministers and the chief executive of the NHS on what relative priority should be given to research on any particular topic.

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report, for the latest available date, the numbers of mental illness beds in secure accommodation in each district health authority and those district health authorities where no secure accommodation is available; what action he has taken to promote the development of comprehensive secure provision, including that for those chronically mentally ill and behaviourally disturbed people not appropriate for regional secure units, in pursuance of the recommendation of the interdepartmental Home Office and Department of Health and Social Security working group accepted in 1987; and if he will make a statement.
  218
  Mr. Freeman
  Tables with the numbers of mental illness beds in secure accommodation in district health authorities at the end of 1986, the most recent date for which figures are available centrally, and those districts without secure mental illness beds, have been placed in the Library.

  The Department continues to work closely with regional health authorities and professional bodies in developing a full range of secure provision. In particular it remains our policy that, in all appropriate cases, mentally disordered offenders should be kept out of, or transferred from, the penal system. To that end, we are fully committed to the implementation of all the recommendations made by the joint working party. Its report provides a co-ordinated strategy to guide the work of both the Department of Health and the Home Office. It identified a series of practical and achievable measures aimed at improving access to health and social services, and ensuring that full use is made of existing provisions.

  Good progress has been made in implementing the report's recommendations, including the recent publication of guidelines for health authorities on services for mentally handicapped people with challenging behaviour. We know that there are still occasional difficulties in placing particular patients quickly in appropriate accommodation; in some cases improvements in local referral systems are required; in others some additional facilities may be needed. But there are a number of places in which excellent work is being undertaken. We will be drawing on experience gained from these initiatives in formulating national guidelines in due course.

  Health Visitors
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health visitors there are as a proportion of children on the child care register in each borough in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is not possible to calculate the proportion requested. The number of children and young persons on child protection registers in each local authority area is published in "Survey of Children and Young Persons on child protection registers year ending 31 March 1988: England". This is available in the Library. Data for health visitors are shown by region in table C9.5(a) in the 1990 edition of "NHS Workforce in England" (page C102). I have arranged for a copy of this to be placed in the Library.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to improve health visiting facilities where the infant mortality is above national average; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The measures we are taking to achieve further reductions in infant mortality were described in the Government's reply to the first report from the Social Services Committee on perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality (CM 741). We accept that health visitors play a key role in the health surveillance and care of infants: the organisation and staffing of these services is best determined by health authorities in the light of local circumstances.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average caseload of a health visitor.
  219
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is not available in the form requested. The average number of people seen by each health visitor (whole-time equivalent) in England in the financial year 1987–88 was 395. Each person may be seen more than once, the annual average being three visits per person.

  Figures for 1988–89 are not yet available.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that there is an effective and safe child care service provided by health visitors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Provision of health visiting services is the responsibility of health authorities. Guidance on child protection was given in "Working Together: A Guide to Arrangements for Interagency Co-operation for the Protection of Children from Abuse" prepared by the Department and "Child Protection: Guidance for Senior Nurses, Health Visitors and Midwives" prepared by the Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee; both of which were published in 1988; copies are available in the Library.

  Any evidence of shortcomings in a health authority's children's services could be taken up in the annual review process and, if appropriate, discussed at the review meeting between the management executive and the region.

  Infant Mortality
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the infant mortality rate in each of the boroughs in England and Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  AIDS (Diets)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available to him on the costs of diets for people with AIDS or with HIV infection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security gave the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 8 December 1989 at column 419.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to make the grounds for eligibility for general practitioners' targets more flexible should it become apparent that it is in the patients' best interests to do so.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The GP target payments system will reduce the number of unnecessary deaths from cancer of the cervix and help to eliminate childhood diseases. It is therefore clearly in the patients' best interests. The Government have already given an undertaking to monitor all aspects of the GPs' new contract and to consider further improvements should this prove necessary.

EMPLOYMENT

  Regional Functions
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what functions his Department carries out at the regional level; where the regional offices are located in each of the regions; what staff are employed and at what grades; what proportion of his Department's budget is spent in each of the regions; and what geographical boundaries determine his Department's regions.

  Mr. Eggar
  Due to the unusual length of the information requested, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Students
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed students in each region of the country for each month from May 1989 to November 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is available in the Library. The following table shows for each month from May 1989 to February 1990 the number of unemployed students in each region of the country. Unemployment figures are not available for the requested group in Northern Ireland and no figures are available beyond February 1990. Figures on unemployed students are published separately and are not included in the monthly claimant count.

  The number of students on vacation and claiming unemployment related benefits (not seasonally adjusted)

  South East

  Total

  May 1989

  316

  June 1989

  509

  July 1989

  11,488

  August 1989

  12,618

  September 1989

  13,115

  October 1989

  1,814

  November 1989

  604

  December 1989

  499

  January 1990

  366

  February 1990

  319

  West Midlands

  Total

  May 1989

  120

  June 1989

  286

  July 1989

  8,081

  August 1989

  7,677

  September 1989

  8,392

  October 1989

  850

  November 1989

  189

  December 1989

  138

  January 1990

  96

  February 1990

  74

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Total

  May 1989

  77

  June 1989

  241

  July 1989

  9,006

  August 1989

  8,579

  September 1989

  9,635

  October 1989

  970

  221

  Total

  November 1989

  117

  December 1989

  88

  January 1990

  85

  February 1990

  68

  East Anglia

  Total

  May 1989

  11

  June 1989

  35

  July 1989

  1,310

  August 1989

  1,230

  September 1989

  1,414

  October 1989

  108

  November 1989

  24

  December 1989

  23

  January 1990

  16

  February 1990

  22

  South West

  Total

  May 1989

  36

  June 1989

  89

  July 1989

  3,944

  August 1989

  3,904

  September 1989

  4,121

  October 1989

  315

  November 1989

  70

  December 1989

  47

  January 1990

  30

  February 1990

  26

  East Midlands

  Total

  May 1989

  70

  June 1989

  170

  July 1989

  5,115

  August 1989

  4,936

  September 1989

  5,715

  October 1989

  469

  November 1989

  111

  December 1989

  80

  January 1990

  54

  February 1990

  37

  Northern

  Total

  May 1989

  47

  June 1989

  198

  July 1989

  5,840

  August 1989

  5,338

  September 1989

  6,645

  October 1989

  402

  November 1989

  68

  December 1989

  62

  January 1990

  37

  February 1990

  34

  Scotland

  Total

  May 1989

  205

  June 1989

  2,010

  July 1989

  13,853

  August 1989

  13,949

  September 1989

  13,204

  October 1989

  1,248

  November 1989

  226

  December 1989

  163

  January 1990

  119

  February 1990

  88

  222

  Great Britain

  Total

  May 1989

  1,102

  June 1989

  4,083

  July 1989

  78,223

  August 1989

  77,362

  September 1989

  83,682

  October 1989

  7,840

  November 1989

  1,761

  December 1989

  1,334

  January 1990

  989

  February 1990

  832

  North West

  Total

  May 1989

  153

  June 1989

  412

  July 1989

  12,962

  August 1989

  13,037

  September 1989

  14,362

  October 1989

  1,163

  November 1989

  280

  December 1989

  188

  January 1990

  139

  February 1990

  126

  Wales

  Total

  May 1989

  67

  June 1989

  133

  July 1989

  6,624

  August 1989

  6,094

  September 1989

  7,079

  October 1989

  501

  November 1989

  72

  December 1989

  46

  January 1990

  47

  February 1990

  38

  Training and Enterprise Councils (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he received in the last month from the chair of education, Nottingham county council, regarding consultations in the setting up of the Greater Nottingham training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have received a letter from the chair of the education committee for Nottingham county council concerning consultation with the education services by the prospective Greater Nottingham training and enterprise council. I place great importance on training and enterprise councils consulting the wider community.

  Genetically Engineered Organisms
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gordon,Official Report, 23 March, columns 783-84, why it would be inappropriate to list the locations of the three centres where applications for the release of genetically manipulated organisms are under review.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Applicants are in discussion with the Health and Safety Executive and relevant Government Departments about these proposals and final clearance is expected shortly. In accordance with its normal practice in such circumstances the Health and Safety Executive will
  223
  ask the centres concerned to issue a press release. Until the current discussions are completed there is no certainty that any release will take place and it is reasonable to respect concerns regarding commercial confidentiality.

  Pig Farming Industry
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has in respect of chest complaints among workers in the pig farming industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive is aware of respiratory problems in people working in pig houses and is currently undertaking research to identify the possible causes. A report on the research will be published later this year.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total publicity and advertising expenditure, including for privatisation, of his Department and public bodies for which his Department has responsibility in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 March 1990, c.503]: In my reply of 19 March I referred in error to Government expenditure plans as set out in the public expenditure White Paper for 1989. I should have referred to the public expenditure White Paper for 1990.

  The correct reply should have read:
  "The planned expenditure by my Department on total publicity in (b) 1989–90, to include that for the Training Agency, remains as stated in table 6.31 on page 29 of the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 1006, published in January 1990. No further detailed information is yet available."

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take immediate steps in order to exempt from poll tax payments(a) students, (b) the disabled and (c) pensioners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to change the present community charge arrangements for these groups.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the Scottish population, eligible for payment of the community charge, has paid in 1989–90.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information reguested is not held centrally but we understand that in most regions 85 per cent. to 95 per cent. of those eligible for the community charge have made some payment, with a figure of 98 per cent. in one area.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to review the operation of the poll tax.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The operation of the community charge arrangements is kept constantly under review and my right hon. and learned Friend will bring forward changes in these as and when he considers appropriate.
  224
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of collectable community charge remains unpaid at the latest available date; and what proportion of collectable rate was unpaid at the last year of the rating system in the equivalent date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 7 February to discuss the management of the North sea haddock fishery. My noble Friend the Minister of State participated in that meeting and met representatives of the federation again on 8 March, to inform them of the Government's decisions on management of this fishery.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current situation in the Scottish fishing industry.

  Mr. Lang
  The total value of landings into Scotland in January and February this year was slightly higher than that recorded in the corresponding period last year with the reduction in the volume of whitefish being offset by increased prices.

  A1 Improvements
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the effect on traffic flows and safety on the A1 in Berwickshire of improvements to the road south of the border.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As part of our "Routes South of Edinburgh" study, consideration was given to the extent of any traffic increase which might be generated on the A1 in Scotland by road improvements south of the border. The effect on traffic was concluded to be minimal, however, and therefore is likely to have no road safety consequences. However, the whole question of traffic and safety on the route can be addressed by the A1 steering group which we propose to set up and which the hon. Member recently agreed would be an appropriate forum for monitoring such issues.

  Regional Development
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the European Commissioner responsible for regional development; and if he will make a statement.

  41. Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to secure continued funding by the European Community of regional development in the highlands and islands.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the loss of European Community funds to the highlands and islands.

  Mr. Lang
  I last met Commissioner Millan on 24 November 1989 when I represented the United Kingdom
  225
  Government at an informal seminar of European Community Ministers responsible for regional planning and development held in Nantes. The Government are seriously concerned by the European Commission's recent proposals for regional fund assistance to the highlands and islands and Dumfries and Galloway. We shall be making every effort to persuade the Commission to reconsider its proposals and recognise the needs of these areas.

  Rents into Mortgages Scheme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to extend the rents into mortgages scheme to more public sector tenants.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on 29 November 1989 at column 282.

  Scottish Assembly
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received during the past six months about a Scottish assembly.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Four.

  Investment
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new inward investment projects have been announced in the last two months.

  Mr. Lang
  In the last two months, three major inward investment projects have been announced for Scotland.

  These are (a) British Airways' announcement to establish a major telephone sales centre in Glasgow; (b) Conner Peripherals' announcement to manufacture Winchester hard disk drives at Irvine; and (c) Motorola's announcement to set up its European cellular subscriber division in a new plant in West Lothian.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has evaluated the marine environment implications of the fish farming industry.

  Mr. Lang
  A wide range of studies have been carried out, or are currently under way to consider the environmental effects of fish farming in Scotland. These have been undertaken mainly by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Nature Conservancy Council. River purification boards in their role as pollution control authorities may carry out relevant monitoring.

  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland's marine laboratory is studying hydrographic, chemical and biological characteristics in order to determine the flushing times and dispersion and dilution characteristics of sea lochs, where most of Scotland's salmon farming is carried out. Studies are also being carried out to assess any chemical or biological impact of fish farming operations and to model the physical and biological processes in coastal waters.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many speech therapists are employed by Glasgow health board per 100,000 population; what is the level recommended by the Government-commissioned Enderby report on speech therapy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Based on the 1988 population figure of 939,000 for the Greater Glasgow health board area, the board currently employs 66·1 whole-time equivalent speech therapists, which equates to approximately seven per 100,000. The Enderby report is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Nature Conservation
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has for improving nature conservation in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Environmental Protection Bill now before Parliament provides, inter alia, for the establishment of a Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. We propose to establish, by subsequent legislation, a natural heritage agency which will merge the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland with the Countryside Commission for Scotland. This will ensure a co-ordinated, integrated and sensitive approach to nature conservation and countryside issues in Scotland.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency, and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency on 24 March at a dinner for UK-Japan 2000.

  Electricity Exports
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much electricity, in coal equivalent, has been exported from Scotland since 1 January to date and what is the estimated total for a full year.

  Mr. Lang
  This is a commercial matter for the Scottish

  Scottish Police Federation
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation; and what matters were discussed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairman and general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation on 8 February to hear their representations on the proposed changes to police rent allowance.

  Community Care
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra money he will make available for community care in Scotland in 1990–91.
  227
  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).

  Family Conciliation Services
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he is making for the Scottish Association of Family Conciliation Services and regional family conciliation services in Scotland to secure a level of funding which will meet the needs of all sheriff courts and the Court of Session, in light of the forthcoming rules of court which will empower sheriffs and judges to remit parties to the conciliation services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Scottish Association of Family Conciliation Services has been offered grant for 1990–91 under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, amounting to £45,500 in respect of revenue and £6,250 in respect of capital expenditure. The local services are not funded by central Government except where local authority expenditure attracts urban programme grant.

  It has always been open to judges to refer parties to conciliation. The new court procedures will make this explicit.

  I am considering the question of funding for conciliation services.

  Takare plc
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are any proposals to award further contracts to Takare plc for the provision of services to National Health Service elderly patients.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for health boards in the first instance.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the number of self-employed persons in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  There were an estimated 239,000 self-employed in Scotland in September 1989, the highest ever recorded total. In the past two years the number of self-employed in Scotland has increased by over a fifth, a faster rate of increase than in the whole of Great Britain.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland were self-employed in 1979 and at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  The Department of Employment estimates that there were 159,000 self-employed in Scotland in September 1979. By September 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, the number had increased by over 50 per cent. to 239,000.

  River Tay Flood Barriers
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to delegate responsibility for the supervision of flood barriers on the banks of the River Tay and for the issuing of flood warnings.
  228
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no plans to change the present arrangements which work satisfactorily. Responsibility for floodbanks lies primarily with the riparian owners. Regional and islands councils have discretionary powers to carry out flood prevention works to protect non-agricultural land under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961. River purification authorities have discretionary powers to instal and operate flood warning systems.

  Sheriff Officers
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of commissions issued by sheriffs principal authorising individuals to act as sheriff officers since 1 January.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the period from 1 January to 20 March 1990 the sheriffs principal granted seven applications for commissions. Individual sheriff officers can hold commissions for more than one sheriffdom.

  CBI Scotland
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met CBI Scotland; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 20 December 1989.

  British Steel
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairman or chief executive of British Steel.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of today to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).

  Students
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of students at universities in Scotland in the current academic year who are domiciled(a) in Scotland, (b) in England and Wales and (c) overseas; and if he will also list the same information in respect of Scottish central institutions.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of students by domicile in full-time higher education in universities and central institutions in Scotland in 1988–89 (the latest year available) is as follows:

  Universities

  Central Institutions

  Scotland

  31,888

  25,558

  Other United Kingdom

  11,494

  1,693

  Overseas

  6,397

  826

  TOTAL

  49,779

  28,077

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount spent by the Scottish Development Agency in 1989 on management and
  229
  computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Scottish Development Agency in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that the Scottish Development Agency has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Lang
  Expenditure by the Scottish Development Agency on management and computer consultancy contracts for the period 1 April 1989 to 23 March 1990 amounted to £7,961,000. The budgeted figure for the financial year 1990–91 is £10,722,000. Both these figures include fees for research and development, advisory services, appraisal and administration, such as tax and accounting advice, pension and legal consultancies.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Refrigerator Thermometers
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has given the manufacturers of domestic refrigerators regarding the fitting of internal thermometers.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have not formally given any advice to manufacturers of domestic refrigerators but officials of my Department and of the Department of Health have met with them to discuss the feasibility and benefits of fitting integral thermometers.

  Liquid Egg
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made an assessment of the level of bacteria, expressed as numbers of bacteria per gram, expected to be found in bulk liquid eggs immediately prior to pasteurisation.

  Mr. Maclean
  Several factors including the quality of raw materials and the hygienic conditions of the breaking-out plant affect the level of bacteria in bulk liquid egg. No general assessment may therefore be made.

  Salmonella
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will specify the evidence available to him indicating that salmonella can multiply in intact grade A eggs kept at room temperatures for a period not longer than five days.

  Mr. Maclean
  Published research undertaken by the public health laboratory service showed that salmonella inoculated into whole shell eggs multiplied at room temperature. This implies that any salmonella present in intact shell eggs might also be able to multiply but research continues to investigate the factors which govern the multiplication of salmonella in shell eggs.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what basis the compensation for birds compulsorily slaughtered under the Zoonoses Order 1989 and the Animal Health Act 1981 is calculated.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to her on 5 March(Official Report, column 498) and, in
  230
  addition, to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 26 March (Official Report, columns 54-55), which explain changes to the arrangements for the disposal of birds from salmonella-infected laying and breeding flocks.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment was made of the levels of employment in meat processing plants in the formulation of his policy on compulsory slaughter of salmonella-affected chickens.

  Mr. Maclean
  No specific assessment of this kind has been made. As announced in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 26 March(Official Report, columns 54-55), birds from salmonella-infected laying and breeding flocks are to be sent for processing subject to strict safeguards.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of salmonella contamination in bulk liquid eggs, expressed in numbers of bacteria per gram, is likely to cause a liquid egg pasteurisation process to fail.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Liquid Egg (Pasteurisation) Regulations 1963 require pasteurised egg to pass the alpha-amylase test specified in the regulations. This test is not affected by the presence of salmonella.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the level of contamination by salmonella of grade A eggs produced by farms which are subject to infected place notices under the Zoonoses Order 1989 is such as would overwhelm a pasteurisation process.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 12 March 1990,Official Report, column 78. The pasteurisation process is never totally effective at destroying all salmonella and the risk remains that some salmonella may survive the process.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Curry
  We estimate that our expenditure on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, will be £2,963,175 in the financial year 1989–90. Our provision for the financial year 1990–91 is set at £4,403,198. A list of contracts awarded in 1989–90 is given in the table:

  Consultancies

    MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY CONTRACTS AWARDED IN 1989–90
    Company and Contract

    Deloitte Haskins and Sells—Review of veterinary manpower

    Deloitte Haskins and Sells—Relocation of work: preliminary studies

    231

    Mr. R. S. Crespi—Intellectual property rights and exploitation

    Professor Righelato, Ashbourne Biosciences—Link programme on agro food quality

    IT Computer Consultancy Contracts awarded in 1989–90

    Company and contract

    Software AG of UK—Technical support on 4th Generation Environment

    PA Consulting Services Ltd.—IT Sub-Strategy for Veterinary Medicines Directorate

    PA Consulting Services Ltd.—Integration of MAFF IT strategies

    Grafton Database (Consultants) Ltd.—Mainframe performance tuning

    Logica UK Ltd.—Scoping study on knowledge-based systems

    Asterisk Computer Systems Ltd.—Time recording system for Legal Department

    The Instruction Set Ltd.—Development of strategy for IT standards

    PA Consulting Services Ltd.—IT Sub-Strategy for Establishments Group

    Admiral Management Services Ltd.—Quality management

    PA Consulting Services Ltd.—Feasibility study on sea fisheries management

    Triad Special Systems Ltd.—IT Sub-Strategy for Data Evaluation Unit

    Peat, Marwick McLintock—Support to development of financial systems

    BDO Binder Hamlyn Ltd.—Support to development of financial systems

    CHISQ—Support to full study of Farm Survey System

    Prime Computer (UK) Ltd.—Minicomputer performance tuning

    Kermon Associates Ltd.—Office systems full study

    Touche Ross Management Consultants—Office Office systems full study

    Mouncey and Partners Ltd—Development of Set-Aside system

    Corporate Computers Plc—Development of bird mortality system

    BIS System Ltd—Review of IT security

    BGS System Ltd—Mainframe technical support

    Mouncey and Partners1 (2)—Grants and subsidies system

    Edwin E Tozer Ltd—Data management study

    Computercenter Ltd—Technical support on PC issues

    Forvus Computer Services—Initial study of National Food Survey system

    Aims System Ltd—Design of a grochemicals database

    Godfrey Durham1 (3)—Support to Regional Administration project

    232

    Triad Special Systems Ltd1 (3)—Support to Regional Administration project

    Asterisk Computer Systems1 (3)—Support to Regional Administration project

    Quanta Learning Systems Ltd—Support to Regional Administration project

    Pergammon Infotec—Support to Regional Administration project

    Mouncey and Partners Ltd—Support to Regional Administration project

    Pergammon Infotec—Support to Regional Administration project

    Prime Computer (UK) Ltd—Support to Regional Administration project

    Aims Systems Ltd—Mastitis monitoring project

    Aims Systems Ltd—R&D registrations project

    Aims Systems Ltd—Sheepmaster project

    Peat Marwick McLintock—Milk and Dairies Regulation project

    Touche Ross Management Consultants—Telecommunications strategy

    Kermon Associates—Telecommunications strategy

    PA Consulting Services Ltd.—IT Sub-Strategy for Economics and Statistics

    PA Consulting Services Ltd.—IT Sub-Strategy for Food Safety Group and Food Science Group

    Timberlake Clarke—Statistical support to Farm Survey System study

    Eosys—Evaluation of local area network standards

    Hayes-Davies Ltd.—Quality management initiative

    Amdahl (UK) Ltd.—Technical support on mainframe

    Applied learning—Strategy for end-user IT training

    Corporate Computer plc—Design of data system for salmonella in poultry

    PA Consulting Services—Support to IT studies in Animal Health and Horticulture Group

    Data Dictionary Systems Ltd.—Data management study

    MMT Computing (Reading) Ltd.—Analysis/design of National Food Survey System

    Mouncey and Partners Ltd.—Strategic IT project co-ordination

    Mouncey and Partners Ltd.—Use of IT in accommodation planning

    Admiral Management Services—IT standards in ADAS

    Learmouth and Burchett Ltd.—Design of agrochemicals database (Part 2)

    1 Refers to number of contracts on one project.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to put into effect the changes to the fishing vessels grant scheme which he announced in his statement of 20 December.

  Mr. Gummer
  Following my announcement last December that the present vessel grant scheme served to distort rather than encourage sensible investment by vessel owners I am proceeding to restrict the availability of these grants. A draft order under the Fisheries Act 1981 will be laid before Parliament shortly with a view to it coming into force at the beginning of April. The order will amend the present scheme (the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987) by providing aid only to essential safety improvements and to those cases where it is needed to provide back-up for EC grant aid.

  The rates of grant for essential improvements will continue to be 30 per cent. (10 per cent. for vessels greater than 33m in length). The rate of back-up grant will be 10 per cent. regardless of vessel size.

  These measures form part of our process of rationalisation of fleet capacity.

DEFENCE

  Reply-paid Cards
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will reconsider the design of the reply-paid cards used for armed forces reservists to offer more security for the names, addresses and service status of the personnel concerned.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Computer Hacking
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any British database based in Europe was infiltrated by computer hacking by the West Germans convicted on 15 February of selling the information obtained to a foreign power.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the three West Germans convicted on 15 February breached the security of any United Kingdom military database, either in this country or overseas.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what services will be open for private contractoring tenders at RAF Finningley; and what will be the future role of service personnel currently carrying out these duties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At present, accommodation cleaning and local ancillary tasks at RAF Finningley, such as pest control and chimney sweeping, are carried out by private contractors. Tenders have been invited for the engineering and supply tasks at RAF Finningley and, subject to the acceptability of a contractor's bid in operational, technical and financial terms, it is hoped to let a contract for these services in April 1991. Service personnel currently carrying out these duties will be redeployed to other tasks within the RAF.

  Security
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what update of security safeguards has been implemented for(a) employees and (b) companies employed on private tendered services at military establishments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The security provisions concerning companies and their employees employed at military establishments are kept under constant review. It is not our practice to discuss the details of such arrangements.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the amount spent on national defence per head of the adult population.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1989–90 some £470, on latest estimates.

  Nuclear Missiles
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which cities in Europe are within the range of the United Kingdom nuclear missiles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In theory, all European cities could fall within the range of Polaris. However, it is not our practice to comment on targeting policy.

  Mallet Blow Exercise
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether aircraft involved in exercise Mallet Blow will be involved in low flying over areas of population in Northumberland.

  Mr. Neubert
  All military aircraft taking part in exercise Mallet Blow will be governed by the normal United Kingdom low flying regulations, which require aircrew to avoid flying low over the centres of major conurbations and towns and to avoid all other populated areas wherever possible.

  Military Training
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the figures for the number of deaths and serious injuries that were sustained as a result of participation in Royal Marine training courses or exercises in 1988, 1987, 1986 and 1985.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Figures for deaths and serious injuries attributable to Royal Marine training courses and exercises in the years 1985 to 1988 are as follows:

  Year

  Deaths

  Serious injuries

  1985

  2

  —

  1986

  1

  2

  1987

  —

  2

  1988

  1

  —

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of fatalities from all causes that have occurred in military exercises and training in each year since 1978.
  235
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The tri-service deaths attributable to training and exercise injuries from 1978 to the last year for which firm figures are available (1988) are as follows:

  Year

  Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Total

  1978

  1

  26

  10

  37

  1979

  4

  14

  3

  21

  1980

  9

  16

  4

  29

  1981

  5

  13

  6

  24

  1982

  5

  17

  10

  32

  1983

  3

  10

  13

  26

  1984

  2

  16

  2

  20

  1985

  2

  10

  7

  19

  1986

  1

  16

  2

  19

  1987

  —

  10

  4

  14

  1988

  1

  10

  4

  15

  Overall Total 256

  The figures for 1989 will be promulgated in the "Service Annual Health Tables" to be published this summer.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report,13 March, column 202, if he will outline the nature of the PULHHEEMS system of fitness assessment; and if he will specify how frequently it is applied to an individual member of the forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The PULHHEEMS system of medical classification involved assessment of:

  P = physical capacity

  U = upper limbs

  L = locomotion

  HH = hearing (hearing acuity)

  EE = eyesight (visual acuity)

  M = mental capacity

  S = stability

  The system is designed to:

  a. provide a functional assessment of the individual's capacity for work;

  b. assist in expressing the physical and mental attributes appropriate to individual employments within the services;

  c. assist in posting people to the employment for which they are most suited in the light of their physical, intellectual and emotional make-up;

  d. provide a system which is administratively simple to apply.

  All new applicants to the services are required to have a PULHHEEMS medical examination at the pre-service stage and thereafter initial and service assessments following completion of their basic training. Further PULHHEEMS examinations are undertaken, with variations according to the branch of service, depending on the age of the individual and his employment. More regular assessments are given following injury and/or hospitalisation. The allocation of a PULHHEEMS assessment is a medical responsibility, but officers in command are responsible for ensuring that all ranks are referred to a medical officer.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report, 13 March, columns 198–99, if he will ensure that all training instructors are required to read, understand and observe the newly issued defence council instructions on heat illness.
  236
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  They are already required to do so.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report, 13 March, columns 201-02, how many men took part in the Royal Marine training courses and exercises in 1989 during which three died and one suffered serious injury.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of personnel involved in Royal Marine training courses and exercises in 1989 in which three died and one suffered serious injury was in the region of 3,500.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report, 13 March, column 199, what category of medical fitness was used for the Royal Navy survival course before the injury to Lieutenant Simon Rowland; and what is the new category.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The category of medical fitness used for the Royal Navy aircrew survival course is unchanged at P2—Physically Fit.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report, 13 March, column 198, if he can obtain without disproportionate cost and effort the number of disciplinary inquiries that have followed the 12 cases of heat-induced fatalities which have occurred since 1978.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the right hon. Member.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence expects to spend £18 million in the financial year 1989–90 on management and computer consultancy contracts. Details of the management consultancy contracts are listed. Contractual responsibility for computer consultancy contracts rests with the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. CCTA does not currently maintain separate details of consultancy contracts, which, in many cases, form part of wider computer procurement and support contracts. Details of individual contracts could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Management consultancy contracts let in financial year 1989–90

  Firm and subject of assignment
  Arthur Anderson and Co.—Support to the RAF TOPMIS Team.
  Sir J. H. Biles (Naval Services) Ltd.—Load Testing of Upper Deck Equipments in RN and RFA vessels.
  Chinal Management Services Ltd.—Review of Productivity

  237
  Scheme.
  Deloitte Haskins and Sells—Initial Provisioning of RN vessels.
  Deloitte Haskins and Sells—Support to the Army TOPMIS Team.
  Ernst and Young—Management Information System for the Rapier Project Office.
  Ernst and Young—Review of the Base Repair Organisation.
  HACAS Ltd.—Housing Association Study.
  Integrated Resource Management—Review of Regular and TA Recruitment.
  PA Consulting Services—Review of PE Airfields.
  PA Consulting Services—Performance Indicator Study at RAF Support Command.
  Peat Marwick McLintock—Review of United Kingdom Service Hospitals.
  Peat Marwick McLintock—Support to the Navy TOPMIS Team.
  P. E. Inbucon—Future Strategy for the Overhaul of Diesel Engines.
  P.E Inbucon—Total Quality Management Project for DG Mil Svy.
  P. E. Inbucon—Consultancy Assistance to the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation.
  People in Business—Graduate Recruitment for the IT Function.
  Price Waterhouse—Naval Recruitment Marketing Strategy.
  Profile Group Ltd.—Improving Job Opportunities for Dependents.
  Systems Consultancy Training Development—Support to the RAF Ground Defence Training Review Team.
  University of Surrey—Tri-Service Ration Scales Review.
  Touche Ross and Company—Sea Systems Controllerate Co-location Study.
  Touche Ross and Company—Market Survey for the Sale of Hydrographic Charts.
  Harold Whitehead and Partners—Support to Core TOPMIS Team.
  Harold Whitehead and Partners—Review of Productivity Scheme.

  Army Equipment Exhibition
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel will be on duty in support of the British Army equipment exhibition 1990.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Some 720 military personnel will be on duty in support of the British Army equipment exhibition 1990.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any firepower or mobility demonstrations are planned in conjunction with the British Army equipment exhibition 1990.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In conjunction with the 1990 British Army equipment exhibition there will be mobility demonstrations but no firepower demonstrations.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the list of names of countries to which invitations to the British Army equipment exhibition 1990 have been extended.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. It has been the consistent policy of successive Administrations not to release details of 238
  invitation lists to British forces equipment exhibitions. Invitations are issued on a confidential basis and it would be a breach of trust to release names.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who will be opening the British Army equipment exhibition to be held at Aldershot from 3 to 8 June.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Detailed arrangements have yet to be finalised, but it is expected that the exhibition will be opened at ministerial level.

  Fire Safety Standards
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria govern the application of the Government fire standards code to major refurbishments of his Department's storage facilities.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The code is applied to major refurbishments of MOD storage facilities where feasible or cost-effective.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual amount of expenditure on improving fire safety standards in his Department's storage depots for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Figures for years prior to 1984 are not readily available. Fire safety-related expenditure by calendar year since 1984, which includes spending on specific fire safety enhancements and on new buildings which meet the Government fire standards code, has been broadly as follows:

  £ million

  1984

  1·3

  1985

  11·7

  1986

  22·7

  1987

  8·9

  1988

  14·0

  1989

  6·4

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the legal status of the Government fire standards code; and whether the code applies to his Department's storage facilities in other countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The code is an advisory document, and has no statutory force. It is applicable to the Ministry of Defence's storage facilities worldwide.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations govern the liaison between the various military fire services and local civilian fire services in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) abroad.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Departmental regulations, applicable in the United Kingdom and overseas, provide for visits to Ministry of Defence establishments by local fire brigades, for joint exercises and mutual assistance.

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

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
Timothy John, Lord Bishop of Portsmouth Timothy John, Lord Bishop of Portsmouth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Southwark and the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

EC Agricultural Intervention Stocks
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the trend in the level of agricultural intervention stocks in the European Community.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, European Community intervention stocks have fallen considerably in recent years and are now a fraction of what they were at their peak. For example, cereals stocks have fallen by over 50 per cent., beef stocks by over 80 per cent., and butter and skimmed milk stocks by over 90 per cent. The Community has taken a number of measures to make sure that stocks do not build up again to previous levels.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that remarkable and encouraging Answer. Does he agree that it demonstrates not only the Government's success in reforming the EC agricultural policy but also their ability to remove mountains?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. For many years the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of those arguing for action to tackle the expense and wastage of the CAP. I am glad to be able to say that considerable progress has been made, particularly through the package of measures agreed at the February 1988 European Council. Not only have surplus stocks fallen drastically but expenditure is under much tighter control and well within the agreed budgetary ceiling. We are creating a more rational and sustainable CAP to the benefit of UK consumers and producers alike.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, despite all that the Minister has said, is it not a fact that the CAP is costing every family of four in this country an extra £18 per week? Would it not be better if agricultural policy were repatriated to this country and other countries in the EC so that we can import goods at world prices? Does the Minister agree that such action would help his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his fight against inflation and perhaps get rid of the ridiculous talk about joining the ERM?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am not sure of the figure of £18.—
Lord Mason of Barnsley: Neither is anybody else.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I can give examples of measures which were taken during the past decade. In 1984 milk quotas were introduced. In December 1986 there was a 9–5 per cent, cut in milk production over two years with reduced access to intervention. There was also a cut of around 13 per cent, in beef buying-in prices. During the 1987 price fixing, adjustments were made to cereals and the oilseeds regime to reduce overall support levels. There were the 1988 and 1989 price fixings, and in January 1989 the availability of intervention in the beef sector was further reduced as part of the regime review.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the present stock position, even though it has been reached at a heavy cost to taxpayers in general? Can he say whether physical checks of intervention stocks are now made in Britain on a regular basis, and with what result? Can the Minister also say whether he expects better results on stock-keeping in general following the decision to establish the intervention board as an executive agency?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the risk of fraud and physical checks are carried out. The Government do everything they can to safeguard public funds. As regards the noble Lord's second point, there have been problems with the IBAP. However, they are now being dealt with and payment delays are being significantly reduced.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in the friendliest possible spirit I ask the noble Earl to raise his voice. A number of noble Lords cannot hear him when he is speaking at the Dispatch Box.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships, but I am suffering from a cold.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in his Answer he did not mention sugar as one of the products about which he was inclined to boast? Is not a review of the sugar regime well overdue? Can my noble friend comment on that?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, there is still over-production of sugar in the world. However, if my noble friend requires information I shall write to him.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as members of the Community we have benefited from the CAP and that over the past 10 years the item that has shown the lowest percentage increase on the RPI has been food?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I congratulate the Commission and the Government on the welcome reduction in stocks. However, looking at the long-term future, with a rising world population and a rising demand because of poor production in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and possibly China, is the Minister satisfied that supplies of food for this country during the next 10 years are adequate?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, yes, I am satisfied that this country's food supplies for the next 10 years are in order. However, with regard to Eastern Europe, food aid is not necessarily the best way of helping developing countries. In some cases we can meet short-term needs but that damages the vital goal of encouraging indigenous agriculture. It is much better to supply know-how, machinery and seeds.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, can my noble friend say why intervention prices for British producers for cereals are 20 per cent, lower than those for the French?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, my noble friend is bringing me into the area of the green pound.

Educational Visits: Policy
2.50 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to change their policy on charging for educational field trips, theatre visits and other visits in the United Kingdom and abroad.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Department of Education and Science is commissioning a survey of school visits over the past two years. If there is evidence that pupils are being denied valuable educational opportunities because of the way the law is being applied the Government will be ready to consider ways of improving the position.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer. However, is she aware that many people in education are most concerned about the effects of the present policy, particularly in relation to modern languages? Evidence from head teachers and modern linguists to the EC sub-committee on the teaching of foreign languages say that there has been a great reduction in activity by w£.y of visits and exchanges. I hope that the monitoring will continue.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right: there is concern on many fronts about those activities. However, it is important to wait for the results of the survey. It is likely that other factors must be taken into account. For example, many teachers are now concentrating their energies on bedding-in the new policies in the Education Reform Act.
870
Sadly, there is also evidence to show that the industrial action where teachers are working to rule is having an effect in that area. Another factor is the press highlighting of particular tragedies making teachers feel understandably vulnerable for the safety of their children. In addition, the pressure on family budgets will also have an effect. However, I assure the noble Baroness that the survey will take into account all those factors and perhaps we can return to the Question later in the year.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I draw the Minister's attention to a report already published on this subject by the association of governing bodies? That has reached the conclusion that there is an overwhelming case to be made for the department to change its policy on this because many schools are already suffering because of the present policy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that it is something of an overstatement to reach such a black and white conclusion. There is some evidence of considerable buoyancy for the more cultural and educational activities. There has been a distinct falling off—and I think this relates to the point made by the noble Baroness—in the number of trips abroad. A distinction needs to be made between those which are cultural/educational and those which are purely pleasurable trips. All those points will be taken into account when the study is carried out.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those establishments which provide a proper educational service for schools are finding evidence that school visits are not declining but are sometimes improving? Is not the answer to those who complain to improve their services to schools and provide a proper service rather than just jolly outings?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for making that point. There is considerable buoyancy for those providing a quality service and it is for schools to make a judgment about the service being provided. However, I take on board that there is concern on this matter and that is why the study has been put in hand.
There is also concern about those families who cannot afford to make a contribution. There is an obligation on local education authorities to safety net those particular children so that they do not lose out when educational opportunities are offered.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Arts Council has been receiving reports from all round the country of cancellations of school visits to theatres because some parents cannot afford to pay? Is she also aware of the survey by the Royal Opera House which shows that charges are having the worst effect on those schools where there is less parental support for visits to the theatre, the opera and ballet? In those circumstances, does she agree that charges are widening the gap between privileged and less privileged pupils?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are aware of what is said by the Offices of Arts and Libraries on this issue. That will also form part of the survey. However, it is fair to say that, as regards visits to the theatre or ballet, they are very important in educational terms to all children. However, it is only reasonable, when priorities are having to be determined by both schools and education authorities, that, when it is possible for a family to make a contribution, it should do so because if the service was free to all children then the position would be severely limited.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be good enough to ensure that the survey is completed as quickly as possible? I sense that she is not unsympathetic to the points which have been made. It is the case that a number of regional theatres which depend heavily on school visits are complaining that they are already feeling the draught. Therefore, from the other side of the picture, as well as the educational side, this is a matter of some urgency.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have given an assurance that this survey is in hand. However, the point of the visits is not to prop up the theatres but for the children themselves to benefit.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, as regards children who visit the Palace of Westminster—and most of us have shown children round in our time—very few are compelled to write an essay or to take notes on the visit, which makes them concentrate on what is being said and learn from it. It has sometimes become too much of a jolly outing. The children are chatting to each other and are not listening to the lecture which is taking place.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as always, my noble friend makes a very pertinent point. However, I have very painful memories of having a pleasurable day out and then having to write an essay on it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, have we abandoned the procedure that we take a question first on one side of the House and then on the other? This afternoon we have had two noble Lords speaking from one side of the House and then two from the other. It becomes extremely confusing if we do not keep to the rules.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness on that. Does not the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that we should introduce some discipline into visits to the House of Lords? I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to be willing to mark the essays.
More seriously, does the noble Baroness recall that during our discussions on the Education Reform Act 1988 we clarified the question of charging and we supported the Government in their endeavour to make it clear that free school education meant free school education? Can the Minister give us any indication of how her right honourable friend the Secretary of State is now thinking about these matters? Is it not possible that we should go back
872
from the clarification and reintroduce some obscurity, because things seemed to go quite well when the matter was obscure?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that some of us would agree with that but unfortunately cases were often referred to the courts in order to resolve a particular problem. However, it is true that schools were imaginative in providing visits for the children.
We all want our young people to benefit educationally from outside visits if possible and for some of that to take place within school time. Some visits will be directly relevant to the curriculum and others, however important, will be outside it but will nevertheless entail a widening of a child's experience.
I shall not comment on the marking of essays except that it is important and perhaps pertinent to say how much we appreciate the work done by the guides in the House, who specialise particularly in the service which they offer to our young children.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Baroness has said that the views of the local authorities will be taken into consideration by the department. Will the views of the many voluntary organisations concerned with this aspect of education be taken into consideration together with those of representatives of the teachers' associations?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that I can give an assurance that all those factors will be taken into account. Voluntary activities on the part of schools, teachers, parents and sometimes even the children form a comprehensive part of that provision for our young people.

Gurkhas and the Community Charge
3 p.m.
Lord Bramall Lord Bramall asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why Nepalese soldiers from the Brigade of Gurkhas will be required to pay the community charge when, on orders from the Ministry of Defence, they are posted to serve in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, liability for the personal community charge arises from the test of sole or main residence. Gurkha soldiers posted to Great Britain are solely or mainly resident here. The exemption provisions from the personal charge under the Visiting Forces Act 1952 are not available to Gurkhas as they are members of the armed forces of the United Kingdom.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Some would say it indicates that taxation without representation is as evident today as it was in 1767 and that the principle of accountability, which I thought was the object of the exercise, can be abandoned on the slightest pretext. Does the Minister not agree that it is manifestly unfair that a Gurkha solider, who has no vote, no right of abode at the end of his service, who makes minimal, if any,

873
use of local services provided —the number of books in Hindi in the libraries of north-east Hampshire being strictly limited—and who, unlike his higher paid British counterpart, previously paid no rates either directly or indirectly should now, from scratch, pay the equivalent for a rifleman in Hampshire of nearly one month's pay?
Does the noble Earl not also agree that the image of a Gurkha soldier from one of the poorest countries in Asia subsidising the highways, byways and social services of affluent Hampshire is both bizarre and a glaring example of a non-political anomaly? I hope that that can be put right.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, your Lordships know of the very long association which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has had with the Gurkhas. Your Lordships are also aware of the great and glorious deeds that the Gurkhas have performed in the past 175 years. They fought—as your Lordshiips well know—in two world wars, in the Malaya campaign and more recently in the Falklands campaign.
However, I must make two points to the noble and gallant Lord. First, liability for the community charge is not dependent on voting rights since other foreign residents are similarly affected. Secondly, the liability for the community charge is not dependent upon the personal use of local facilities but on residence in the local authority area.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is this not another illustration of the nonsense and inconsistency of the poll tax? Does the Minister not understand that there are visiting forces—that is, Americans and their families—who hitherto paid rates and who in the future will not pay the poll tax, yet there are Gurkhas who will pay the poll tax? Does the Minister not understand that the British people will not accept that the gallant Gurkhas, as the Minister quite rightly described them, should be punished and placed at a disadvantage compared with visiting American forces?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the situation is different with visiting American forces, in that they make a contribution towards this country when they are here.
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that Gurkha soldiers are eligible for the MoD accommodation charge rebate which will ensure that they pay no more than £1 a week more than the average service community charge.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, cannot my noble friend, who made a good pedantic legal point, realise that this is an anomaly? Will he communicate to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the feeling in this House is almost certainly unanimous, except for his brief, unfortunately?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I find myself in a similar position to the one I was in during the war widows' campaign. It would be folly and insensitive not the appreciate your Lordships' feelings in this matter. I have made my arguments, but in the light of the feelings in your Lordships' House I will communicate them to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords—
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords—
Baroness White: My Lords, the Minister has already replied. The noble Lord should sit down.
Noble Lords: Lord Wyatt.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, while I support the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on the question of the community charge, perhaps I may ask whether the Government will also consider dropping their foolish intention to reduce the number of Gurkhas and consider deploying them to Northern Ireland where they would put the fear of God into the terrorists, whether so-called Loyalists or IRA?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the possible use of Gurkhas in Northern Ireland has never before been taken into account and I seriously doubt that it will be considered now. Last May we announced that although it was not possible to be definite, we should plan on a future for the Gurkhas after 1997 based on a viable brigade structure.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has been trying to speak. We have heard one Cross-Bencher. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, shall speak.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that members of Scottish regiments, including the Black Watch, on being returned to their barracks during the past year have been liable to poll tax? That is one year in advance of any other member of Her Majesty's forces. Is not that another injustice?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. The Question specifically relates to Gurkhas and the community charge.
Lord Carver: My Lords, if the noble Earl is unable to persuade his right honourable friend to drop the liability of Gurkhas to pay the community charge, will he ensure that the Ministry of Defence, when fixing their rates of pay, takes their liability to pay into account?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot prejudge the outcome of my session with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I should point out to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that Gurkhas have their accommodation and food charges waived and they also do not contribute to ERNIC —the earnings related national insurance charge.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his reference to his vigorous defence of the treatment of war widows —on which the Government subsequently gave way—indicates some grounds of optimism for those of us who hope that a similar reversal will follow his current defence of the indefensible? Is he also aware that many noble Lords find it quite revolting that these gallant men, whose homes are in Nepal, are made to contribute to English local authorities? I say that with particular emphasis as a Hampshire resident.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should point out to my noble friend that in any particular circumstances optimism is always speculative.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble Earl is unable to produce any better answers, and if at some time during the darkness of night he hears a swish, will he take care not to nod his head too hard?

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two Short debates standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. 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 short debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of six minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, 10 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Then, Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 26th March), Committee negatived. Bill read a third time, and passed.

Community Charge
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman rose to call attention to the problems currently accompanying the imposition of the community charge as a means of raising local government finance; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I begin by saying that 1990–91 would have been a very difficult year for local authorities without the poll tax, but the change from rates to community charge is only one small part of the change. For most local authorities it is a year of "all change".
It would in any case have been a bad year because of the extent of disagreement between central government policy and local authority plans. Local authorities of whatever political persuasion are facing and responding to pressures for increased services. That has been more and more the case over recent years; particularly in education with the Education Reform Act and in social services with the care of the elderly and the run-down of major health service institutions in favour of community care.
Overall, the county councils in England and Wales are planning to spend £1–1 billion more than the Government spending assessment. As counties account for about half the total, this implies a national gap of over £2 billion between the standard spending assessments (SSAs) and the budgets. The average gap in England is £48 per adult, or 7–4 per cent.
Disagreement about spending needs has occurred under all systems of local government finance since 1980—perhaps even back to the days of Tony Crosland and his famous "the party is over" speech. However, this year makes the disagreement more visible because all the excess falls on the community charge rather than roughly half of it on the non-domestic ratepayer as was the case in the past. As I said, this is also the year of "all change".
The SSAs are calculated on a new formula which is equally as complex as the old grant related expenditure assessment. Both claim to assess what an individual local authority needs to spend to meet the Government's idea of standards of service. The changes have been extreme, especially at district level and were impossible to predict in advance. For example, Norwich and Ipswich were supposed to need to spend less than their GREAs in cash terms but rural districts in the same areas were supposed to spend one-third more. Both the GREA and the SSA cannot both be right or both wrong, and neither can such major increases or decreases be achieved in one year.
The national non-domestic rate and revaluation is a major administrative change for district councils which affects all councils as ratepayers; for example, Cambridge City has not formerly paid rates on its properties because of an anomaly in a private Act. It now has to pay them. The new capital controls, reasonable in themselves, have meant reconsideration of authorities' planned capital spending and, as is usual, the figures became known much too late in the budgetary process. On top of

877
that, the districts have had to cope with new rules for council housing finance and there is the change to local management of schools and colleges which takes time and effort to get under way. Thus, the community charge, with exemptions, safety nets and transitional reliefs, did not become a clean change of system.
In January the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) made a study of the revenue support grant and found that unless local authorities made substantial cuts in the volume of spending they would not reach the DoE quoted average community charge of £278 per adult. It went on to say that the average community charge was likely to be in the range of £330 to £340 per adult, or some 20 per cent, to 25 per cent, above the DoE figure. How right that proved to be!
The spending assumptions by Government underlying the RSG proposals implied that local authorities would be able to meet the cost of government policies, the effects of inflation, and allow 3 per cent, for increased planned spending levels. Local authorities learned long ago that the Government do not live in the real world where retail prices are about 8 per cent, higher than a year ago and pay settlements are getting into double figures.
If the RSG had been set in line with inflation —by, say, 8 per cent, —the total expenditure figure would have been £31 billion. As it is, the difference between what the Government allow and the right figures means an extra £35 per adult on the community charge. If spending rises to meet the cost of implementing the Education Reform Act, each 1 per cent, of extra spending adds £9 per adult to the community charge. Each 1 per cent, of registered adults who do not pay the community charge adds on average another £3 per adult to the charge of those who do pay.
Putting all this together, CIPFA argued that allowing 8 per cent, for inflation, 1–5 per cent, for implementing new policies and assuming only 5 per cent, registered adults failing to pay, the real community charge should be £344 compared with the £278 that the Government have assessed. The Government assessment does not represent an accurate calculation of the cost of actually providing services. It is the Government's "guesstimate" of the amount that they think local authorities should need. They have ignored the fact that every county has a duty to assess the services required in their county, what they cost, what provision should be made for inflation, and then decide those costs against the ability of their chargepayers to pay.
In order to keep down the community charge in my county area—but still £21 above the Government figure—the council cut back its budget by £7–8 million. In doing so it hit the most vulnerable section of the; electorate—the elderly, frail and the handicapped —by taking away free community care, home helps and meals on wheels for the over-85s, by stopping concessionary fares for the elderly and by increasing the price of school meals. The changes to the bus subsidies saved £0–3 million and the changes in community care £0–8 million. I regret both those changes.
In effect, the Government have proved unhelpful by guessing the counties' decisions and then offering uninformed comments on issues which are properly the responsibility of the elected authorities who are answerable to their electorate through the ballot box.
There is concern about the uniform business rate. That concern is not necessarily over the level of the rate but over the results of revaluation. Revaluation was bound to be painful and there should have been a safety net covering the phasing-in period. We should have preferred a rate rebate scheme for retailers who provide services in village shops. We should also have preferred to see a 10 per cent, ceiling in real terms on increases for small businesses and the phasing in of the system over a longer period; say, eight to 10 years.
What the Government have done is to turn the non-domestic rate into a national tax and then replace that part of local government income that used to come from such rates within the central grant. It may be appropriate that non-domestic rates should become a national tax but the Government could have given a higher central grant and the rest could have been raised by local income tax which would have taken account of ability to pay, would be fairer, simpler to understand and easier to administer.
The SSA formulae are gravely defective, being based on information which is two years or more out of date. In fast growing counties like Cambridgeshire and Buckinghamshire they considerably understate the current need to provide services. There is no allowance or adjustment for varying local costs and counties just outside the London area but in the commuter belt have to match private sector pay rates to obtain and keep staff. The SSA system makes a crude adjustment in favour of London and the South-East at the expense of counties like Cambridgeshire.
The Government have used 1989–90 figures which were especially kept low at the behest of Ministers in order to keep down rates and to return the balances to the ratepayer. However, authorities cannot repeat that "take" from balances and the transitional reliefs have given little or no protection.
We have all read and heard of the difficulties and the cost of registration in Scotland where at least 40 per cent, of the 3–9 million entries on the register have been altered in the past year. Strathclyde region has been making 10,000 to 15,000 amendments a week. The Grampian region has made 195,000 changes on a register of 380,000. I checked with my city treasurer in Peterborough. His department has made strenuous efforts to complete the register and it is claiming a success rate of over 98 per cent., but at what cost and effort! The administrative cost, including benefit, will increase by £1–2 million or 151 per cent., compared with the cost of the old rating system. In 1989–90 the preliminary cost was £850,000 of which £157,000 was met by specific government grant.
Three or four members of staff have been fully engaged all this time on registration, exemptions, anonymous registrations and the impact of people movement within the area. Under-rating—except

879
for those with benefits and movements within households had no effect at all; it was only the movements of complete households that had an effect. Implementing the new computer software for the new system and for rebates was not helped by late announcements of transitional relief and extra help for pensioners and the disabled.
Staff recruitment was another headache but it has been a success. The department anticipates that well over 111,000 bills will go out to households early in April but only because 20 members of staff worked double shifts and at weekends. At present 28,000 bills will be abated by rebates. The authority believes that another 7,000 to 12,000 people could apply who have not yet done so. Last week's Budget announcement raising the limit of savings, which I welcome, could mean another 20,000 to 30,000 people applying for rebates in my city area.
A large part of the increased cost comes from the higher volume of accounts—that is, 120,000, as against 50,000—and the need to keep the register up-to-date. That has required 42 extra staff and the necessary accommodation, new computer systems, extra equipment to cope with the increased volume of work and initiatives to help the public. Overall it seems that administration costs for the community charge will be two-and-a-half times that for the old rating system.
Many more people can now claim benefit and I welcome that. However, have the Government any idea what will be the ultimate cost in rebates? Have they any idea what this last-minute concession will cost local authorities in yet extra administration and staff costs? Capping has been threatened. What criteria will the Government use? They cannot base capping on the tax levied; they must use the authority's budget What will be the criterion? Will it be the SSA; the increase in the community charge over last year's rates; the percentage change in spending plans from one year to the next, or a combination of all three?
Capping can be a very complicated and time-consuming process. It can only end in anomalies and more ill-feeling. Alan Travis, writing in the Guardian recently, suggested that a graph showing how the capping system could work could resemble a four year-old's early attempt with a spirograph set. When will the Government accept that no two counties, districts or parishes are identical or have the same needs?
Some time ago the Prime Minister spoke of publishing a list showing the figures if rates had been retained compared with the community charge. When will that information be available? What will the Government do next year and the year after, to make the SSA more reasonable? Will they revert to the old rating system; will they introduce a local income tax; will they put billions of pounds back to local authorities in a grant to lessen the future impact; will they take away services like fire and police from local government; will they cap every authority on the same charge; or will they perhaps take the line of least resistance and abolish local government and run it all centrally? As suggested to
880
me at the weekend, is Marsham Street in a state of confusion? A description I heard likened Ministers and officials to the crew of a train when the brakes have failed and it knows that the buffers will not absorb the impact. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I begin my remarks by reaffirming my belief that the idea of raising revenue from local people by a community charge is very much better in principle than the system of charging rates that we have at the moment. After all, every single thing that a local authority does is for the benefit of people, whether it is the provision of schools, roads, street lighting, parks, libraries or whatever. All these provisions are for the benefit of people. It seems right that it is the people who should pay for them.
We have been told that in the system we have at the moment, until now only half the people pay for the services. That cannot be right because it means that the other half of the population who have no responsibility for paying at all but who have the vote, can vote into office people with extravagant tastes knowing that the non-payers will not have to foot the bill at all. If democracy means anything to me it does not mean that. The principle of the community charge for this purpose is very much better than anything we have at the moment. I do not suppose that your Lordships can possibly envisage a government starting from scratch coming to this House, and saying that they were going to invent a new system for raising local revenue by reference to the alleged value of somebody's house 17 years ago and that only half the people would pay regardless of whether or not they could afford to. Such an idea would be laughed out of court.
I believe that the new system is very much better. However, there are difficulties and that is natural with any new system. It is bound to have difficulties. I shall refer briefly to three of them. First, as we have been told, until now half the people have not paid anything at all and now they will have to do so. They are not going to like it. I have not met anybody who likes paying any kind of tax. Somebody who, all his life, has paid nothing at all and is now told that he has to, is going to be disgruntled. I do not think that one can do very much about that, but it is a difficulty.
There are two other matters about which the Government can and should do something. The whole system of local government finance is hideously complicated and I do not pretend to understand it. I believe I am right in saying that I am in a majority in the country in that regard and possibly in a majority with the Members of your Lordships' House. Local government finance is hideously complicated. It must be said that the new system is not entirely straightforward, either.
All these factors give rise to the possibility of misunderstanding. That misunderstanding is now very widespread, particularly as to why the charges in some areas are larger than in others. Perhaps I may give a precise example. I live in Berkshire. The community charge in Berkshire, depending on

881
precisely where you live, is high. It is well over £400. People do not like that very much and so they ask why. Understandably, the Berkshire County Countil says that it is the Government's fault, and, in terms, the Government say it is the fault of Berkshire County Council.
Recently, I watched the "Panorama" programme. The Secretary of State for the Environment, on being asked about Berkshire, said, "The trouble is Berkshire is spending 25 per cent, more this year than it did last year". At almost exactly the same moment, the Berkshire County Council petitioned the other place. The Petition begins like this:
"The Humble Petition of Berkshire County Council, Sheweth.
"That its budget for 1990–1 of £411 million is 4% less in volume terms than that of 1989–90."
No way can they both be right. I do not know who is right. The truth of the matter is that until the moment, nobody does.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, since the noble Lord has the Petition in front of him, can he confirm that it is counter-signed by the county treasurer?
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, so it may be. I have read it out and I am inviting your Lordships to consider the difficulty that we are in. So what happens? Ordinary people, of whom I count myself one in this regard, say, "I don't know whose fault it is. It must be the Government's fault because the Government brought the wretched thing in". I do not know but I am sure that this type of misunderstanding is widespread throughout the country. The Government owe it to us all to give a great deal more time, energy and trouble to explaining the whole thing than they perhaps have been able to do up until now.
My second point was dealt with at some length by the noble Baroness in opening the debate. There is a good deal of argument about the standard spending assessment. Most authorities disagree with what has been decided. It has been decided, as I understand it, in Whitehall. It smacks to me slightly of the old saying that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. I am not always convinced that the gentleman in Whitehall does know best. I hope that in the coming year the Government will go carefully, deeply and thoroughly into the whole basis of the standard spending assessment, county by county, and do it on the ground and not in an office in Whitehall. They should go to the areas and see for themselves. If those two difficulties can be got out of the way, this new system —which, as I said at the very beginning, I totally support —will have a much easier ride.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter today. I should like to add to that my congratulations on the way in which she presented her case. I agreed with almost everything she said, although I am not so sure about a local income tax.
Today the Secretary of State for the Environment met with local authority officials. He said, according
882
to the one o'clock news, that the poll tax would do two things. It would bring about more accountability and it would increase turnout at elections. He will probably be right if past experience is anything to go by. Events in Scotland during the past two years have shown that the electorate hold the Government accountable, so that is where accountability lies in Scottish terms. The accountability of the Government had this effect. They lost 11 of their 21 parliamentary seats in Scotland. In ensuing local authority elections, unfortunate Conservative councillors seeking re-election also felt the stick across their backs. The figures at last week's by-election, where there was an extraordinarily high turnout of approximately 75 per cent., show that the electors also know where accountability lies.
The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, was concerned about fairness. In Scotland, a low paid worker in the health service, living in Edinburgh, with a wife at home looking after two young children, will pay exactly the same amount in poll tax as the Secretary of State for Scotland. Perhaps the Secretary of State thinks that fair. Obviously, the electors in Edinburgh did not think that it was fair.
My next point concerns what was said by the Minister of State for Scotland on 30th June 1987. I told the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, that I would be quoting him. I was going to say that I warned him, but I do not need to say "warned" because I told him that I would not be quoting him in any hostile way. On 30th June 1987, in reply to a supplementary question at Question Time, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said:
"However, if refinements are made to the proposals [for England and Wales] we will of course consider whether any parallel changes need to be made to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act".
I believe that it was his first day as Minister of State. However, he was sufficiently confident of his answer to be able to repeat it. He said:
"However, as I have said—and I think I ought to repeat it—if refinements are to be made to the proposals we shall consider them in relation to the Scottish Act if and when that is necessary".—[Official Report, 30/6/87; cols. 119–121.]
We know from our experience in the House of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, that he is an honourable Minister. Unlike some of his colleagues on the Government Front Bench, he frequently gives us answers which we understand and which often relate to the question that has been asked. So this was a good quotation to bring to the attention of the House.
In the Budget debate last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that he was ignorant of Government policy as it had been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson. It must have been Government policy because the noble Lord was neither repudiated nor were his remarks amended in all the time that has passed. In increasing the savings allowance for a couple from £8,000 to £16,000, the Chancellor of the Exchequer either did not know Government policy on this matter or chose to ignore it. In the result, if the Prime Minister could have made anyone else Secretary of State for Scotland we would have had another one. Instead, the Prime Minister had to stand up in the House of Commons and make a U-turn.

883
What other lessons can those on this side of the Border learn from the experience of the poll tax in Scotland? I live in the Tayside region of Scotland. It was obviously not possible for me to obtain figures for the whole of Scotland but I thought that Tayside was unlikely to be very different from other areas. I am told that at the beginning of February 26,000 people had either paid nothing or were seriously in arrears. They account for 9 per cent, of those who had registered for the poll tax. Of those 26,000, 15,000 had paid nothing. In other words, six people out of every 100 had paid no poll tax.
I wanted to find out whether a comparison could be made with the previous position under the rating system. In the last year of the rates non-domestic ratepayers who paid their rates directly to Tayside region accounted for 2 per cent, of the number. Tayside could not give me a figure for those in council houses who paid combined rent and rates to the local authority but it is probable that this would account for another 2 per cent. The figure for non-payers or reduced payers was 4 per cent, in the last year of rates. The figure is 9 per cent, in the current year. This must add to the difficulties of local authorities and does not bode well for how much the poll tax will be next year. I suggest that those South of the Border would do well to do what the Government have not done; look to Scotland to see what will happen to you.
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for introducing the debate. But in view of the limited time we have to speak on this important subject I shall confine myself to one of the most unfair aspects of the poll tax legislation. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that it deals with the position of student nurses.
When the Bill passed through this House I tried on three occasions to amend it. At Report stage I obtained support from your Lordships' House so that my amendment was passed with a majority of 20. The Bill went to the other place but the amendment was turned down. It came back here with a government amendment to replace my amendment. I was not happy with it so I tried to amend the government amendment. But, unfortunately, I was intimidated by arguments on the constitutional position. I now understand that I could have insisted on my amendment, and I wish I had. As a result, we have to deal with the problem as it now stands.
At present we have 2,000 student nurses training under Project 2000 and therefore they receive an 80 per cent, rebate. However, we have between 58,000 and 68,000 student nurses who receive no rebate. What has added to the feelings of student nurses and to the unfairness with which they feel they are being treated is the recent announcement that some RAF apprentices, and probably in the future various MoD apprentices, have been granted an 80 per cent, rebate. This has been done in the Aylesbury Vale district with RAF trainees from Halton and also with apprentices at Fillingley in the Doncaster area.
884
They will only have to pay 20 per cent. These are apprentices who earn between £4,000 and £9,000 a year. No wonder the nurses feel badly done by.
The RCN held its annual conference this week in Brighton. One of the student nurses who comes from Lambeth challenged the Minister, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, about this anomaly. She pointed out that she would have to pay £580 per year community charge as a student nurse. In The Times on 27th March it was reported that the Minister replied that there was no relevance in the comparison with those in the armed forces because they have a different employer. Since when has it become relevant to one's liability to pay the community charge who one's employer is? In my innocence I thought that it had something to do with one's ability to pay. I believe that the student nurses have a grudge with which the Government should deal.
What can we do? The Government are already nervous about the reduction in the recruitment figures for nursing. The figure was down by 13 per cent, last year and the Government have launched a £5 million advertising campaign to increase the intake. However, it will not help if student nurses are being treated in the way that I have just described. But the anomaly, even at this late stage, could easily be resolved. Under Section 30(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 the Secretary of State for the Environment has the power to define the student category by regulation. He could simply issue a regulation under that power to allow all nursing students to pay 20 per cent, of the poll tax. Moreover, such an action would not be an openended financial commitment as the number of students pursuing the non-Project 2000 courses will be limited and rapidly shrinking in the next few years. Therefore it seems unnecessarily rigid not to treat them the same as students studying under Project 2000.
Therefore if the Government concede—which they do—that all nursing students in the long term will pay just 20 per cent., why penalise now those students whose period of education, through no fault of their own, falls by chance into the phasing-in period of Project 2000? I ask the Minister to use his influence to persuade the Secretary of State to exercise the powers that exist under Section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act and resolve this very unfair discrimination against student nurses.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is of course highly desirable that the link between representation and taxation should be strengthened at local government level to the degree that already exists at national government level. Therefore, it is right that every adult should pay something towards the cost of local government services and that that something should vary according to the prudence or extravagance, as the case may be, of his or her local authority so as to encourage thrift and value for money. However, the present formula is not right and is widely resented, as those of us who supported Lord Chelwood in principle forecast. It is resented for a good reason.

885
The current agitation over the poll tax is not as the Government suppose a nine-days wonder. It is highly anlikely, as Ministers claim, that in a year's time everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about. The reason that that will not happen is that the nickname given to the community charge —namely, the poll tax —by the public and the press is an accurate one. The so-called charge is by and large a tax and not a charge in the normal sense of the word. No one is compelled to pay for a road fund licence unless he has a car which he uses at least once a year. Similarly, no one is compelled to pay for a television licence unless that person has a television set in working order which is supposedly used, if only spasmodically.
The community charge does not fall within that category. Every citizen benefits from the theoretical 24-hour seven day a week protection afforded by the police and by the fire services. Moreover, every citizen benefits from street lighting, street cleaning, refuse collection, road and pavement maintenance and, arguably, parks and other open spaces. By no means does every citizen benefit from local authority housing, social services, adult education, libraries or sports centres, let alone those projects rumoured to be favoured by loony-left Labour-controlled councils; for example, educational visits to such bastions of democracy as Cuba and Albania, or the legendary lesbian and Rastafarian theatre workshops. Further, not every citizen benefits from expenditure on education. Most bachelors and spinsters and, by definition, all childless couples are incapable of so doing.
Therefore, the community charge is for the most part indeed a poll tax. It is also a direct and not an indirect tax. Direct taxes in this country—and indeed in every other country I can think of—are traditionally broadly proportionate to the taxpayer's income. The current non-progressive nature of the poll tax means that it bears with particular harshness on those just above the rebate limits. Many of these people, incidentally, are skilled blue-collar workers who voted Conservative for the first time in 1979 and may now be regretting that decision. It may well be that the poll tax absorbs 7 or 8 per cent, of their gross income, and possibly even more in some places.
What then is to be done? First, I suggest that we should remove the petty unfairnesses which infuriate everyone. I refer to, for example, the imposition of the poll tax on beach huts and also the unfair treatment of student nurses to which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, referred. Secondly, I suggest that we should make the funding of education, as opposed to the control of education, a central government responsibility. That could be paid for partly by limiting tax relief on mortgage interest to the standard rate of tax and partly—because in my view there is a case for taxes on property which to a large extent is exempt from taxes and which has every sort of tax break—by restoring stamp duty on property transfers to their previous level but making this payable by the vendor and not by the purchaser. In that way first-time buyers will be greatly assisted and at the same time it will mean that affluent middle-aged couples on the verge of retirement, who are selling large houses
886
so as to move into smaller ones, will be able to contribute modestly to the Exchequer.
Can the poll tax, shorn of its responsibility for education, be made more progressive? The answer is: only with the greatest difficulty. It would make a tax which is already complicated, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, still more complicated. Local income tax also raises many problems which are too numerous to enumerate on this occasion. Surely the right answer to the non-progressive nature of the poll tax is to make national income tax somewhat more progressive. The present 25 and 40 per cent, tax bands could be abolished, not least because a marginal starting rate of 25 per cent, is already far too high, especially taken in conjunction with national insurance contributions of 9 per cent. Instead three rates should be introduced: say 15, 30 and 45 per cent. This would be considered a fair solution by most people, I suggest. It would greatly help those earning between £5,000 and £10,000 per year and incidentally greatly improve the Government's chances at the next general election.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, this is an anniversary. I am sorry that the late Lord Ross of Marnock is not here to listen to the debate. It is almost three years to the day since this tax was introduced into the House by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. He said at col. 1324 of the Official Report for 17th March 1987:
"The benefits which the new system will bring to these deserving sections of society… as well as the greater degree of fairness … make this Bill one of the most… worthwhile pieces of… legislation",
that has come before this House. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, supported this when the English tax was introduced by saying at col. 829 of the Official Report for 9th May 1988:
"Now is the time to move to new and fairer arrangements". I emphasise "fairer".
"This Bill will give us that".
Since we have had the experience of the tax in Scotland it may be worth while to check whether this advice has been fulfilled. Strathclyde University has just conducted a survey of the impact of the tax on the Strathclyde region. It revealed that wealthy households in three of the most expensive residential suburbs of Strathclyde are making substantial financial gains under the community charge at the expense of poll tax payers in the remaining 16 parts of the region. That does not suggest that there is any degree of fairness in the tax. If there is one thing wrong with this tax it is that it is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Basically that is what is wrong with it.
So we continue. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said on 17th March 1987 that the ratepayers supported the Bill; it was good for democracy; good for local accountability and good for Scotland. One would think that the Scots would all be lining up to pay the tax, but that is not quite the case. They usually recognise a good thing in Scotland but latest figures on payment of the tax in Scotland suggest that to say the least, there is a certain reluctance. I

887
checked the figures and published them in The Times and they have not been challenged. The position is that 3.8 million Scots are liable for the tax, which was introduced in April 1989. Of those, 800,000 have paid nothing or are more than three months in arrears. Included in that figure are 375,000 non-payers against whom sheriff warrants have been issued. The banks and the Department of Social Security have indicated that they cannot handle the recovery based on that number of sheriff warrants.
Thus the tax is not welcomed by the Scots. There is reluctance to meet the requirements of the legislation. I do not support the people who say that they should not pay the tax. I believe that if the law is passed people should obey it and try to change it. I have little time for people who choose which laws they will support. However the figures I have just given to the House indicate that there is a large-scale gesture of protest.
The cost of collecting the tax has already been discussed. It costs more than twice as much to collect the same amount of money. No business could justify a policy that costs twice as much to collect the same amount of revenue. One of the problems is that, because of the new demands on local authorities under the new care in the community legislation, local authorities have additional burdens to carry. On top of that, they will only be refunded for the excess in costs of the poll tax collection in Scotland to the extent of 50 per cent. Local authorities are suffering from the fact that people are not paying. There is a considerable cash flow problem for local authorities, which are hard pressed to fulfil their obligations in many social services.
I am glad that the debate has been so well introduced because, while we shall not change the law, under this Government at least, we should emphasise the iniquities of the law that has been passed.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I had not realised that I would follow the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I informed myself of the exact position in Scotland about the non-payment of the tax. Noble Lords may be interested to have the answer. Contrary to what one has read in certain press reports—some of which have been totally misleading, based on entirely false information —the vast majority of people in Scotland are paying the community charge. I understand that 98 per cent, have now paid in many areas.
Even if one takes the region with the highest rate of arrears—which I think is Strathclyde—and compares the figures with the arrears of rates under the old system, the figures are comparable. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, not to base his arguments on figures which have appeared in the press but which bear little relation to reality.
A point has to be made about this. I shall come back to Scotland in a minute but the people in Scotland realise that those who do not pay simply oblige everybody else to pay more. There is great resentment in Scotland as it has become known that
888
people are trying to argue that they should withhold the poll tax. Some demonstrators are saying, "Can't pay, won't pay". I make that point clear.
My noble friend Lord Colnbrook reasserted the principal arguments for the community charge, indeed for the whole reform of local government finance. I entirely support them, I believe that as the tax beds down so the advantages will become clear.
As regards switching costs from the rich to the poor, the simple fact remains that if we take the totality of local authority spending and ascertain who is covering it, both through the community charge and other forms of payment, the top 10 per cent, of households pay by income something like 15 times as much as the bottom 10 per cent, of households by income. That statistic remains broadly true. It is a larger differential than applied under the old system. It seems to me to be the key point in regard to the rates system. My noble friend made clear that the rates system was wildly unfair and that is why it ceased to be operable and had to come to an end.
What has gone wrong—if I may put it that way—for there to be such an enormous uproar? I now refer to England and Wales. The answer lies in the substantial increase in expenditure which local authorities have chosen to undertake this year. It is a familiar pattern: no county council elections this year, so up goes the county council budget. That has happened in previous years and it is happening this year. I feel sorry for many of the little district councils which are the bodies that issue the community charge demand notice. They add their own charge to that of the county council and they have tended to be picked on in the press.
If we examine the problem, local authority spending is now £3 billion above what the Government estimated needed to be spent. The key point is that if that had happened without a change in taxation there would have been a 30 per cent, increase in the rates. People are comparing their poll tax figures with the sums that they paid last year. However, they should compare them with the sum they would have paid on the same expenditure this year. That would have meant a 30 per cent, increase. It is important to recognise that point. Furthermore, if the former system had been maintained, there would have been a revaluation. My noble friends from Scotland will remember the horrors that that caused some years ago in Scotland. One must make comparisons realistically.
Further, people do not yet know what their rebates will be. They have not yet had any rebate notices. One in four people will be entitled to a rebate. Many people are badly frightened that they will be unable to pay the full amount that they have seen quoted in the press. When they receive their rebate notices, that aspect of the matter will begin to put itself right.
I shall return to the situation in Scotland. Although this is the first year that the community charge has operated in England and Wales, it is the second year for Scotland. In Scotland in the first year of operation there was a substantial increase in spending. As a result, in the first year of operation the community charge was far higher than people had expected. But

889
what has happened in the second year in Scotland? Local authorities in Scotland are planning to increase their expenditure by nearly £400 million. That is an overall increase of 9–6 per cent., or under 10 per cent. The Actual increase in expenditure for the previous year was nearly 12–5 per cent. Therefore, there are grounds for saying that the high increase in spending in the first year of the community charge —local authorities thought then, apparently with some justice, that they could blame the Government—is perhaps slackening off in Scotland in the second year of operation.
Now people are beginning to realise, as they make comparisons between the community charges set by different local authorities, that it is the local authorities that spend responsibly and keep their expenditure under review that impose a lower community charge. I advise noble Lords to take heart from that situation. This matter will iron itself out. There may be some anomalies that need to be dealt with, but the second year of the operation of the charge in Scotland is a good deal better than the first year.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the noble Lord said that there tended to be lower taxes in a year where there are elections. I should say that there will be elections in Scotland in May.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear me say that I shall not follow his line of reasoning. I recognise that the noble Lord claimed authorship of the whole policy when he spoke on the Local Government Finance Bill when it went through your Lordships' Chamber in May 1988. The noble Lord claimed that he had invented the poll tax and had persuaded the Cabinet to adopt it. Therefore, he was bound to come out with some propaganda in favour of it. The noble Lord said that no one yet knows who will be entitled to rebates, or how much they will get. But in the next sentence he said that one in four people will be entitled to rebates. How does the noble Lord know who will be entitled to rebates if no one else knows that? That puts the whole matter into context.
It has already been said that this tax is unfair and is unjust. Furthermore, it is extremely complicated. It is for those reasons and for the reasons given in the ex:ellent opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on the difficulties that local government have faced, that I have continually opposed the community charge ever since it was first proposed. As I said, it is unjust because the poor will pay more than the rich. We all know that. We all know that the Duke of Westminster, for example, will pay a lot less than many pensioners in inner London. That must be unjust.
I do not have to remind noble Lords of the original poll tax of 1379 and 1381. However, in that poll tax there was some consideration of people's ability to pay. There was some kind of rough justice. The poor paid one groat while the rich paid 50 groats. There were riots because of that tax. What I am about to say has nothing to do with the present situation of the Archbishop of Canterbury; but in former times the Archbishop and the Chancellor were executed
890
by the mob who were protesting about the unjust poll tax. To reintroduce a measure that has such a long history of unfairness is typical of some noble Lords opposite. We only have to look at the record to know that. The community charge is also unfair because it imposes on deprived inner London boroughs and other inner city boroughs the payment of subsidies. Those boroughs have to subsidise wealthy Tory boroughs.
Figures have shown—they are not my figures—that deprived inner city boroughs are having to subsidise wealthy Tory boroughs by means of the safety net. Camden, for example, is subsidising Wandsworth to the tune of £75 per head. That does not make sense in anyone's language, except if one's whole policy is based on spite, vindictiveness and personal electoral gain and has nothing to do with accountability or fairness. In that case, the community charge would make sense; but it does not make sense for the inner London boroughs.
It is unjust that the blame is being laid on Labour councils. The whole justification that the Conservative Party uses for the community charge is the profligate spending of Labour councils. However, Government figures themselves show that many Tory councils are levying poll taxes that are just as high as those levied by Labour councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said that he did not understand the community charge as he did not have much local government experience. However, he then went on to explain it. He obviously did not understand that as many Tory councils are levying high community charges as Labour councils. I came across some figures which showed me that the local councils of—these include the councils of nearly every Cabinet Minister's constituency—the Prime Minister through to the Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, the Defence Secretary, the Chief Whip, the Social Security Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Agriculture Secretary, are all imposing a higher community charge than the Government's assumed figure. The lowest overshoot is about 8 per cent., while the highest is 38–7 per cent. The highest overshoot occurs in the local council of the Secretary of State for Agriculture.
The local council of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is overshooting by 29 per cent, the Government's figures. Where are all those profligate Labour councils that the Government blame for overspending? If people studied those figures, they would come to the conclusion that I have reached, which is that the community charge is unfair and unjust. It is also unworkable because it is so complicated.
The rebate schemes and the transitional payment schemes have been mentioned with some pride by some Ministers. The noble Lord who spoke before me mentioned the rebate scheme. However, the rebate schemes are not what they should be either, because rebates are not worked out on community charge figures. They are not even worked out on rate figures. Government documents state that the calculation does not necessarily depend on what a person actually paid in rates or what his local community charge is. It depends on assumed rates,

891
averaged out by the department and on an assumed personal community charge based on the figure that it would have been had everything been all right and had the council concerned done what it was told and if the Government had agreed that the council was spending properly.
However, the charge payer has to pay any difference. In some cases the difference is as much as £300. A 30 per cent, increase in rates has been referred to. I should say that a lot of people would have been happier with that situation than with the increases that have been imposed on them through the community charge. I know shopkeepers in the inner London boroughs of Camden and Hampstead who would have been delighted with a 30 per cent, increase.
My time is up. I could speak for another hour on the community charge. I shall merely repeat that it is unjust, unfair, complicated and unworkable. The Government will be sorry that they ever introduced it.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord used a particular phrase because I am certain that noble Lords will completely disregard any case which is based upon the premise that a government have been deliberately vindictive. That approach to a problem such as this puts the whole matter out of court regarding our attention. The Motion is a good and fair one. It is the kind of Motion that we should have in mind at the beginning of the imposition of the community charge with the idea of returning to it as the measure progresses. The speech of the noble Baroness in support of the Motion was 90 per cent, acceptable to all sides. However, she could not help herself in speaking with a certain prejudice as regards 10 per cent, of her speech.
Everyone knew that there would be problems when we moved from the old rating system to a new system. The Motion states that, as expected, there are problems. Let us start looking at those problems and see how we can alleviate them for as many people as possible. That was the main burden of the speech of the noble Baroness. There was no vindictiveness there. That was common sense. That is how parliamentarians ought to do their work.
We also have a responsibility beyond debating with one another. We have a platform, and what we say is usually taken up by others. It either makes people outside uncertain and worried or it puts them on the right track. At the end of the day, in the other place in particular, we are given power of attorney to think such matters out on behalf of the electorate.
Where we make a mistake, even in this debate, is in suggesting that it is the community charge alone which covers the cost of local government expenditure on projects which are shared by everyone. We ought not to approach the matter from the point of view of the community charge meeting all local government costs. We owe it to the people who are not in the same position as we are regarding the calculation of the figures, to say exactly what the expenses are and where the money comes from.
892
When we talk outside the House on the matter, we ought to ensure that we explain that half of local government expenditure is paid for from government grant in any case and has nothing to do with the individual. If we are to be fair, we ought to point out that one quarter of the remaining half comes from the business charge, which has nothing whatever to do with the individual. It is only the remaining quarter that the individual is called upon to pay. Yet the individual gains almost all of the benefits that arise from local government expenditure. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who is usually very fair and sensible, should use the example of a person in the position that he described who pays the same community charge as the Secretary of State for Scotland. Then the noble Lord dragged in the poor old Duke of Westminster.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I have not heard one single argument without the Duke of Westminster being brought into it. What does the Duke pay towards the cost of local government expenditure from which everybody benefits? We all have our little machines, so we can work it out. We have access to the Blue Book which will tell us whether or not the formula that we work to is the correct one. I should like to put on record one or two figures which could answer the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, if he is prepared to listen. However, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will accept them, whatever I say.
The position is that if someone has an income of £300,000 a year, they pay £105,271 in tax. Of that £105,271, £20,000 goes to local government in the form of the government grant. He is left with the standard charge of £572 for two people in one house. Therefore the total contribution towards local government expenditure made by the £300,000 a year man —and I do not know many of them —is £24,824, which is 25 times as much as the average wage earner with £12,000 a year.
Now I come to a more reasonable figure, which is probably in the area of that for the Secretary of State for Scotland. If someone has an income of £50,000 a year, they will pay £13,471 in tax. Of that, £2,694 is the proportion which goes towards local government expenditure. Add to that the £572 standard charge, making a total of £3,266. That is three times as much as the £12,000 average wage earner.
All of those figures, and other graduations, are to be found in the Blue Book. Noble Lords will see that all the nonsense talked about local government expenditure being paid for not by those who have the money but by ordinary people on low incomes is not true. We owe it to everybody—and we are in a position to work it out for ourselves—to see that people outside understand that when forming their judgments.
Having said that, of course there are problems and there will be problems. The Government made an additional £2 billion available, on top of what they thought would be the cost, in order to answer the points mentioned by the noble Baroness about inflation and the additional responsibilities of local government. The Government made that sum

893
available in the belief that it would cover those factors. They still believe that it will cover them if there is not too much extravagance. If it is not enough, we must use our power—as the noble Lord did at Question Time this afternoon—to see that individual problems are sorted out. In the meantime, I do not believe that we ought to frighten people outside by misrepresenting the facts.
4.15 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, many of the arguments which have been put forward today, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, have been based on estimates. I propose to put forward the actual figures as they affect the 15 people who live on the farm which I occupy in Essex. There are seven houses on the farm. Three of them are let That is because of the increased efficiency in agriculture over the past 30 years or so since I built the houses and because of the reduction in production. If my noble friend Lord Stallard has his way, the other three will also have to be let in a few years' time.
The rent of the houses which are let includes the rates. The total rates for the three houses are £1,418. There are seven adults living in those three houses. Their rents will be reduced by the amount of the community charge because I believe that to be only fair. They will each pay £381 (which is what Epping Forest District Council has fixed as the community charge) making a total of £2,667. They are therefore £1,249 worse off—that is £179 each. They are not people with large incomes; the houses are let to working people.
The houses of our two employees are rate-free to them. If we increase their wages by the amount of the community charge, in the case of the foreman tractor driver that will amount to £656. He will have to pay tax on that of £164 and his share of national insurance and social security. He and his wife will pay poll tax of £762. Therefore they will be approximately £300 worse off.
Much the same applies to our other employee, who is retired stockman. He works half time. His rates are £727. Noble Lords may consider those figures high, but they are very good houses. They are not the kinds of houses which farmworkers are presumed to live in; they have all modem conveniences such as central heating, and so on. His rebate on his rent will cost him tax of £182 —again with increases in national insurance and social security. There is also a difference of £35 between the rates and the community charge. He and his wife,who are both pensioners, will be worse off by £220.
My son, who manages the farm, lives in the other cottage which is rated at £747. He will be only £15 worse off as a result of the poll tax, but he will have £170 more to pay in income tax plus national insurance and social security charges. Therefore he will be more than £200 worse off.
My wife and I live in the farmhouse. Of the 15 people living on the farm, we are the two who are most able to pay our taxes —not too able, I should like to emphasise. Our house is rated at £1,146. So
894
we are better off by £384. That does not strike one as being fair. The community tax for the 15 people is £5,715. There is a little over £1,000 difference between that and the rates. There is a Conservative council in the area. I wonder whether the Government think that that is a fairer tax than the rates.
I was intrigued by the plan for taxation of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I should like to read a little more about it. I notice my noble friends on the Front Bench looking at me. Perhaps I might manage to persuade them that people have ideas other than those of the main gist of the party. Something which has a relation to the local council and what it levies should be added to income tax in the area. I am sure that that would be a better system than this one.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, I have always supported the abolition of the discredited rating system. It is over and done with and it is no good harping back any longer on how frightful it might have been under the rates system. The Government now stand and fall—at the moment they are stumbling pretty badly—on their very own community charge or poll tax. That is what people will vote on in the May local elections.
I have always opposed the concept of a flat rate tax. It is unfair and dangerous. I strongly supported the late Lord Chelwood's amendment at the start of the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill two years ago. That in effect asked the Government to think again and to take account of people's ability to pay. I was a teller in the Division which ensued and had the rather depressing task of counting no fewer than 317 of my noble friends through the Government Lobby. I often wonder how many there would be now.
Perhaps the message is getting home. One can read today that a senior Cabinet Minister and former Leader of the other place —Mr. Biffen —has made it clear that he thinks it is time the Government should put aside the flat rate principle and relate the charge to a graduated system.
In the meantime, whether we like it or not, the tax is now the law of the land and those of us in particular who support the Government had best try to make it work. The Government also have a duty to make it work. This Government a Conservative Government should not be in the business of allowing the tax to become a recruiting agency for the Labour Party.
The difficulty is that the tax will never work until and unless the Government recognise that a universal flat rate tax, which is what this tax is over and above the rebate levels, will be politically acceptable and tolerable only if levied at a low rate—not £350, £450 or £550. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. We cannot expect the tax to finance the same share of local services as the rates. If the burden on local authorities is too high, whatever form of tax is used to raise local government finance, whether it is rates, community charge, or local income tax —I shall not mention the roof tax—people will resist the tax and it will almost

895
always be the Government, not the local authorities, who will be blamed.
As it is a flat rate tax and far too high in most places, the list of those who need relief grows longer and longer and the accountability element becomes less and less meaningful. Yet those worst hit by the charge will be the very group of people likely to decide the outcome of elections—the skilled workers who earn too much to qualify for rebates and who live in flats and houses which were relatively low-rated, and who are now coping with sky-high mortgages.
One thing that must surely happen is that the cost of the safety net be borne by the Exchequer, now, in year one. That at present makes a complete fiasco of the so-called accountability of the tax.
Even more important and fundamental, if the tax is to have any chance at all of being politically acceptable, the Government must grasp the nettle and either substantially increase the revenue support grant by £3 billion or £4 billion or transfer a major item of local authority expenditure to the Exchequer. I ask my noble friend the Minister to press hard for a reconsideration of the substantial case for a transfer to the Exchequer of at least the cost of teachers' salaries which are determined at national level but paid for by local authorities.
My noble friend will be well aware of an Early Day Motion in another place which has been signed by some 70 of his honourable friends, including a vice-chairman of the 1922 Committee, and which calls for the transfer of the cost of education. Action on that front would dramatically reduce the burden on local government and completely transform the position.
At any rate, there must be an end to the miserable dribs and drabs of minor concessions wrung out of the Government, each one looked upon as a sign of weakness, never as a sign of strength. The point to grasp is that something fundamental must be done. The Government should take a hard look at the problem, not take too long and then take decisive action. The best decision of all would be to relate the charge properly to an ability to pay which is increasingly recognised as the only and final solution.
4.26 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, perhaps I may start by apologising to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, as I started a coughing attack right behind her while she was making her speech and then had quickly to leave. I also apologise to the House for the fact that having left, I did not come back until just before I was due to speak. There is nothing more off-putting than trying to make a speech on an important subject and hearing someone coughing and spluttering behind. Luckily, my wife was here and she suggested that I take a sip of port —unfortunately not vintage port —and breathe it in. That seems to have done the trick. I am not sure how long my voice will hold out, but, if I make a short speech, I am sure that it can only be to the gratification of noble Lords.
896
There was a nice little story in The House Magazine about a dear old lady who said, "I don't mind paying the community charge, but I do object to paying the poll tax". That is a typical statement which shows that people are not sure what is what. I wondered to myself why it was called the community charge, not the poll tax. One of the obvious answers is that the last time we had a poll tax in this country was under Queen Elizabeth I and anyone who disagreed with her had his head cut off. In the end, the peasants revolted and the poll tax had to be withdrawn.
I thought that I should check my facts so I went to the Library and consulted the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Having done so, I realised why the Government called it the community charge rather than the poll tax. Referring to the word "poll", the dictionary states:
"To plunder by or as by excessive taxation; to pillage, rob or fleece; to despoil a person or place of anything".
I could not have asked for a better quotation.
Everyone, apart from most noble Lords opposite, says that everything about the community charge is wrong. But that is not true. To quote only one instance that I know of, my mother-in-law is a widow and the tax she pays, by whatever name it is known, has been drastically reduced.
What I should like to mention particularly is the uniform business rate. I live in a small community in north Hampshire, in Church Crookham; and when we talk about "our boys" we mean the Gurkhas. We covered that subject fairly well at Question Time; but just down the road is a village shop which is open from fairly early in the morning until fairly late at night. It is very easy to get there. How can that small shop hope to survive with this tax? The owners charge a little more for all their goods but I think that the community charge will kill their business together with a great many other small shops.
It is fine if you are a multinational company because if you have thousands of branches you may pay heavily in one area and possibly pay less in another area. Therefore you can even things out and it is not so bad. If you have a small shop which has an empty flat above it, you then have to pay the tax on that. On the other hand, if you let that flat be used by people who are homeless and do not charge any rent, they will not pay the poll tax because the council will actually pay them for it. There is an anomaly there, and I think we need to think very carefully to see how we can change the tax to make it more equitable to everyone.
I know that the noble Lord who spoke before me mentioned education. It seems to me that it would be a very good idea if the cost of education were to be taken over by central government. A great many people who are paying a large amount of community charge for education have grown-up children and therefore it would be far better if the whole cost of education came from central government, where it could be more equitably spread everywhere. There was a recent case quoted in one of the newspapers—perhaps in many newspapers—where someone who lived on one side of a road under one

897
council was paying twice the community charge of another person who was living across the road under another council. That must be very annoying. My Lords, my voice has lasted, and I will now sit down.
4.33 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, have we changed names, or changed sides? Your Lordships will remember that there was a certain Baron Frankenstein. He was a kindly man who created a monster. As he was a kindly man I am sure it was a kindly monster he was trying to create, but things went wrong and the monster got out of control. Eventually he was engulfed in flames and the creator of the monster was brought down.
I fear that that is what we have in this excellent principle and idea of changing the rating system to the community charge, which is all too often referred to as tile poll tax, which does not sound very good to many people. I urge the Government very strongly to reconsider the administration by which they propose to allow the charge to be inflicted upon people throughout the length and breadth of this country.
I want to direct my remarks at this stage principally to the tied cottage system, in which I must declare a vested interest in that rather like the noble lord. Lord John-Mackie, I have a number of employees, who are in tied cottages. This situation applies not only to agriculture but also to the police, firemen the clergy and a host of other people up and down the country whose jobs necessitate them living in cottages and whose rates are paid by their employers: a fact taken into consideration with their emoluments.
The 1st April falls next week, and those people will find that they have a charge, a personal tax, to pay in contributing to the community charge. This has changed the goalposts for the employer, who engaged his staff on the basis that they would live in cottages that were rent and rates free. I am not sure that this point has been thoroughly thought through by the Government, to see what should be done as regards people in that situation. The recent increase awarded by the Agricultural Wages Board to an average agricultural worker—and by average I mean a married man with two children—means that his basic pay is £120 a week and that will in fact result in him receiving net pay of some £5,760 a year. Out of that, he and his wife might well have to find some £700 a year, leaving just over £5,000 a year in his pocket. Last year the basic wage was £112 a week. Taking tax into consideration, he would take home pay of something like £5,460. That person will be £400 a year worse off.
While being a totally dedicated supporter of the Conservative Party, I am not prepared to accede very readily to something which is very unjust and unfair. Those who are able to pay more ought to pay more and those who are not in a position to pay as much should have great consideration shown to them. For that reason I strongly support what was said by my noble friend Lord Ellenborough on the basis of ability to pay. It is very easy to get confused with rates of income tax, allowances and so on but let us ignore them for the moment. If we could just
898
try to administer the charge on the basis of people's earnings, taking into account the benefits they may have, such as the occupancy of tied cottages and so on, that would be fine by me.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin said that we do not know what our rebates will be; but we do know. The pensioners know that they will get an 80 per cent, rebate. I would say, thanks a bundle. Let us take a married couple—pensioners on a meagre income—who have to pay 20 per cent, of an average community charge of something like £370 each. That means £3 a week out of their rather low income and it seems to be a substantial amount of money for people in that kind of situation. In my view there should be a sliding scale. It is not possible within six minutes to go into full details, but let us suppose, for example, that out of an income of £100 a week people were obliged to pay 5 per cent, of the current rate for the area in which they lived; those who pay 25 per cent, income tax had to pay the full rate; those who earn, say, £40,000 to £50,000 a year had to pay 150 per cent; and those who happened to earn £80,000 or £100,000 or more a year pay 200 per cent, of the standard rate. That would be fair and equitable in my view. One final point is that although husbands and wives are currently being assessed for their savings and earnings jointly, as from 5th April this year husbands and wives are being treated separately for income tax and are being separately assessed. Therefore they should be assessed separately for the level at which they, and they alone, pay their community charge, which is an individual tax. I hope very much that the Government will listen sympathetically to what I have said because if they do so they will enhance their reputation and restore their standing in the country very substantially.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: I am second time lucky, my Lords! This subject has received some public airing of late and we must be careful not to keep ploughing the whole field. We must also be gentle on the Minister who will be answering. He has been pitched in at the deep end of the Front Bench with the dead weight of the football identity scheme. He was rescued from that, and now has been handed this subject. As a good Northamptonshire man he deserves better.
I am concerned with only two aspects: the fundamentally unfair principle underlying the community charge and the role of local government in setting the charges.
The point of principle cannot be stressed too often because it is the main source of discontent with the tax, stretching across all parties. It is an example of a massively regressive tax bearing little relationship to ability to pay and running contrary to what, until a few years ago, had been the main drift of modern taxation in most civilised countries. Although its impact is mixed, and some examples can be found—and no doubt will be quoted—of poor people who are better off", the broad thrust is most helpful to the most prosperous. I am significantly better off, and I imagine that most noble Lordsopposite are also. That cannot be right and I believe

899
that many prosperous people who are beneficiaries, including many supporters of the Conservative Party —among them some of my best friends —share that view. It would be a mistake to assume that the opposition comes only from those who suffer under this tax.
I refer to the local government aspect. I should like to give support to the very authoritative arguments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in her excellent opening speech. In particular, what concerns me is the attempt to switch all the blame for the high poll tax charges onto local government. I confess that I find myself in a slightly uncomfortable position defending local authorities on financial matters. For a quarter of a century I lived in Camden and saw at close hand some of the extravagant lunacies that used to characterise some local authorities.
I have sympathy with the Government's attempt to establish a line of accountability between those who spend and those who pay the rates, or this tax. I believe that there was a time when some local authorities were profligate. But the present campaign of denigration is broadly unfair. It seems to be one more attempt by the Prime Minister to switch the blame for her failures onto others.
When considering the poll tax charges and increases, noble Lords should be aware of certain important factors when adding up the numbers. First, the Government insist on comparing the new charges with previous and forecast notional expenditures. The percentage increases will in most cases be less when compared to actual out-turn expenditure for 1989–90 which is not yet completed.
Secondly, a substantial percentage of the increased local authority expenditure has been imposed by central government. That is especially true in the staff area. Roughly three-quarters of local authority expenditure is on wages, and roughly three-quarters of local authority wage increases for the coming year have been imposed on the local authorities by central government negotiations and by external formulae. The teachers, police, and firemen are obvious examples. Again, central government have imposed on local authorities new responsibilities, especially in the various social services, without providing the extra resources to operate them.
The costs of collecting the poll tax are much higher than those of collecting rates. Some examples have been quoted. I have seen a figure of 300 per cent, higher cost in Newcastle and 500 per cent, higher in Oxford. Underlying that is the Government's hopelessly inadequate inflation assumption of 3–8 per cent, when actual inflation is heading for 10 per cent, in the coming months.
The final point relates to local authority balances. I have spoken to friends who are treasurers for Conservative local authorities. They claim that they ran down their balances very loyally in 1987–88 to assist the Government in the general election year by keeping down rates. They expect to run down their balances in 1991–92 to help the Government in the election in that year. It is a little ungrateful to attack them now as profligate. After all, when are
900
they expected to build up their balances so that they can run them down again?
I do not say that no local authority has set its community charge higher than it should. It is a fact that historically every reorganisation of local government has been accompanied by a suspiciously large increase in expenditure. But it is quite unfair to blame local authorities for many of those increases which are not their fault. In fact, they have often been imposed by central government.
4.46 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the row over the poll tax was predictable, is predictable, and has turned out to be even worse than those of us who predicted it said it would be.
I said in my speech in this House on an amendment put forward by my very great friend, Lord Chelwood, that this is one thing that could lose the Conservative Government the next election. There was a general rumble from my noble friends saying, "You don't know what you are talking about". I wish to God that I did not know what I was talking about. It is a deeply unfair tax. I shall give noble Lords three examples of its unfairness.
A tenant of mine, who is a widow, lives in a cottage of mine. Last year, because her husband had saved and she was above the rebate level, she paid £280 a year in rates. It is a nice little cottage, with two bedrooms and central heating, and it is in good condition. It is an attractive house. This year in poll tax she will pay £405 a year. As a Government did we introduce a tax to increase it on widows and the childless?
A hardworking couple have a 19 year-old daughter who works. They live in a council house that they have bought. They paid £280 or thereabouts in rates last year. Their bill will be £1,215 this year for a family of three. Is that fair? I suppose that they could reduce their bill by £405 by booting their daughter out. Is that what the Government or the family wants? Of course it is not. I shall be £1,000 a year better off. Is that what the Government want? I hope that it is. I am seriously open to any fom of bribery they might give. I shall take it. But that is not good government.
On the whole, the Government have been the finest government this century. It is reasonable to say that when the finest government this century make what is in slightly less polite circles called a cock-up, they will make an Olympic gold medal cock-up. I suggest that the poll tax falls into exactly that description.
It is possible to suggest a reasonable alternative. I quite accept the Government's argument on accountability has great validity. I suggest the following. I suggest a little mea culpa on one aspect of their policy. I suggest that they go back to a property tax. If it is called a roof tax, somebody will call the poll tax a head tax, and one is better off without a roof than without one's head. I suggest therefore that the Government give a discount for a house occupied by only one person and a surcharge for a house occupied by more than two people over the age of 18. That would be fair. It would introduce

901
an element of accountability, and it would be a property-based tax which is a very rough and ready method of discovering how comfortably off or poor somebody is. After all, if you live in a big house, it is assumed that you can afford to do so. If you live in a small house, you probably do so either because you car not afford or do not want to live in a bigger house.
During Committee I said that the tax had been introduced by the more drunken of Turkish sultans, the mo re incompetent of Mogul emperors and the more effete of Plantagenet kings. I suggest that if my right honourable friend the First Lord of the Treasury follows the taxation policies of Selim the Sot, she will become just as unpopular. Unfortunately she does not have any janizaries to put down any ensuing rebellion. She must do so and my noble friends on the Front Bench must change their minds because it is a blot on an otherwise excellent record of one of the finest governments this century.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in his admirable speech on the Second Reading of the poll tax Bill, my noble friend Lord Mcintosh of Haringey quoted an item from the Wiltshire and Gloucestershire Standard dated 1st April 1988. Mr. Nicholas Ridley, the then Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, was there quoted as saying of local taxation:
"Why should a duke pay more than a dustman?".
The Tory Dukes, Earls, Viscounts and Barons had their say when they all trundled in from the backwoods to defeat a very reasonable amendment intended to relate poll tax to the ability to pay as proposed by the late and sadly missed Lord Chelwood.
Now it is the turn of dustmen and millions of other ordinary folk from all walks of life, trades and professions to have their say. Indeed, they are doing so loudly and clearly. They are saying that they hate the poll tax and its progenitors alike. They said it in mid-Staffordshire last Thursday and they will say so again at the local elections in May. They will say so again and again after that until the poll tax is repealed or amended beyond all recognition, or until the Government are defeated at the next general election.
The mind boggles at the sheer incompetence of a government which introduced a tax which would always hit hardest their supporters. It was bound to cause even more bitter antagonism when voters in Tory areas realised that they were being required to pay more in poll tax in order to help Labour areas which, quite wrongly and over a long period, the Government had accused of being profligate spenders.
The whole poll tax system devised by the Government is full of anomalies and unfairnesses. According to my noble friend Lord Stallard, it even militates against heterosexual relationships because the rebate system favours people in a male or female homosexual relationship. Perhaps in reply the Minister can confirm that homosexuals will receive
902
better treatment than husbands and wives or common-law partnerships betweeen men and women. He had better speak to his officials in the Box about the matter.
I return to the incompetence of the Government in relation to their supporters. I should like to examine the position in Reading where I live and where I shall pay the poll tax. There are two Reading parliamentary seats which at present are both Tory. In the borough 83 per cent, of households will be worse off by paying poll tax than under the old rating system. As we have already heard, the Berkshire County Council is so incensed by the Government's treatment —and unfortunately there are no Labour MPs in Berkshire—that it had presented for it a petition in the House of Commons. Another example is Oxfordshire which has only one Labour MP, the rest being Tory. There the poll tax has struck like a bolt from the blue. In one district it is more than £450 per person. My eldest son, who lives alone in a small one-bedroomed house, will pay more than two and a half times more in poll tax than he now pays in rates. There is a fat chance of him voting Tory at the next election! Indeed, many people in South Oxfordshire are having to cancel holidays and even having children because of the poll tax.
In addition to the damage caused to poll tax payers, the Government have caused enormous damage to the effectiveness and independence of local government. Not only has poll tax been foisted upon it but the ability of local government to levy local taxation on businesses commensurate with local services provided has been eliminated. Under such circumstances, local government is neither free nor independent. Indeed, the Government may just as well appoint gauleiters or commissars because democratic control and decision making by properly elected local people has been virtually ended by the actions of the Government. One is almost tempted to call upon local councillors up and down the country to resign en masse in protest at the Government's despicable treatment of them.
The tragedy is that it was all so unnecessary. Local rates based on property values were a perfectly respectable tax, easily administered, easily collected and difficult to evade. However, it was necessary to ensure that local rates financed only local services and not national services. That is why the rates system fell down; the local taxation system was expected to finance great national services such as education. Rateable values could be raised in accordance with the cost of living index so that the local taxation system retained some dynamism. They could have been topped up with a small additional tax on, say, petrol.
Even at this late stage, I trust that the Government will listen to us and to their own supporters who this afternoon have, to their credit, raised their voices loudly and clearly against this iniquitous and obnoxious system.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I must begin by saying that I shall be £400 a year worse off when the poll tax is introduced; my rates are only £200 and my poll tax will be £600. I tremble at the ankles at

903
the thought of the unified business rate because I do not know how I shall pay that. I also offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for her most informative exposition of the true problems facing local authorities, and of the deficiencies of the old rate support grant or the SSSAs, as they are now called. I hope that everyone will read her speech with care because it is the truth.
One of the worst aspects of the past 10 years of this Administration has been the sad deterioration in co-operation between national and local government. The constant attacks, emanating principally from the Prime Minister at Question Time and constantly aped by her Ministers, accusing Labour or Liberal councils and district councils of gross overspending must have brought relationships to an all time low. I suspect that that, more than anything else, led to the recent resignations of Tory councillors in different parts of the country. They know the truth of the matter.
There is only a 3 to 4 per cent, difference between Tory and Labour councils when tables of comparisons are produced. Nevertheless, the accusations continue. I do not believe for one minute that the public are fooled by the accusations, and it is time that they stopped.
The vital and early task for the next incumbent of 10 Downing Street must be to mend fences and do so quickly. In the recent by-election, Staffordshire County Council was constantly portrayed as being the villain of the piece. However, over the past 10 years that council closed or amalgamated no fewer than 130 village and local schools. That is one definite way to save money on the education budget but is certainly not a popular policy to pursue with the general public. The Government have not helped by the introduction of opt-out procedures.
We are now being threatened with charge capping. I beg the Government to be very careful and very certain of their facts before they pursue that line of action. When rate capping was introduced, one Tory authority was included; namely, Portsmouth. Yet I believe that the policies of that council at the time were fully justified and can now be seen to be so. Hit desperately by dockyard closures, it has spent public money to good effect and is now reaping the benefit. Of course, the council could be more generous towards its cathedral appeal particularly on the date that its bishop takes his seat in this House. However, that is another matter.
The stupidity of constantly pretending that it is all the fault of overspenders can be simply illustrated by comparing two adjoining counties: Powys, in Wales, with Shropshire. The current rate in the pound is 233.9 pence in the Radnor district in Powys while it is £231.5 in the South Shropshire district. In other words, it is less in Shropshire than in Powys. However, the poll tax in Powys will be £175 while in Shropshire it will be £307.3. Therefore, if you happen to live in my local market town of Knighton on the wrong side of the River Teme you pay a poll tax nearly double that of your neighbour. In 1974 those people were asked if they wished to transfer from the parish of Stowe into Wales and voted against that. They now regret it.
904
I do not believe that even our Prime Minister or the Chairman of the Conservative Party would have the gall to accuse either county council of being overspenders. We are constantly given the example of Wandsworth and Lambeth but what about Havering and Barking? There the Tory council has a higher poll tax than the council in Barking. Of course, the truth on Wales is that Mr. Peter Walker achieved a much better deal from the Treasury than did Mr. Christopher Patten for England. It is certainly not equitable when services are the same.
It is not just the poll tax that should concern us. The unified business rate is going to cause untold harm to small shopkeepers many of whom are already in considerable financial difficulty due to high interest rates. I suspect that your Lordships thought, as I did, that in the first year the increase could not be more than 15 per cent, higher than what was paid last year. That is not the case because the rate of inflation at 7–59 per cent, is added. In my case, the rates on the small shop which I have in Knighton have increased from £789–71 p to £976–87p and finally to over £1,000.
In 1981 when I was a Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight my constituents wanted to know what I personally was doing about local unemployment which was then running at over 18 per cent. I tried to respond by borrowing a lot of money. I converted an old slaughterhouse into an arcade of small shop units and a bakery. I have only just moved into profit after nine years of operation. My rates are now to increase from £3,000 to £10,000. If they are not substantially reduced it will not be worthwhile carrying on. My advice to all shopkeepers in that position is that they should lodge their appeals straight away because I believe that many assessments are way over the top.
Whose fault is it? Of course, it is the Government's fault because they allowed the terrible property explosion whereby people paid silly rents and premiums in order to obtain properties.
When governments set up learned committees which take evidence, earnestly consider and then advise administrations, it is quite beyond me why their good advice is ignored. A commission set up by the late Tony Crosland studied the problem of the rating system for two or more years and duly pronounced upon its decisions; namely a property tax based on capital values operating between bands using a divisor to reach rateable values coupled with a local income tax. My own party has adopted that policy. We should like to see the old idea of site value rating, now land value taxation, replace the business rate.
I have much to say and unfortunately I have nearly run out of time. I would remind the House that when this matter was debated previously I said to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that the Government were about to commit suicide. Unless they take drastic action to relieve the general public of these ever increasing burdens—for example, 13 per cent, on water rates, increases in electricity charges, and so on —then they will soon be out of office. The sooner the better.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, this has been a fascinating and very well informed debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is to be congratulated both for having introduced it and for the way in which she introduced it. It has been particularly fascinating to hear the balance of opinion in the House. If one looks at the party affiliations of those noble Lords who are to speak, one finds that there are six Conservatives, nine from Opposition parties and one from the Cross-Benches. Yet, when I look at the speeches made, of those 17 speeches, 14 have been almost unequivocally antagonistic to the poll tax, one—if the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, will forgive me—could best be described as a "don't know", and the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Harmar-Nicholls, were the only noble Lords who dared to come out in support of the poll tax. If I have misjudged the conclusion to which the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, has come, then I apologise to him. He was certainly expressing substantial doubts in the course of his speech even if he came down on the other side.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Harmar-Nicholls, managed to defend the poll tax with spectacular own-goals. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has claimed fatherhood of the poll tax. I understand from what he is saying that he is not repudiating it. In these circumstances other men would be asking for blood tests and genetic fingerprints; but the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, goes on despite the evidence in the public polls and in public opinion generally about the maintenance charges which are to be imposed on the fathers and mothers of this iniquitous tax.
I say that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, scored a spectacular own goal for several reasons. First, he seemed to blame what is happening now on what he calls "uproar". I commend to him the word "turmoil". That was the word used by the Chinese leadership as a justification for cracking down on the brave attempt by students in Beijing towards democracy when the tanks were ordered into Tiananmen Square. It may come to that.
If the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, thinks that what we have now is simply turmoil and not a reasoned and heart-felt objection to something which can be seen to be wrong, then his political judgment is less keen than I thought it to be. Also, the prospects of his party remaining in office are less secure than he believes them to be.
His particular own-goal was when he referred to his estimate —and it can be no more than that —that one in four poll tax payers will receive rebates. Notice that that is not one in four of the adult population but is only one in four poll tax payers. After the last election, I carried out an opinion poll in which I asked the following simple question: "Do you pay rates?" That was a question asked of a cross-section of the adult population. Seventy five per cent, said that they paid rates. By that they did not mean that they signed the cheques themselves or took the money into the rating office, but that they recognised that they contributed to the rating
906
system—that is, that somebody in the household was paying rates and they were contributing to that through their share of household expenses.
They recognised that their landlord—whether private or council —was paying rates to which they were contributing through their rent payments. In other words, if there is a position where 75 per cent, of the adult population feels that it is accountable under the rating system, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin —the father of this scheme —is telling us that 25 per cent, of those on the poll tax list will receive rebates, where is the accountability? What has happened to the basic argument put forward for the change in the local taxation system? The reality which we are now seeing is that accountability is being lessened rather than increased by the poll tax because of the perceived injustice.
The own-goal of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was more interesting in some ways. Presumably based on Conservative Party information, he referred to the combination of income tax and poll tax in the total contribution made by dukes and dustmen, to stick to Mr. Ridley's example. He based that on the assumption that the Prime Minister was right when she said to the Conservative Party local government conference in 1988 that only 25 per cent, of local authority expenditure would be levied by the poll tax. That has not proved to be the case.
The standard spending assessment alone, which is the government estimate of what the poll tax should be—£278—will result in poll tax payers paying 30 per cent, of the total local authority expenditure because of the levels of grants and business rates. I remind the noble Lord and the House that the actual poll tax exceeds the standard spending assessment by almost the same amount in Conservative and Labour councils, so it is not Labour overspending that we are discussing. The actual poll tax to be paid will account for 37 per cent, of the total of local authority expenditure. I gladly give way.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my figures did not come from anybody's headquarters. They came from the Blue Books, which are open to the noble Lord and any other parliamentarian. They were worked out by machines and confirmed by my own accountant. If the noble Lord looks at the figures I think that he will change his mind.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall be delighted to look at the figures. I was not querying the figures, I was querying the basis on which the noble Lord drew political conclusions from them. They are based on a false presumption both with regard to what the Government intended and, even more, with regard to what is happening on the balance between the poll tax and other sources of local authority expenditure.
The second major fallacy in what the noble Lord says is that the figures are based on an assumption that there is some change in the income tax system to compensate for the fact that the poll tax —as he tacitly admits—is less fair because it is a tax which falls equally upon duke and dustman.

907
While the poll tax system has been introduced our taxation system has become less progressive and not more progressive. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, very clearly saw that point and argued that if we were to stick with the poll tax, we should need a more progressive income tax system. That is not what this government have been doing. They decreased differentials in income tax at the same time as they introduced an undifferentiated poll tax in which the dustman pays as much as the duke. Under those circumstances the charge that we made when the Bill was introduced, that it would make the rich richer and the poor poorer, still stands.
The Motion refers to
"problems currently accompanying the imposition of the Community Charge".
As Other noble Lords generously kept to their time I have a few more minutes before the Minister is due to speak, and I should like to refer to some of the points made by other noble Lords in the debate.
There are clear examples of the anomalies coming to light day after day with regard to the poll tax. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in Question Time this afternoon referred to the difference between the Gurkhas and visiting forces from overseas and the way in which the Gurkhas are discriminated against. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, as she has done on previous occasions made a moving plea for the vast majority of student nurses who are clearly discriminated against compared with trainees—who are receiving considerably more money—and who are now to be very severely squeezed by the poll tax.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in Question Time yesterday referred to the anomaly of the standard charge being doubly imposed immediately after death. He did not receive a very satisfactory answer. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to a new anomaly concerning beach huts. I had never heard of that before.
The point is that these anomalies are cumulative. There are many more yet to be resolved. If they are to be dealt with, as the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, said, by way of a series of minor concessions, then the credibility of the poll tax—if there ever was any—will be drastically reduced. More seriously, every specific concession increases the general unfairness of the poll tax because it increases the level at which the poll tax has to be charged on those who are not eligible for benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Mountgarret, very clearly made that point, as did my noble friend Lord John-Mackie and others, who referred to the case of tied cottages.
Every specific concession increases the general unfairness of the poll tax and takes it further away from its original intention. Every specific concession decreases its accountability. That is the fallacy in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. The poll tax is sinking under the weight of its own complexity. It is revealed to be a taxation system, not only unfair in conception, but unworkable in practice. That is the reality.
In closing I need only refer to one issue to make that absolutely clear and to ask the Government
908
what they propose to do about it. I refer to the issue of capping. When the subject of the tax was before the House two years ago a number of noble Lords, who were not antagonistic to the poll tax as such, felt that there was some defect because, having introduced what they must believe is the best possible solution for local authority accountability, the Government still felt it necessary to provide powers for capping.
We understand that decisions concerning capping are to be made this week—they have to be made very soon. Do the Government fully realise the implication of the fact that capping applies to the tax which will be imposed as from next Sunday? That is the difference. Where rate capping applied in the past it applied to the following year and not to the current year. Any efficient local authority which has now declared its poll tax rate will already be printing the demand; many demands will soon be going out. The local authority will have arrived at its budget on that basis. If the local authorities are now capped there will be enormous additional administrative expenditure. Have the Government made an estimate of how much that additional expenditure will be? Do they plan to make additional grants to those local authorities for the additional administrative costs involved?
Will the Government give us the up-to-date figure for the total costs of administration? How do they compare with the cost of collecting the rates? On what will the capping be based? Will it be based on the collection charge? Will it be based on the standard spending assessment, and is that based on a realistic estimate or, as I suspect, on a distorted version of grant distribution? There are many ways in which the capping could be carried out, as the well-informed public administration correspondent of The Times made clear last week. They all produce greater burdens for Labour authorities. But I challenge the Minister to think of any way in which capping will not cause a burden on Kensington and Chelsea in particular.
We are concluding a very serious debate in which the Government have a last opportunity to rectify some of the very serious evils identified by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I look forward to the Government's reply.
5.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, we are now just a few days away from the introduction of the community charge in England and Wales. Nearly two years have passed since the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. In those two years government departments and local authorities alike have worked hard to prepare the way for the effective and successful implementation of an almost entirely new system of local government finance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, pointed out in a somewhat more far-reaching speech than I was expecting but which I am sure the House found extremely informative.
A substantial body of detailed regulations now underpins the charge. Some 25 community charge practice notes have been issued by my department to

909
local authorities. Leaflets with a distribution figure counted in its millions have been sent out explaining the new charge and a major information campaign has recently been completed with the object of ensuring that we reach everyone who is entitled to help through benefits and transitional relief.
In many local authority areas bills have already been sent out; in most others billing will very shortly commence. Generally authorities have set about what has been a difficult and demanding task in a highly professional way. They have quite clearly put paid to opposition arguments that it could not be done.
Noble Lords have talked long of what is described in the Motion as the imposition of the community charge; but we should also consider the other side of the coin. Domestic rates have for a long time been regarded as both outdated and discredited. Rental values of people's homes are arbitrary, difficult to understand and poorly related to the people's ability to pay. It is well worth remembering that over 40 per cent. of homes with above average rateable values are occupied by households with below average income. So complicated was the rates system that it was rarely possible for local electors to gain any picture of what levels of spending they were supporting. The fact is that the number of people who paid for local services as a proportion of those who benefited from them produced very little accountability. Furthermore, this Government have taken the bold step of challenging a system which placed the heaviest imposition on businesses which could not vote.
The community charge is fairer because it spreads the burden of paying for local government. In 1990–91 nearly 36 million people in England will pay the community charge compared to 18 million who paid rates. It is fairer because it reflects the fact that most local services are delivered to people rather than to properties. It will increase local accountability because every charge payer will in future be able to see how the charges his authority is levying compare to the Government's figure for the community charge at standard spending.
I am led to believe that the Opposition have an alternative proposition to put to us—though not, I fear, today; but that would be unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, who stated, in part, his position.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. What is the standard tax on second homes, if they are not beach huts, if it is not a roof tax?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have made no mention of a roof tax.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, the Minister will come to it.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I may well be coming to it, not in reference to this Government—
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, the next government.
Lord Hesketh: —but to what I have read in the popular press on future possibilities, and I humbly suggest that may well result in the country not having a change of government after the next election.
We have given the Opposition plenty of time to come up with their detailed and consistent thoughts. Unfortunately the Labour Party seems to be rather shy of giving us much more than a hint of its deeper reflections, if I may put it that way. I am told there would be a roof tax, but I am afraid I have not been told how there will be a roof tax. Such modesty is most unbecoming, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh.
We will be providing local authorities with £23–1 billion of aggregate external finance, an increase of 8–5 per cent, over the comparable figure for this year. This is made up of £10–4 billion in business rates, £9–5 billion in revenue support grant and £3–2 billion in specific grants. We have allowed for a total standard spending figure of £32–8 billion in 1990–91. This is within the rate of inflation, being a 3–8 per cent, increase but 11 per cent, over what we had allowed for in respect of 1989–90.
Noble Lords will be well aware that many local authorities have chosen to set a charge well above £278. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last week, the average community charge in England is estimated to be £363. This is not because government support has been slashed but because authorities have chosen to raise 33 per cent, more finance by way of the community charge than they did for domestic rates in 1989–90. This represents an overspend of £3 billion. If the Government had decided to meet that level of spending by putting in extra grant in order to keep the average charge down to £278 it would have put 2p on the basic rate of tax. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to a banded tax system of, I believe, 15 per cent., 30 per cent, and 45 per cent. If we had reacted as some noble Lords suggested, that level of tax would already be 17 per cent., 32 per cent, and 47 per cent.; and there are only three days to 1st April!
This would have been a real imposition. In the local elections to come and in future elections charge payers will be able to exercise their right to say no to high charges and, perhaps for the first time, hold their councils accountable for the spending decisions they have made. The Opposition have made much of Conservative-dominated councils where the charge is somewhat higher than £278, but I invite them to look at the statistics. For example, the average charge in London boroughs controlled by Labour is £452; the comparable figure for Conservative controlled councils is just £285.
Noble Lords have expressed their concern at the ability of people to pay the community charge. The Government have addressed this concern. We have introduced an extensive system of community charge benefit which will give help precisely where it is most needed. In Great Britain some £2 billion in benefit will be given in 1990–91. Community charge benefit will be more generous than the old rate rebates. This year spending on benefit will amount to an increase of over 20 per cent, in real terms on what was paid last year in rent rebates.

911
I should make quite clear that benefit is calculated on the basis of the actual charge that an authority sets. We estimate that some 10 million people in great Britain will get relief (around 8 million in England). At this point I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who referred to the calculation of benefit. With great respect, I point out to him that he was using the regulations for transitional relief in making his argument rather than the regulations as they exist in regard to benefit itself
Noble Lords will also recall the recent announcement in another place that the level of savings allowed for benefit entitlement has been raised to £16,000 from the previous ceiling of £8,000. This means that there will be 130,000 gainers, including about 50,000 pensioners. The announcement will be particularly welcomed by pensioners who may have accumulated modest savings but are on a low pension and were previously ineligible.
We have also made provision for the changeover in local government finance systems and the new system of standard spending assessments. The scheme for transitional relief which I announced to the House on 11th October last year will over the next three years bring £810 million of help to people whose community charge bills are significantly higher than rates. The scheme also provides a special form of relief to elderly and disabled people who were not former ratepayers or the partner of a former ratepayer.
In the Statement I made to this House on 11th October last year I explained that, provided each local authority spent in line with the Government's assumptions, transitional relief would ensure two things: first, that ratepayers and ratepaying couples need not pay more than £3 a week extra in community charges over their previous rates bills; secondly, that pensioners and disabled people who had not paid rates in 1989–90 need not pay more than £3 a week more in total.
As we made clear from the start, transitional relief is calculated on the basis of the Government's assumed charge for each authority, or, if it is lower, the actual charge that an authority sets. The assumed charge is based on the assumption that local authorities spend in aggregate in line with the settlement figures for next year. In other words, it is designed to give protection against the structural change in systems. It is not designed to protect against losses resulting from councils spending above our assumptions.
Much of the financial loss many people face is the result of council overspending. There are better ways of protecting against such losses, the best of all being to vote in an election.
I know that noble Lords have expressed concern on a number of issues, not least the workings of the standard community charge which we discussed in the House yesterday and to which the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, referred. I have to say that I was under the impression that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was satisfied with my answer but, again, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, was making a Lord Colnbrook type of observation as he did earlier in the debate.
912
The standard charge applies where domestic property is not used as a sole or main residence. Charging authorities may make the standard charge by levying a multiplier of between zero and twice the personal community charge. I believe that we tend to rather skid over the fact that there is a range of five options that go from zero, half and then up to twice the charge. Nobody really seems to question the fact that local authorities seem to be proceeding on the basis of always charging double the standard community charge rather than making a value judgment on their own of what they believe is the right—perhaps morally right—thing to do.
However, the different multipliers may be applied for certain prescribed or specified classes of property. We have prescribed that the standard community charge will not be payable for an important number of classes of property. In particular, no charge is payable for up to three months on a property which is unoccupied and unfurnished—for example, a property which is up for sale—and until three months after probate where a property is vacant because of the death of the owner. No charge is payable for up to 12 months where a property is empty because the occupier has moved elsewhere either to care or to be cared for by another person.
The full list of categories prescribed by the Secretary of State is set out in regulations and in a recent Written Answer given by my honourable friend the Minister for local government and inner cities to a parliamentary Question in another place. Local authorities may also set different standard community charges for classes of property which they may specify by reference to one of a number of factors which we have set out in the legislation. That allows them either to extend the periods of relief which we have prescribed or to create new classes which they consider appropriate.
Noble Lords have told me of their concern that people who live in tied cottages or farm buildings, and who own a house elsewhere, are being required to pay the full standard charge. I can assure your Lordships' House that we have given local authorities the power to set a lower charge for such cases. In the next few months we will have a more complete picture of the use that authorities are making of their discretion. That is a discretion that we have given them in response to their argument that they were best placed to determine most classes. We are concerned that authorities may not have made sufficient use of this discretion. We have made it clear that if necessary we will have to consider further prescription by the Secretary of State in 1991–92.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Mountgarret referred to the position of tied cottages generally and different examples were given. I am very much aware of the concern of people in tied cottages who are facing the personal community charge and whose rates—themselves relatively low—have been paid until now by the landlord. In part, that situation was brought about by agricultural rating in an age when far fewer services were provided by local authorities. I intend to produce further advice on the precise point of tied cottages because there appears to be

913
some confusion. I stress that it is one of the prime aims of the community charge to move away from the notion that local services should be paid for according to a rateable value which might be completely outdated and bear precious little relation to the services which are being offered in a modern community.
As I have said, transitional relief does give protection against the effects of the change in the system. I can reassure the House that in many cases transitional relief will help people in tied cottages to pay their community charge in the first years. My noble friend Lord Montgarret referred to a tractor driver earning £120. I do not have the actual figure because I am not aware of all a tractor driver's circumstances. I point out to my noble friend that the benefit goes to £156. Therefore, there is a reasonable chance that the individual to whom he referred will come within part of that benefit.
My noble friend Lord Colnbrook raised a point concerning Berkshire County Council. The council has claimed that its budget for 1990–91 is about 4 per cent. less in volume terms than it was in 1989–90. I do not know the basis for the calculation, but I know that in 1989–90 Berkshire County Council drew heavily on balances and reserves and from the disposal of assets. It seems that that will not be possible for the next year. That has forced the council to raise that much more by way of the precept and hence the rise in the community charge. We have increased the amount of central government support to Berkshire by 23–5 per cent, in cash terms. We believe that the county has been well treated by the change from rates to the community charge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and many other speakers raised the point of how SSAs are achieved. My noble friend Lord Colnbrook raised the inevitable question about the man from Whitehall and whether he knows best. We have never maintained that Marsham Street or the man from Whitehall knew best. I can assure my noble friend that we believe, when we are spending tens of billions of pounds of the taxpayers' money, that standards must be set. And even if they are disagreed with, we set those standards to the best of our ability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, raised the question of nurses. I well remember that the first amendment I lost in your Lordships' House was at the fair hand of the noble Baroness. I draw to her attention the future of the Project 2000 concerning nurses. I am sure she will agree that the situation is satisfactory from all points of view. The noble Baroness said that she felt it was unfair to current student nurses. It is worth reminding your Lordships that, under the current system, student nurses, rather than receiving about £4,700 per annum, are in receipt of an average of £6,000 per annum. That is a considerably higher figure than that to be received by the Project 2000 nurses.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggested, as I pointed out earlier, that the benefit scheme was badly affected because it had to take into account the level of community charge which effectively can be disallowed. That applies only to transitional relief and not to the benefit scheme. I can assure the noble Lord on that point. The noble Lords, Lord Taylor
914
of Gryfe and Lord Hughes, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding raised the question of community charge payments being made in Scotland. I am the first to admit that they raised the question in different ways.
As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding pointed out, in the Border region payment is running at 98 per cent. I also draw this to your Lordships' attention. If the Lord Provost of Edinburgh refuses to pay the community charge that is not the kind of example that encourages people to keep the law. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised the issue of other levels of rates of tax. I explained the situation if we carried through the extra £3 billion of expenditure.
I believe that I can go away from this House and return to the department with a very clear message about the concerns and worries that have been raised about tied cottages. I dealt with that earlier. I am always encouraged when my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls rises to his feet and excites a certain amount of noise from the Benches opposite. It usually indicates that a matter of some interest is going to be drawn to your Lordships' attention. I do not accept the argument put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Hughes, to the effect that the Secretary of State for Scotland pays the same community charge as the dustman.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has always been a keen student of fact. He has researched the matter. He produced an interesting figure. The Secretary of State for Scotland, far from paying a standard community charge or any other community charge, was paying £3,266 towards the cost of local government. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether heterosexuals or homosexuals were better off. I remind him that the community charge is individually payable and thus I believe that we are all in the same boat.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was talking about homosexuals living together; married couples living together; and common-law husbands and wives living together. I hope that the Minister will look at that point. Perhaps I can discuss the matter with him after the debate.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall look at the point and also discuss it with the noble Lord. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and other noble Lords, raised the question of the small village shop. Here we are seeing the reverse side of the coin of what happens if there is not a revaluation in 17 years. The definition of what a village shop is would be impossible to agree. The noble Baroness also berated the Government over the depradations, as she saw them, of the UBR. I remind your Lordships of the key figure to be kept in the back of our minds. Of the rise in rates that will be paid by those businesses where there is an increase, 75 per cent, of the rise is not an adjustment from north to south, but the revaluation itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, asked whether or not my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was going to introduce charge capping. He is currently considering the information which he has about local authorities' budgets. When he has

915
completed consideration of the matter he will announce his decisions on capping.
Noble Lords can rest assured that we shall continue to listen and respond to the views expressed by this House. Today's debate marks the long-awaited demise of domestic rates. The community charge is a system which before long will be seen to be better, simpler and more responsive to the service and charge levels that people want. I once again remind your Lordships that we are willing to listen and to respond to the views expressed this afternoon.
5.39 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, the attention shown to this debate, and the number of speakers, justify my colleagues and I in choosing this subject for our one and only debate this Session. I am grateful to all those who have taken part in it. I did not derive much joy from the Minister's reply although he covered the points very fully. If the noble Lord will not heed pleas from this side of the House I hope he will accept the concern of his own friends. He said that the Government will continue to look at the matter. I hope that he will do that and that he will urge the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Cabinet to reconsider before 1991 the whole way in which the poll tax is working. The Government should make the tax relate to ability to pay and, above all, get the SSAs right to begin with. These should be based on up-to-date population statistics and a realistic figure for inflation. We might then not have quite the problems that we have had this time. I hope too that the noble Lord and his colleagues will think of the pensioners, people on low fixed incomes, one-parent families and those who were encouraged by the Government to buy their own houses and who now, in addition to high mortgage rates, face even higher poll tax demands. The Government must remember that when they place duties on local authorities that have to be paid for.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elliott of Morpeth): My Lords, the period allotted for debate has now expired. Does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw her Motion?
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signed her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund Act,
Strathclyde Regional Council Order Confirmation Act,
British Film Institute Southbank Act,
Birmingham City Council Act.

House of Fraser Holdings plc: Report
5.41 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead Lord Jenkins of Hillhead rose to call attention to the inspectors' report on House of Fraser Holdings plc; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is three weeks since the DTI inspectors' report on the House of Fraser was published and since the Government, in the person of Mr. Ridley, declined to do anything about it. Since then the Government have presented us with plenty of diversionary events. Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Rifkind, Mr. Major, Mr. Charles Prior in Mid-Staffordshire, and even Mr. Heseltine and Mr. Lawson, have all done their loyal best to distract our minds on to other things; yet I do not think they have entirely succeeded in putting the report into a quiet grave.
I am entirely neutral in the battle between Lonrho and the Fayeds. Ironically the situation can in my view be summed up by saying that the report is the most devastating by DTI inspectors since one published in 1976—and that was into the affairs of Lonrho. In one important respect, indeed, I am more concerned about Mr. Rowland than I am about the activities of the Fayed brothers. I do not much care who owns Harrods. I get along without the services of that emporium; even if I were to use it, I doubt whether I would find the merchandise contaminated by the moral quality of the proprietors.
I do, however, care much more about the Observer with which I have been fairly closely associated as a contributor for more than 30 years since the early days of Mr. David Astor's notable proprietorship and editorship. I deeply regretted the decision last year of that newspaper to publish a special midweek edition devoted to the dispute with the House of Fraser. That was not appropriate for a great national newspaper. I do not, however, think that it was in any way a corrupt decision by the editor and those close to him. One of the things that Mr. Rowland and the Fayed brothers appear to have in common is a capacity to fill those working close to them with a kind of spontaneous fury of battle. The Observer published a special number, while the House of Fraser's public relations officer behaved like a dancing Dervish in his denunciations of the DTI inspectors.
Mr. Ridley, whatever else he can be accused of, has not behaved like a dancing Dervish. He has been more like a recumbent pasha. But his handling of the issue has not served the nation or the Government well. His main argument for doing nothing appears to be that he should only use his powers of disqualification to protect the shareholders of a particular company, and that if the directors complained of have by their behaviour eliminated all the shareholders other than themselves they have achieved immunity from disqualification for anything they may have done on the way. That is precisely the argument put by Mr. Ridley. It is of course nonsense to suggest that the fitness or otherwise of the Fayed brothers to be directors is a matter of concern only to the shareholders of the House of Fraser. The flip logic

917
on which Mr. Ridley based the central part of his argument contains much of the reason why, although a man of high intelligence and disdainful courage, he is sometimes a discreditable Minister.
There has also been an unsatisfactory shuffling around of responsibility, designed to avoid any collective government duty for an overall response and to enable the Prime Minister to distance herself from the whole affair. Prosecution, we are told, is exclusively a matter for the Attorney-General; the right of residence is exclusively one for the Home Secretary; any action against the solicitors involved in the case must be left to the Law Society, which we know will take no action; and there is no action against the merchant bankers to the Bank of England, which is suddenly elevated to a totally independent status wholly at variance with the Government's recent rejection of giving it a status more equivalent to that of the Bundesbank or the Federal Reserve on more important matters. The old game of passing the parcel has been played with a new speed and determination.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State himself has been proclaimed by the Prime Minister to be acting not politically as a member of the Cabinet but quasi-judicially. This, with respect, is constitutional nonsense. I am particularly indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his advice on this matter. Ministers should very rarely take refuge in quasi-judicial status. If judicial decisions are required, it is better to go to the judiciary for them. Ministers are political, answerable to Parliament, and are part of a Cabinet collectivity. The Home Secretary may have a little corner of his responsibilities, particularly relating to the use of the prerogative of mercy, when detached non-political decisions are called for, but this should be carefully circumscribed and indeed has often in the past not been observed at all. I discovered some time ago, to my surprise I must admit, that 75 year; ago the question of the execution of Sir Roger Casement went four times to the Cabinet. The fact that it reached an unwise decision does not invalidate the point that individual quasi-judicial action had been thrown out of the window.
The fact that I believe Mr. Ridley's decision should be seen as political, and not judicial, and part of the policy of the Government as a whole, does not mean that I found convincing theories of a vast conspiracy involving the Prime Minister, Eastern potentates and £5 billion of support for sterling going across the exchanges. It is no part of my case to ask this House to accept such phantasmagoria. However, I think it is the case that a good deal of sleaziness has been uncovered, that the Government —and not merely at ministerial level but also at official and at Office of Fair Trading level —have handled matters badly and have left Mr. Rowland with a certain legitimate grievance that there was a lack of even-handedness in the treatment of his bids for the House of Fraser compared with that given to the bids of the Fayeds. I suspect that he was his own worst enemy and that his accusatory hectoring of honest officials made them too eager to see almost anyone else in control of Harrods.
However, the consequences go much wider. As business becomes more internationalised, as the sums of money involved and the fees paid rise to dizzying heights, as the lines of professional responsibility become increasingly blurred, as amalgamations destroy the pride in probity which goes with a distinct and limited identity, so the preservation of standards in business and in the City of London becomes increasingly difficult. Even the Governor of the Bank of England becomes a little like a schoolmistress hockey referee trying to control a particularly nasty world cup match. Some of those difficulties are inherent, but they are considerably increased if the Government signal, via Mr. Ridley, that they do not much care what people do or how they behave.
The City of London is a major national asset, especially at a time when the invisible balance is not only swamped by the massive visible deficit but is also losing its own buoyancy. Yet the Government, with the appalling touch of death which seems to have overtaken them, are determined to deal it two damaging blows. First, they pursue a foot-dragging general policy which guarantees that Frankfurt and not London will become the official banking capital of Europe. Secondly, they assist a similar migration of private financial transactions by allowing the City to undermine its great remaining asset of high, even austere, integrity and respect for truth and straightforward dealing.
We live in a society which is increasingly awash with money. I grow ever more sceptical of the alleged economic achievements of this Government. Curing inflation was supposed to be the centrepiece, but our exceptionally high rate is now pointed to almost with pride—certainly with awe—by the Prime Minister as a still compelling reason for not entering the ERM. Paying our way in the world is certainly not something to which we can point with pride. Thrift was made the theme of the recent Budget. But if that is the desideratum, the Government have presided over a decade of disaster. Savings have collapsed and have been far more than outweighed by erecting the maximum use of personal indebtedness into a socially compelling way of life. The core of the achievement, such as it is, is that this Government have made some people rich and, as some of them are articulate and grateful, they have elevated this into a national triumph.
But there are dangers as well as indulgences in an excessively money-oriented society. One of the points I noted with dismay in the House of Fraser propaganda is the suggestion that because the Fayeds have made charitable donations their deceits should be regarded as irrelevant. The present state of affairs in which nearly every public institution of worth and note has to spend a large part of its time raising money through private generosity does of course greatly increase the status of those who have money to spare. But if that were to be given the additional twist of saying that it should grant them an immunity for any misdeeds, past or present, it would certainly not be desirable.
The Government's reaction to the report has so far been inadequate and has been widely perceived as such. There are many questions still left unanswered

919
and many responses which we need and which have not been given. Those deficiences can still be corrected, but it should be done quickly. I beg to move for Papers.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, once again and I am sure that I am expressing the views of the whole House when I thank him for bringing this important and contentious matter to our attention in the form of the debate which is taking place today. In the short time which is available to me I do not think that I can do more than explain why I find myself in the very unhappy position of not only having to disagree slightly with some of the remarks made by the noble Lord but also having to agree with the Secretary of State in his decision to take no further action in the matter.
In short, the report concerns the buying and selling of shares in the House of Fraser. The first to benefit from those transactions was the Lonrho company which had a large stake in the group and which made £70 million profit. The company then built up a smaller stake which it again sold, thereby making a further £10 million profit. Therefore, the company had made £80 million in pursuing its decision to be a seller—and I repeat the word "seller"—of House of Fraser shares. However, the company seems to have changed its mind and wished that it had been a buyer and had made a bid for the House of Fraser. No one stopped the company; indeed, it could have made a bid and, at one time, it was thought that the company would do so.
It is not open to anyone to walk at one and the same time both due North and due South and thereby make some progress. What the company did as a result of making no progress is what most of us do when we make no progress: we get very cross and see who we can blame for the situation. The company blamed the Fayed brothers on two main scores. First, that they had misrepresented their origins and grossly exaggerated the kind of importance that their families held in some distant parts. I can only say in relation to that fact that there must be many people in the world today who wish that someone would come along and grossly misrepresent his antecedents and present them with a profit of £80 million in cash. That was the first major complaint.
The second major complaint was that the Fayeds claimed that the money was their own personal property, whereas in fact there is some doubt as to whether it belonged to them or whether it belonged to either Dubai or the Sultan of Brunei. As to the second suggestion, there is, if I may say so, no dubiety at all because the Sultan has stated, and written officially to the effect, that it was not his money. My comment on all this is that I really cannot understand why there should be so much fuss on that aspect of the matter. It is never the bidder's own money that is involved when he is making a huge bid of such dimensions; it is money with which the banks have promised to support him, or money from institutions or financial corporations of one
920
kind or another. It must have been astonishing—a great surprise —that anybody should allege that they were walking around with two-thirds of a billion pounds in cash, ready to support a bid for shares in a particular company.
The Lonrho Company was the first to benefit. The second to benefit was the general body of shareholders who sold at about 400 pence shares that were quoted at about 250 pence. They sold all their shares. Why? Because Lonrho sold its stake and the shareholders followed the lead, believing that Lonrho ought to know the right thing to do. Lonrho sold its second stake and the body of shareholders followed suit. All in one day the Fayed brothers' brokers were enabled to acquire the necessary 50 per cent, by nightfall. That is, shortly, what happened.
What should the Government have done about all that on receipt of the report? First, they could have decided to tighten the law with regard to relevant and important misrepresentation of the kind alleged. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, is that they certainly could have done that. The story goes further. The Government have done that. The provision has been included in the subsequent Companies Act, so there is nothing further for the Secretary of State to do in that respect.
The Government could have taken criminal proceedings, but a government who do not take the advice of the DPP after he has investigated for 18 months the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings and who do not take the advice of the Serious Fraud Office after it has carried out a similar investigation would act in an unusual and irresponsible fashion. Having regard to the view of both those bodies, based on careful investigation over a long period, that no criminal proceedings were possible, the Secretary of State decided that no further action could be taken in that regard.
The Secretary of State could also have taken proceedings to terminate the directorships of the Fayed brothers on the grounds not of their conduct at the time of the bid but their subsequent conduct in the management of the affairs of the company of which they were directors. Obviously one must take note of that. If people become directors and show by their actions and their words that they are perhaps not suitable, on becoming shareholders and owners of the company, to be directors and managers of it, one has to go further and see what has happened regarding the management of the company.
The report covers those points fully. I agree with it that it was not outside the terms of reference that the inspectors should pursue this point. They have done so and have reported that the management with the Fayed brothers as directors was up to the standard required and expected of directors of large companies. There again I do not think there was much that the Secretary of State could do in that regard.
Unlikely as it seems, he could have gone to the other extreme and condoned the conduct of the Fayed brothers. That he specifically did not do—quite the contrary. Obviously it is in the best interests both of the City and of the economy of the

921
country that the standards of individual behaviour should be raised to what they were 50 years ago, but from which alas I believe they have fallen.
Finally, the Government could have decided to go against the previous policy of government-assisted self- regulation of financial bodies and instead they could have loaded the statute book with a new and large series of criminal offences for the policing of which the Government would be responsible. Wisely, they decided that the function of the Government is to provide a general framework, not to be a nanny, finding out what little Willie is up to and telling him not to.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, introduced the debate with a character istically agreeable speech. I find it a little surprising to see him cast himself in the role of Savonarola. There are no doubt many facets to his character.
His speech was far-ranging. I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him in all the interesting byways through which he took us. I find myself in agreement with him about our adherence to the exchange rate mechanism. However, I feel that it might be slightly out of order if I followed that route tonight.
Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for initiating this debate. It has compelled us to study the 752 pages of the inspectors' report. It was a thorough, investigative work and I wish to offer them my respectful congratulations. The debate also gives us a chance to express a view on what was an undeniably seamy chapter of a rather long-running saga. As with other noble Lords, over not months but years my breakfast table has been overloaded with missives from both sides in this long contest. My only regret is that the government of the day should have been drawn into what seemed essentially to have become a private vendetta.
I do not wish to follow the noble Lord through the whole sweep of his survey of the morality of the conduct of the City, the economy, and so on. Like the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, whose speech I followed with keen interest and with whose conclusions I find myself very much in agreement, I wish to narrow my gaze to the issues posed by the report. I should declare a modest interest in that until quite recently I possessed a small holding in Lonrho. I hope that the House will not feel that that is in any way unsuitable. Noble Lords can judge that when they have heard my intervention and the conclusions which I reach.
In order to express a view on the case it is necessary to consider two questions which have been posed by the inspectors at page 25 of the report. The first is: were the Fayeds—or should one call them the A1-Fayeds?; I learnt with surprise that "A1" is the Egyptian equivalent of the particule nobiliaire; that is one of the interesting pieces of information which one derives from a study of the report —what they claimed to be by origin?
The second question is: were the funds they used to acquire the House of Fraser their own? The inspectors established to their satisfaction that the Fayeds were not born to the commercial purple
922
in some Alexandrian palace but were of modest academic stock, bom in a Cairene back street. In these egalitarian days and in the circles in which they moved or aspired to move that was probably not more than a harmless vanity. However, the inspectors placed some weight on it and said that it was a material consideration in regard to the people who were called on to consider their bid. I suspect that this attributes to the directors of the House of Fraser, for example, who had to consider their bid a naiveté which I doubt they possessed.
As regards their wealth, by many people's standards they were wealthy. A list of their assets, including the Ritz, Place Vendôeme, is not unimpressive. I am ready to concede that they were not wealthy enough, on the basis at least of that list of assets, to have acquired the House of Fraser unaided. Equally, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, pointed out, many people on the way up are unable always to acquire the assets on which they wish to form their economic base entirely with their own resources. However, it is always possible to borrow. That fact seems to have been slightly overlooked by the inspectors, and perhaps even by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
It is not suggested that the Al-Fayeds were front men acting for others. That might have been a material consideration. However, it has been suggested that they used or abused a power of attorney that was given to them by an oriental potentate. That potentate has made no complaint of which I am aware. However, perhaps that is not a matter that we need pursue. It may be that the temporary use of funds that were not their own enabled the Al-Fayeds to acquire 100 per cent, of the shares of the House of Fraser for cash, and that this has enabled them in turn to refinance the acquisition by more orthodox loans. They presumably hope to repay those either out of the profits of the House of Fraser or, more realistically, out of the proceeds of disposals of some of the House of Eraser's assets.
One comes therefore to the question of who has been or might have been prejudiced by this operation. It is certainly not the former shareholders because they were paid in cash. Possibly the employees may have been prejudiced in that they may now be working for a less soundly based organisation. However, that can, regrettably, be a consequence of many takeovers. The inspectors have reported no adverse finding on the question of competition. After all, the central issue in most of these cases is competition. There is no suggestion that the House of Fraser, in the hands of the Al-Fayeds, is likely to diminish seriously competition in the retail sector.
Unattractive though the whole episode may appear under the inspectors' microscope, I do not believe that anything of great moment has emerged. Therefore, one comes to the next question which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has answered extremely satisfactorily. What action could or should be taken, and by whom? The question of a criminal prosecution must be dismissed for the reason that the noble Lord has advanced. It is not for Ministers of the Crown to go off on their own on some frolic

923
in the courts. They must take the advice of those who are best qualified to give them advice in this field.
Therefore we come to the question of whether the A1-Fayeds should be divested of their shares in the House of Fraser. I know of no power which would or could have been invoked in this case to deprive them of their shares. Therefore we ask: should the Al-Fayeds have been debarred from acting as directors of the House of Fraser? The Company Directors Disqualification Act was enacted in 1986, following a variety of takeovers where one or two unattractive facets could be detected. I believe that any Minister who is called upon to act responsibly in this field should have recourse to that Act. It must of course be emphasised that the matter does not rest with the Minister concerned. This is not a question of executive action. The Minister may initiate action, but the ultimate decision, as a judicial decision, is taken by the courts. The circumstances in which the courts can debar a person from acting as a director are fairly precisely defined. I cannot find any particular provision in that Act which I believe could have been invoked in this case against the Al-Fayeds.
Perhaps nimbler minds than mine could give your Lordships different advice. We have not had any from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, but perhaps other noble Lords will be able to fill the lacuna in the case which he deployed. However, I doubt myself whether anything turned up by the inspectors' report would provide material for the disqualification of the Al-Fayeds by the courts under the terms of that Act. In any event, what would the practical consequences of disqualification have been? As the Al-Fayeds own 100 per cent, of the ordinary share capital of the House of Fraser, the most that could happen would be that they could put in men of straw to act as directors in their absence who could be easily manipulated by them. I find that a more unattractive situation than the one we face today. It is much better that those who have the responsibility for the conduct of a company's affairs are visible and can take full responsibility in the public eye.
However, it is said that Harrods has a bank and that the Al-Fayeds are not fit to be directors of even the smallest bank. Without wishing to sound patronising, Harrods Bank is not, at any rate in my view, a leviathan in this field. However, I am not certain whether the Al-Fayeds are directors of the bank. If they are, it rests with the Bank of England to consider what action should be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, made a telling point about the status of the Bank of England. I believe the Bank of England should have a measure of autonomy, particularly as regards its regulatory role in the City. That is perhaps a little more doubtful as regards input in economic affairs. So far as I can recall, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was possibly a Member of the government who nationalised the Bank of England. However, that may have been before his time. At any rate, that matter opens up an interesting field which perhaps offers opportunities for a debate on another occasion.
Can it really be said that any depositor or client of Harrods Bank is at risk in the present situation?
924
I doubt that very much. I see therefore little basis for action under the existing legislation. There is, however, an issue to which I hope we may return on other occasions. It is posed by this and other cases. Has the question of the public interest in relation to monopolies and mergers been adequately defined or redefined? I, like the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, suspect that Lonrho may have a legitimate grievance in that its first takeover bid in 1981 was blocked by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the grounds of public interest. Subsequently, however, the rules have been refined and the arguments that commended themselves on that occasion to the majority of members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would probably not be acceptable now.
The concept of the public interest was originally highly subjective, and it may still be so. I believe that it used to be said in the courts that the application of equity depended on the length of the Chancellor's foot. In this kind of case the public interest used to depend on the prejudices of a majority of the members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I hope therefore that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may consider whether the definition of the public interest in cases of this kind should be refined still further. That said, I doubt whether the public interest would really require a disqualification or a divestment of the interests of the Al-Fayeds in Harrods.
I am coming now to my conclusion. In a party democracy such as ours, the public often require a Minister to show action and concern, however spurious. This is a case where a measure of cool detachment by the Government is called for, and has been shown. On that basis, I hope that the sentiments of the noble Lord, however agreeably and elegantly expressed, will not commend themselves to the House.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Rees, one would think that the compilation of this vast document and the extensive work of the inspectors had all been a waste of time. Surely a document of this kind should lead to some action. The inspectors could not have been more forthright in the phrases that they used to describe what happened during the time of the takeover of Fraser Holdings by the Al-Fayed brothers.
I am concerned solely with one issue this afternoon. I have raised it in this House twice before. I am concerned with the nature of the relationship between the Government, the Al-Fayeds and the Sultan of Brunei. When the Statement on this matter was first made on 7th March, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgame —I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment —when I suggested that there was a case to answer regarding the relationship between the Sultan of Brunei, the Government and the takeover of the House of Fraser, had this to say:
"I am quite ready to say that that accusation is quite without foundation".—[Official Report, 7/3/90; col. 1218.]

925
That was unequivocal. The following day my honourable friend the Member for Bolsover put a similar question in another place. That was not contradicted although the Deputy Prime Minister had the opportunity to do so.
Since then, on 23rd March, I listed the facts of the case in a Question to the Government. I made no accusations, I asked them, if there is no connection between the visit of the Sultan of Brunei and the Fayeds to Downing Street, the payment of 5 billion dollars into sterling account and the very quick takeover of the House of Fraser immediately afterwards, to state that there is no such connection and explain the strange coincidence. On that occasion my Question was answered by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. He did not deny that there was a connection. I find that lack of denial, after the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, had categorically denied my original suggestion, somewhat suspicious.
I should like to know from the Government tonight whether they say categorically that there was no connection between the visit of the Sultan of Brunei to London, and in particular to Downing Street, in January of 1985, the passing over of 5 billion dollars to prop up sterling in February and the acceptance by the DTI of the bid for Fraser Holdings by the Fayed brothers in March 1985.
I should also like to know why the Office of Fair Trading and the DTI were in such a hurry in March 1985. I believe that it took only 10 days for the bid to be approved. What was the hurry? In particular, why was it that at that time the Fayeds' advisers and bankers, Kleinwort Benson, were refused by the Government time to make further investigations? I am open to correction, but I believe that representatives of Kleinwort Benson asked to be allowed to go to Egypt in order to check the stories that they had been told by the Fayed brothers, which we now know to be totally untrue. The Government refused them the time to do so.
After the publication of the report, nobody can be left in any doubt as to the character of the Fayed brothers. Nor can they be in any doubt as to the great suspicions as to where their money came from. Yet no disqualification of the brothers as directors is apparently contemplated. No reference has been made to their position in the Harrods Bank.
To give a partial answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rees there was a time when the Government apparently took much more seriously the question of disqualification. One member of the Government had this to say:
"The Government confirms its determination to support the disqualification provisions as a major deterrent to unacceptable conduit by a minority of company directors". —[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/90; col. 1264.]
Does the report show unacceptable conduct? Do the Government believe that it shows unacceptable conduct?
Another member of the Government said:
"The Act poses a real deterrent. It demonstrates our commitment to ensure that the public and shareholders are protected against a small minority of directors who are tempted to abuse their position".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/90; col. 1264.]
926
Does the report show that the Fayed brothers have abused their position? What is the view of the Government? If the Government have changed their mind about how to apply disqualification let them say so. However, I should have thought that if their view remains as firm as those quotations suggest, there could be no clearer evidence than that produced by their own inspectors that improper actions have been taken and that that should lead to disqualification.
I do not know whether any Members of this House attended the Select Committee this morning when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave evidence and was examined. It was a very strange experience. Under questioning no reasons were given for not taking the matter to court. Apparently the Secretary of State believes himself to be the defending counsel, the judge and the jury. Yet he went on to say that the report does not contain facts, they are only allegations; they are not facts because they have not been tested in court. How can they be tested in court if the Government are not prepared to take them to court? The courts could estabish whether those are facts or allegations. That is the byzantine form of argument used by the Secretary of State only this morning.
He went on to say that he did not know whether the Sultan of Brunei would be prepared to give evidence. It is time he found out. If the question was put in court to the Sultan of Brunei there would be a judicial judgment rather than a political judgment such as has been taken so far. All the way through the questioning in both Houses on the issue only one answer has been given by the Government: it would not be in the public interest to pursue the matter to disqualification or to charges in court. What is the public interest? This morning a DTI memo was produced by the Select Committee, much to the surprise I believe of the Secretary of State. That memo pointed out that the public interest included both past and present employees. Are they the concern of the Government?
Finally, I remember the then Chancellor of the Exchequer telling the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, that we need not worry about the decline in manufacturing industry because it would automatically be replaced by invisibles. We have seen those invisibles become invisible over the past three months. We have seen a deficit on invisibles. If the Government show no more concern about the reputation of the City for financial probity, we shall not see those invisibles either replace manufacturing industry or do anything else to benefit the health of the financial institutions of this country and the economic health of Britain.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lord, I should like first to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for having brought this murky business before the House. It is a murky business and it is a business in which there has been great bitterness among the commercial competitors. I should like on that account to take an unusual step and to declare a non-interest. I have never, as far as I know, met Mr. Rowland. I have never met Mr. Fayed. I

927
have once talked on the telephone to Mr. Rowland in order to check a fact—a practice which used to be common among journalists. I have never done business with Mr. Rowland and, with one exception, I have never done business with Mr. Fayed. That exception is that in March of last year I bought a Yorkshire terrier from Harrods for my youngest daughter's birthday. I am happy to be able to say that that transaction was a completely satisfactory one. The little dog is remarkably well-behaved which I put down to the fact that she is cared for by an English nanny—a benefit which the report shows that Mr. Fayed did not enjoy.
There seem to me to be two questions which need to be examined. The first is: did the inspectors get it right? I read their long report with great care-it took me 12 hours—and I have not the least doubt that it can be accepted with complete confidence. I should add that I have been sent documents from the House of Fraser this week making allegations against the conduct and integrity of the inspectors which I hope that the Government will reject with the contempt that those allegations deserve.
The central question —I felt that the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Rees, somewhat misdirected themselves on this—is surely: did the Fayeds obtain a great advantage by lying? That is what the report says. It is no good trying to say that their stories about their Egyptian past were mere fibs. They lied and lied and lied again in order to avoid having their bid for the House of Fraser referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and those lies succeeded.
When one reads the report, the conduct of Mr. Tebbit, who was then the Secretary of State, is made perfectly clear. He was worried about the allegations that surrounded the whole matter. He took the highly unusual step—perhaps unique for a Secretary of State—of personally telephoning the chairman of Kleinwort Benson, the merchant bank which represented the Fayeds. He received from it an assurance which was based on what the Fayeds had told Kleinwort Benson that, in effect, everything was all right. It was only then that he took the decision not to refer and in his statement he said that, in deciding not to refer, he was relying on the assurances that he had received. So we have an absolutely clear position in which Mr. Tebbit—an active and decisive Minister; in my view, a good Secretary of State—took a decision because he was deceived. That is what the inspectors say and I do not see that anyone who has read their report with' care could reasonably doubt that that was the fact.
We must now ask the question: have the Government been right to take no action on this report? I take the point that action at this stage has become very difficult. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the present Secretary of State. It seems to me that the actions that were left open to him on the legal advice that he had been given were limited and perhaps would have little effect. I think that he treated the whole matter with undue disdain. His answer in another place was very brief and not very convincing. He has a lacksadaisical, laid-back manner, a manner which one would call an
928
aristocratic manner, probably better suited to this House than to the other place. I would say, having regard to his conduct in this case, that the sooner he comes here to be an ornament among us, the better it will be for all concerned. But I do not think that he was left in an at all enviable position.
I very much regret the fact, which I am sure is due to some engagement that cannot be broken, that the noble Lord, Lord Young, who was the Secretary of State at the time the report was received, has not come here to intervene in the debate because only he can tell us what we really need to know; namely, why he behaved as he did when the report came to him. First of all, he thought that the report was important and that he should publish it as quickly as he could. That was his first reaction. His second reaction was that it was even more important, serious and grave and that there were prima facie grounds for supposing that serious fraud had occurred. So he referred the matter, quite rightly, to the Serious Fraud Office.
The noble Lord must have done that thinking that something very serious indeed had occurred. He did not do that because he took the light-hearted view that some people seem to take of the character of the report and of what it tended to show. He decided that the risk of having to deal with a major fraud prosecution was so great that he could not publish the report at that time. He took every precaution to ensure that it would be possible to bring such a prosecution to a successful conclusion if such a prosecution proved to be justified. Then he omitted and refused, and refused again, to take the one step which could have done any good; namely, to refer the matter back to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
There is a simple principle. If a man obtains a benefit by a trick, by dishonest pretences, that benefit should be taken away from him. In this case, the benefit was a benefit of non-reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The commission would have been entitled to take into account in judging the suitability of the Fayeds as the owners of Harrods—a matter which it would then have had power to determine—the consistent string of lies which were shown conclusively in the inspectors' report.
For some reason—and perhaps we shall never know the reason unless the Minister in his reply will be so kind as to enlighten us —the Secretary of State at that time—the noble Lord, Lord Young—reached this decision. On the one hand, the situation was so desperately serious that it was a matter of fraud to be investigated by the Serious Fraud Office, a fraud so serious that there should not be the slightest risk that the Fayeds might escape prosecution because of a premature publication of the report. On the other hand, he took a determined stand to see that, even if that proved to be true, even if the fraud were proved and they were charged, arraigned and convicted, they would still be able to retain their ill-gotten gains. That is the question that the Government must answer and a question to which I hope we shall receive an answer tonight.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, this is long-running and messy saga and we are quite rightly anxious as to the matters of genuine concern. For myself, as for some other noble Lords who have spoken, I do not think it is of any great public concern who owns Harrods. It is a commercial bazaar like any other, and owners from the Middle East are as appropriate as any others, assuming that they do not use it illegally. In addition, there are no victims, so far as I can see, of public injustice here. The shareholders received a fair price. We may have private reservations about either of the main parties in this battle—and, personally, I would have reservations about any of them marrying any of my daughters, though the dowry might come in useful.
However, it is not of public concern whether or not Lonrho was misled or was outmanoeuvred there. I am also open-minded about whether there should be prosecution or disqualification. That is a technical question, and very serious points have been made against taking either of those procedures. What is of public concern is the role of the Department of Trade and Industry during the takeover and in reaction to the inspectors' report. To start with, as has been said, it has never been explained why the DTI was in such a hurry to pass the House of Fraser on to the A1-Fayeds; and perhaps the Minister in his reply will explain in simple terms—a lot of people believe in conspiracy theories, but we just do not know—what was the rush.
In lelation to that rushed procedure, I should also like to ask him about the advice which the Department received from its advisers. In the Secretary of State's statement on the inspectors' report—and, more explicitly, in the Minister's replies to questions in this House at the time—it was implied in a laid-back and lackadaisical way that it was nothing to do with the department. The department was a totally innocent party in approving the Fayed brothers because they were fully investigated and approved after due diligence by the merchant bank advisers. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, has referred to the telephone call: but I wonder whether that is the whole truth.
The merchant bank was given very little time. Did they have time to take "due diligence"? Did they warn the department that they had not had time to carry out full investigations and therefore could not and did not give a full stamp of approval? I urge the Minister to answer that question fully and frankly this evening. If Kleinwort Benson expressed reservations owing to lack of time, then the department should honestly and openly admit that. That would mean that the department and the Secretary of State took some of the initiative and took the gamble on the Al-Fayeds, knowing that they had not been fully investigated. In that case the department should not make its brief statement of "nothing to do with us" but should take responsibility. It would be unworthy to try to hide by putting the finger on others.
I hope that the Minister will reply clearly to that question. If he fudges it, we shall suspect that there is something to hide; and I hope that it is not the case. I should make clear, as I did when he made his
930
Statement, that although I was once a director of Kleinwort Benson, I was not there at the time of these events.
There is another and more general point relating to the Secretary of State's bland and negative reactions to the report. I hope that the Prime Minister does not too quickly follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, in sending him here. That bland reaction raises the question of whether the Government are, as they appear, morally neutral on financial matters. Do they care at all about behaviour in the City? This is something different from whether you prosecute or disqualify. This House has commented frequently on the apparent lassitude and inactivity in the field in insider trading. Here we have a report from eminent lawyers, referring to what is frankly appalling behaviour by some of the participants in this sleazy affair. Perjury appears to be one of the sins.
Does the Minister not have a view on that? Is this just a question of whether some subsection of a regulatory handbook has been breached? I think not. This is the unacceptable face of the financial jungle, and the Minister would be most helpful this evening if he would say so. He may have good reasons for not applying disqualification or pursuing prosecution, but does he not have a view on this kind of behaviour? He knows that there are many decent, honest, hardworking and honourable people in the City. They do not like this kind of behaviour and the Government should give them a lead and show which side of the moral fence they are on.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I, along with many others of your Lordships, rise with considerable diffidence tonight to take part in this debate amid speakers of the calibre of, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, Treasury and ex-Treasury Ministers and, if I may say so, following a particularly welcome and distinguished contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. I have to begin, rather like my noble friend Lord Rees, by declaring an interest, in that I understand at the last check I had a minute holding in Lonrho. However, I hope your Lordships will not think that anything I might say tonight will be at that company's behest, let alone at the behest of anyone else. The views expressed will be my own, gleaned after extensive study of what I regard as an interesting, illuminating and particularly instructive report. I join those of your Lordships who have congratulated these two inspectors, and particularly my colleague, Mr. Aldous, the chartered accountant half of the inspection team.
In this report we have to stand logic upon its head and start with the conclusions, which I find most interesting, in chapter 2. We start with the problem about the Al-Fayed brothers. It was clear that they had to show that they were, as the City says, good for what they wished to purchase: in other words, the House of Fraser. I do not know whether the regulations would be laid down in the takeover code or what is referred to tactfully later in the report in chapter 25 of the Yellow Book, neither of which I am familiar with. Perhaps we can also learn that it

931
was only by a recommended bid that the brothers were likely to succeed in their objective. Together with the interesting details and the discussions upon the personalities, wealth and other more scurrilous information about the brothers, there was a great deal of detail which was researched by both inspectors. Considerable research was done.
One or two of the report's chapters are particularly interesting. If we look at 3.1.4, it is stated quite clearly that the advisers—the merchant bank, Kleinwort Benson, together with Herbert Smith, the firm of solicitors, both of whom uphold the high standards that we have come to expect in the City of London and which have been referred to so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue —were willing to believe their clients, the Al-Fayeds. Of course that is the case: that is the only way in which the City of London can work, in which it has worked in the past and in which it ought to work in the future.
However, it is worth glancing at 3.2.29. We ought to take on board what is said in that particular paragraph about the responsibility of the advisers to the lay public—that is to say, Members of your Lordships' House, and those who are not lawyers, accountants or City practitioners.
There is a fascinating paragraph at 3.4.30 which I refer to as the garden path paragraph. In other words, were the advisers, the inspectors, the Office of Fair Trading and Department of Trade and Industry, in some way, passively or impassively, led up the garden path? The Office of Fair Trading and officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, refer to this aspect. A particular merchant bank gave assurances, three separate times. Noble Lords will find reference to that in Chapter 7. It is stated that they must have had considerable confidence in what they were saying. I believe that that is absolutely right. It is the only basis upon which the City can work.
In Chapter 7 we read three times that assurances were given that the money for this bid—a considerable bid, even by City standards—belonged to the purchasers. When such assurances are given by the City of London, I believe all of us would accept that they are well founded. However, one or two doubts entered my mind (even after considering Chapter 7) on reading Chapter 12 of the report. There is reference to the Office of Fair Trading memorandum which was presented by the purchasers to the Office of Fair Trading. It was apparent that they had claimed to have over 1 billion dollars worth of funds available for the purchase. However, in Chapter 12 the inspectors proceed to consider item by item the parts of the memorandum stated by the Fayeds. Such wealth none of us in our wildest dreams would imagine. We see that the trademark of the Ritz Hotel in Paris is said to be worth 300 million dollars. Yet, as paragraph 12.2.18 points out, the cost was only £9 million sterling in 1979. There is a further interesting paragraph about 75 Rockefeller Plaza in New York. That was again said to be worth 200 million dollars. Yet in paragraph 12.3.8 it is apparent that the value is 30 million dollars.
932
At the end of the chapter, after very considerable work by both inspectors, the total wealth appears to be in the region of 250 to 300 million dollars. As a student of creative accountancy, I think that that provides a very interesting lesson that we shall be able to pursue. Certainly I shall be able to do so later this evening. It certainly takes my breath away.
Chapter 13 deals with the oil trading of the Fayed brothers, the purchasers. It is very interesting that the assets that they claimed were worth 200 million dollars at the end of 1978 were, they believed and stated, worth 500 million dollars at the end of 1984. The inspectors are quite kind in attempting to find some rational explanation for that.
Those are just two germane chapters of the report. Certainly the most interesting aspects of the report appear in Chapter 25, rightly headed "Lessons from the case". First, we consider the problem of demarcations. The inspectors point out one particular aspect concerning advisers. Quite rightly, the inspectors say that no advisers can carry out what they class as Pinkerton style inquiries. They say that certainly the Office of Fair Trading and officials from the Department of Trade and Industry were left with the clear impression that assurances given by sundry persons in the City were indeed well based and well founded. Yet any study of Chapter 12 of the report gives, I believe, just a little room for doubt.
Also, under "lessons from the case" in Chapter 25, there is a very interesting section classified, "Knowledge of one's client". Reference to my noble friend Lord Rockley appears quite frequently in the report. Paragraph 25.3.1 reports that he said to the inspectors that he was genuinely surprised a problem had arisen since in his considerable experience merchant bankers are accustomed to using their judgment in such matters; and, verification would not be appropriate in the fast moving situation which was apparent in this case. I certainly agree with him on that. That is ripe stuff since the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, 38 years ago, did not give me the benefit of those two attitudes when he, together with others, beat me at school.
In conclusion, Chapter 25 has some useful principles for takeovers. It recommends one or two loopholes in the City code that should be examined so far as concerns corporate and incorporate purchasers. The report is long. It is never boring. It provides very valuable lessons for all of us. I believe that it also provides a valuable lesson for the City of London which each and every one of us wishes to see retain its position, along with that great motto, nil satis nisi optimum. I can tell your Lordships that you cannot buy that for £9 million or a great deal more.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Brocket: My Lords, I do not wish to say much on this rather emotive and complicated subject except to make an overall observation on a rather different aspect.
We are all fully aware and accept that parliamentary privilege has to exist within both Houses of Parliament in order for a full debate to

933
be possible and for all the facts to be brought out into the open. To extend parliamentary privilege outside Parliament, in a written form, and for all the world to see, is totally unforgivable and against all democratic values that we hold. Regardless of the facts in this case—and I stress that—to libel other people, to give them no chance to answer the libel, to publish the libel and to be totally immune from court action, is deplorable.
The normal course of action in such a case is for the facts—not hearsay—to be ascertained and, if sufficient grounds exist for a prosecution, for the facts to be put before a court of law and for the Government to act if necessary. We suddenly find that a report is published where a report would never normally be published as no case existed against the subject in question and that the report is based largely on hearsay. It is hearsay that is, coincidentally, inadmissible in a court of law. Furthermore, the Fayeds' response to the allegations in the form of a 500-page report is conveniently ignored.
It leads me to suspect that some skullduggery existed to ensure the publication of the report, since government action was extremely unlikely and uncalled for, and the report would therefore not normally be published. It may well be that in this country we put up with such a position but I seriously doubt whether the European Court would hold the same view if the matter were put before it.
Let us imagine the effect on large companies if this tool, weapon or procedure—call it what one will—was used on a wider scale to affect share prices or takeover bids. It would be a very powerful weapon indeed. As the report states, the Fayeds have not broken any laws and have not committed any offences.
Despite having done a fair hatchet job on the Fayeds the report was obliged to conclude:
"Their relationships with the Stock Exchange, the revenue authori;ies and auditors have been properly and responsibly conducted, and the dealings of this company as regards the substantial borrowings and the renewals of borrowing have all been proper and beyond criticism".
The report further states:
"They find no evidence that the conduct of the Fayeds in any of these matters has fallen short of the conduct to be expected of directors of large and important companies".
It may well be that a rosier picture was painted of their wealth But which one of us has not at some time ciscouraged our bank from believing that our assets are a little greater than they are? It is only a question of degree.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Brocket: My Lords, if the City does not like what the Fayeds have done it has only itself to blame because it was the City's rules by which the Fayeds played. I am a little sad that in Britain a legalised form of personal and corporate libel seems to have popped up that has no form of redress. I am even sadder that the whole business has so damaged the City.
7.1 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, will forgive me if I do not follow him along that line. I believe that a lie is a lie, and if you lie for a period of time you are a discredited person. However, I shall leave that topic because I have only a few minutes in which to speak.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for opening the debate in a characteristically cogent and convincing manner. There have been other notable contributions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, will not think me impertinent if I say that I hope we shall hear from him more often. His speech was one of his most powerful interventions.
I have disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, only seldom, if ever. Today I thought that he was barking up the wrong tree. However, he made an important point, which was followed up by my noble friend Lord Donoughue, in referring to the decline in morals in the City. It is an arguable matter but I shall spend my few minutes discussing the question of the moral climate in the City and the fashionable standards which have made such frightful occurrences possible.
From 1955 to 1963 I was chairman of one of the smaller clearing banks. I believe that I am the only socialist ever to hold such a position. There may have been a few secret sympathisers, but, if so, they kept their opinions to themselves. I remember that during those years a high sense of public responsibility was possessed by the leaders of the banking world who to a greater or lesser extent spread themselves throughout the City.
I found a particular mentor in Mr. Anthony Tuke, who was for many years chairman of Barclays. He was kind enough to take me under his wing as a novice and he taught me many useful things. One of the many comments he made was, "You must remember that high interest rates are always good for bankers. But that does not mean that they are necessarily good for the country". He insisted that I should keep the distinction clear. I learnt from him the various obligations of the banker to the depositors, shareholders and staff. I also learnt the overriding obligation to the community as a whole. The question is whether today such an obligation is felt to anything like the same extent.
During my eight years as chairman there were six Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer. Time prevents me spelling out their names, but I am glad to be able to say that one of them is still with us, the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. By coincidence, for six of those eight years we were asked to restrain lending and not to go the whole way in the search for maximum profit. We were asked to act according to the interests of the country as interpreted by the government of the day and conveyed to us through the Governor of the Bank of England. We complied as a matter of course. We did so reluctantly and with a certain amount of grumbling but we assumed that our duty was to act in the way in which the public interest was interpreted by the elected government. That was how it was in those days.
We are now told by some people that in these days of market forces, which should be allowed to run

935
their course without intervention any kind of credit controls are unworkable. If that is so it is only because of certain assumptions which are made about the present attitude of the leading bankers. They are the people who create the credit. If their attitude was the same as those of my leading colleagues at that time they would be no more unworkable than they were during those eight years of Conservative government when I was chairman of a bank.
Today we are undoubtedly faced with various sordid happenings. I hold no brief for any of the parties, except that I am a devout reader of the Observer. I cannot afford to shop in Harrods; otherwise no doubt I should be its faithful servant. I hold no brief for either party. In spite of what the last speaker said, we all know that the report represents the irresistible truth. There was lying on a large scale and that was allowed to happen because of the decline in standards. I am afraid that that is due to today's emphasis on market values and forgetfulness of the public interest which in those days was stood for by men such as Mr. Anthony Tuke and many others in the City. I can hope only that those days will return.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in the light of the brief Statement that was made about the voluminous detail of the report of the inspectors I believe that my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was totally justified in tabling this Motion for debate. I am convinced that had the Statement been more detailed the raison d'etre for the debate might not have existed. My noble friend rightly said that the report raises many questions which remain unanswered. During the course of today's debate many noble Lords raised those questions and attempts were made to answer them.
I wish to concentrate on four aspects, although there are many others. First, I wish to talk about the inspectors' report. A question was cogently put by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when the Statement was repeated in this House. The report prepared by the inspectors on the House of Eraser was extremely condemnatory. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, if that condemnation was justified it was virtually inevitable that some kind of action should be taken. If action was not taken it would appear to be implied that the condemnation was not justified.
I am slightly worried about the inspectors' report when I compare it with the Select Committee procedures in your Lordships' House. Not only do we show the conclusions reached by the Select Committee but all the evidence is published. It would have been helpful to have in a second volume all the evidence given to the inspectors. In spite of the fact that the first volume is large it would have been helpful to have all the evidence and reached our own conclusions. That would have been more effective than seeing the situation through the eyes of the inspectors alone. Therefore, I raise a query on that very much along the lines of what the noble
936
Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, and the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, raised similar questions.
Secondly, there is the role of the advisers to which much attention has been drawn. Should advisers who are employed by a particular party in a takeover acquisition operation be wholly supportive of their cause or do they have a duty to satisfy themselves that what they are told by their client is justified? As yet, that does not seem to me to be very clearly decided.
The report has been referred by the Secretary of State to the Bank of England and the Law Society in respect of the advisers in this case. I suggest that it would be most helpful to us all if, after those eminent institutions have considered the matter, there is a report on what conclusions they reached. I have the feeling that having been referred to them, that is the last we shall hear of it. They will take that material on board in the same way as they take on board much other material which comes their way.
Thirdly, there is the question of the public interest in mergers and takeovers, a point specifically referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rees. I am rather concerned that the public interest should have been eliminated as a consideration in mergers and takeovers. Most of the references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission cover very large concerns. Therefore, it is almost inevitable that a degree of public interest is involved. What was particularly disturbing in this long-running saga—as the noble Lord, Lord Rees, pointed out—was that the public interest was taken into account at a certain stage in the proceedings and was then eliminated at another stage. Therefore, the two contestants were being judged by the Secretary of State on two completely different bases. I believe that there is a strong case for taking public interest into account on takeovers and mergers when referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Finally—and this is a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—there is the question of whether the City code on mergers and takeovers should be amended in order that the amount of information required from non-corporate offerers is brought into line with that required from corporate offerers. Having been involved in takeovers and mergers in one way or another in recent years on a corporate basis, I know how much detail you have to go into to justify your position vis a vis the people concerned with the City code. However, there seems to be a loophole in the case of non-corporate offerers.
Those are some of the issues which this case raises. I believe that it would be unfortunate in the extreme if this long and, indeed, eminently readable document were allowed just to remain on the shelves without our knowing what was eventually to be done about some of those major issues. I hope that as a result of this debate and as a result of the response which we shall have from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, we may perhaps be reassured that we shall eventually have a document which will tell us exactly what has been done about the lessons learned from this case.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of

937
Hillhead, for introducing this debate. Because this is the only intervention from this Dispatch Box and since we have made up a little time I hope that the House will excuse me if I speak for a little longer than ray ration of 10 minutes. Of course I still intend to allow the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, his full 20 minutes. I do not wish to detain the House too long but I :should like to give a considered view on these problems from the Opposition Front Bench.
I start by quoting again to your Lordships the conclusion of the report —and I am reading from our own Official Report at the time the noble Lord repeated the Statement made in another place. It states;
"The Fayeds dishonestly misrepresented their origins, their wealth, their business interests and their resources to the Secretary of State, the OFT, the Press, the HOF Board and HOF shareholders, and their own advisers". —[Official Report, 7/3/90; col. 1216.]
That is our starting point.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, quite rightly raised the question: if that misrepresentation had not taken place, would the Fayeds have succeeded in taking over the House of Fraser? At the time that the noble Lord repeated the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place, I gave a very clear answer, as I believe did the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. The answer is no. If it had been known that that misrepresentation had taken place, that transaction would not have gone through.
The second question which we have to ask ourselves is: what happens now? As the noble Lord, Lord Rees, pointed out certain options have been closed out. What can we do and what should the Government do to try to mark their disapproval, if they disapprove, of what has happened as described by the inspectors?
I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in one respect. The Government have taken action in legislation to close some of the loopholes revealed by the inspectors in the report. The Companies Act 1989 is an example of that. The takeover code referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is being studied at present and, as I understand it, amendments will be brought forward which will respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Obviously there is a loud sound of stable doors clanging after the horse has bolted. Unfortunately, in these circumstances, one cannot help that. We have to make sure that the Government do not sit back and say that nothing else should be done. We must make sure that the Government do not simply sink into a state of spineless inertia. It is to that matter that I wish to address my remarks this evening.
What did the prosecuting authorities do? We heard that there was not enough evidence for a prosecution. Although the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, told us that very serious matters were being studied by the Serious Fraud Office, there was not enough evidence for a prosecution.
In the report the inspectors took a very serious approach to the evidence which they received. I
938
should like to quote from paragraph 1.21 of the report to show how serious their attitude was:
"When we considered disputes of fact we always looked for contemporary documentary evidence to help us resolve the dispute, and time and again the truth of the Fayeds' account was exploded by reliable contemporary documents".
In Other words, the inspectors went to a great deal of trouble to support their conclusions. Those conclusions are related at paragraph 2.1.2:
"During the course of our investigations we received evidence from the Fayeds, under solemn affirmation and in written memoranda, which was false and which the Fayeds knew to be false. In addition, the Fayeds produced a set of documents they knew to be false. This false evidence related mainly, but not exclusively to their background, their past business activities and the way in which they came to be in control of enormous funds in the autumn of 1984 and the spring of 1985".
Whatever the evidence or lack of evidence for fraud, there can be no doubt that there is a prima facie case of perjury. Are the prosecuting authorities not prepared to take action on the basis of that very considered evidence which the inspectors are putting forward? If they are not prepared to do so, then I can only say to them—and indeed to the Government through them —that they must say that they do not agree with that and that something is wrong. The inspectors got it wrong.
The Statement made by the Secretary of State earlier this month did not say that the Government rejected the inspectors' conclusions; far from it. It said that anybody can read the report and come to any conclusion they like. If the Government support the evidence brought forward by the inspectors, there must be a case for prosecution. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will address himself to that point when he replies.
The next issue concerns the response of the City. A number of noble Lords commented on that and I do not wish to dwell on it. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, made his point and my noble friend Lord Longford made a point about the ethic of business in the City. We hope that these things will be cleared up. I do not believe that the question of Harrods' bank is a material matter. It is a "minnow", as the noble Lord, Lord Rees, said; it is not very important. However, the question of the ethic of business in the City has to be addressed at some stage. I hope the Government will do everything in their power—I will explain what can be done —in order to encourage a return to what my noble friend Lord Longford called a "proper ethic" in banking.
The question remains of what we do now. What do the Government do now? The matter cannot simply be left where it is. I turn to the question of disqualification of directors. The Secretary of State announced that he is not prepared to take action on that front. The Company Directors Disqualifications Act 1986 is quite clear. Section 8 gives the Secretary of State authority to apply to the court for disqualification on grounds of public interest. I should have thought that perjury; deliberately false statements; misleading the competition authorities; misleading creditors and misleading employees certainly justifies a case on grounds of public interest. There is certainly a case on grounds of public interest to ensure that the City is cleaned up.

939
Unfortunately under the Act the court must make up its mind on the application on the basis of Schedule 1, which does not include public interest. The Secretary of State therefore can quite reasonably say —as he said to the trade and industry committee of another place this morning—"I could introduce all sorts of public interest grounds, but the court must make up its mind on the basis of Schedule 1". Part I of Schedule 1 confines itself to misfeasance or breach of any fiduciary or other duty by the director in relation to the company. That is the point at which the Secretary of State wriggles off the hook and says, "I will not try because I do not believe I will succeed in the court".
Under Section 9 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 the Secretary of State has power to modify Schedule 1. If he had made an order saying that public interest should be taken into account by the court, that he is modifying Schedule 1, then he would be able to move an application for disqualification and the court could treat it on the basis of public interest. I say to the noble Lord that if such an order were put forward by the Secretary of State it would not be opposed by us; it would not be prayed against by us. That is a way forward which the noble Lord might like to consider.
Lord Rees: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way on that point. I am grateful to him for his illuminating address on the question of the Act to which I also referred. Is he suggesting that the Secretary of State could introduce an order with retrospective effect, which would enable him to initiate action before the court—the decision is ultimately that of the court —against the Fayeds on the basis of what happened some years ago?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am speaking of the future. I am saying what we should do now and how we should get round the particular problem with which we are faced. I will respond very directly to the question of the noble Lord. If we consider what happened to the employees and the creditors, bearing in mind the fiduciary duty owed by the directors of a company to employees under Section 309 of the Companies Act 1985 and to creditors generally under various sections of the Companies Act, I suspect there would be a case to put before the court. That is a point I will not dispute because it is a question for the court to answer.
The problem we are left with cannot be allowed to go away. It is not merely a question of whether an application would or would not be successful. The Government must make an effort to show to the world and to the City that we really want to clean up the whole business. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, pointed out, this is the strongest report that certainly I have read—indeed that he has read—since the Lonrho report in 1986. We cannot just let it go and say we will do nothing.
I hope that the lesson of this affair is that the Government will make a very strong statement —perhaps the noble Lord will make a very strong statement today —saying that they will amend
940
the company disqualification schedule; that they disapprove of what happened; that they will explain why the prosecuting authorities did not take any action on the basis of what is clear evidence of a criminal offence, if we are to believe the inspectors; or saying that they do not believe the inspectors and that they will embark on an overhaul of the processes of government which led to this extraordinary shambles.
Why did Lord Young not refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1988 when he had the report in front of him? Why did Mr. Tebbit wave it through so quickly in 1985? Why was the report not published? Instead we were told it had to be referred to the Serious Fraud Office. Lastly, does he not recognise that to do nothing at all is an affront to people both in the City and in the United Kingdom generally who wish to do business in an honest, sensible and sober manner? It is a matter which cannot go away. The Government are under the microscope on this point. The noble Lord must take this issue seriously and we await to see what the examination reveals.
7.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, Your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for having introduced this debate.
The publication of the inspectors' report on 7th March 1990 allows everybody to judge for themselves what they think of the conduct revealed in the report. It is a sorry tale. It gives rise to a large number of issues, many of which have been raised in this debate. I propose to concentrate on four main areas. These are competition policy; the criminal law; the law relating to disqualification of directors by the court and the powers of Companies Act inspectors.
I turn first to competition policy. The Fayeds' bid for the House of Fraser in 1985 was considered by the Director General of Fair Trading and my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State (Mr. Tebbit) in the light of the merger policy introduced in 1984. Since July 1984, references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) have been made primarily on competition grounds. That remains the Government's policy.
In accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading on the application of this policy, my right honourable friend Mr. Tebbit announced on 14th March 1985 his decision that there were no grounds for referring this merger to the MMC.
It is open to the Secretary of State as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, recognised, to reconsider a decision not to refer a merger within six months of new information affecting the merger coming to light. Accordingly, my noble friend Lord Young the then Secretary of State, reconsidered the earlier decision of his predecessor in the light of the inspectors' report submitted in July 1988. He announced in November 1988 that, again in accordance with the advice of the Director General

941
of Far Trading, he had decided not to refer the merger to the MMC. The inspectors' report raised doubts about the source of the finance for the Fayeds' acquisition of House of Fraser.
The Office of Fair Trading considers the manner of financing a deal as it bears on the competition. In particular, it seeks to establish what competing interests are involved and to assess whether the financing might put the target company at risk of failure with a resultant loss of competition. But in this case, House of Fraser shareholders having been paid in full and in cash the OFT concluded that there were no new competition issues to investigate or other public interest issues of the sort which the MMC could usefully address. The other issues raised were more relevant to the functions and responsibilities of other authorities.
The Government are always seeking to learn from past experience in developing their merger control procedures, and have paid careful attention to the recommendations in the inspectors' report. The Government have now implemented, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, recognised, a number of changes in their merger control procedures in line with the inspectors' recommendations. Let me summarise the four main points.
First, in their report the inspectors suggested that the Secretary of State's role be confined to decision making. The procedures for the Secretary of State to consider merger reference cases have been adjusted so as to avoid his being involved in the investigative and fact-finding stages. These are rightly matters for the OFT.
Secondly, the inspectors suggested that the Director General of Fair Trading may have been rushed into giving his advice to the Secretary of State in 1985. One or two noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to that this evening. To this I would say that there is always a balance to be struck between having enough time to weigh up the facts and acting quickly to remove uncertainty. In this particular case there was considerable market uncertainty in the period before the Secretary of State's decision was announced. In any case—this is important —the OFT had been considering a merger of the Fayeds with the House of Fraser since November 1984 when the Fayeds acquired Lonrho's 20 per cent.
New procedures under the 1989 Companies Act are to come into force next week under which companies who voluntarily pre-notify mergers can usually expect a decision from the Secretary of State within 20 working days of notification. There are appropriate extension provisions to deal with particularly complex or difficult cases. The department's own procedures also ensure that the Secretary of State has time to consider the Director General of Fair Trading's advice carefully and to reflect before reaching decisions on reference.
Thirdly, the inspectors also recommended, in drawing attention to lessons for the future, that the OFT should issue a code of standards for advisers appearing before them. This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. The OFT publishes and keeps up to date a guide on mergers
942
procedures. It has told the department that it has decided not to include in this, or publish separately, a code of standards for advisers. It would be extremely difficult to make such a code exhaustive and it is in any case open to such advisers to note the issues raised in the inspectors' report.
Finally, however, in the 1989 Companies Act (Section 151), the Government have taken action to deter those who seek to deceive the competition authorities in the future by making it a specific criminal offence knowingly or recklessly to mislead the competition authorities. This comes into effect from 1st April this year. It will be for the prosecuting authorities to furnish the evidence needed to secure a conviction in the courts.
I turn now to the decision that there should be no criminal proceedings arising out of the matters dealt with in the inspectors' report. That decision was taken jointly by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, both of whom are independent public officers. I propose therefore to preface what I have to say about the decision in this particular case with some more general observations about the manner in which such decisions are taken and how those two independent officers are accountable to Parliament.
I emphasise two important principles. The first is the need for full equality before the law, and secondly the right of every citizen to expect consistency from the prosecuting authorities. It is therefore especially important when cases are controversial, or otherwise have a high profile, that the process of arriving at a decision as to whether or not to bring a prosecution should be no different than in any other case.
The criteria to be applied when considering institution or continuation of criminal proceedings are set out in the code for Crown prosecutors which was issued pursuant to Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and laid before Parliament. The very first question to be determined arises from paragraph 4 of that code which stipulates:
"A prosecution should not be started or continued unless the Crown Prosecutor is satisfied that there is admissible, substantial and reliable evidence that a criminal offence known to the law has been committed by an identifiable person. The Crown Prosecution Service does not support the proposition that a bare prima facie case is enough, but rather will apply the test of whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction."
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can assist several Members of the House who have raised this point. He has just quoted paragraph 4 of the code. Is it really suggested that inspectors can make a finding of fact about lying upon oath and deliberately do so without having had prima facie evidence before them? If so, that is a scandal. If not, what does paragraph 4 mean other than that there should be a prosecution?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the decision as to whether there should be a prosecution rests with the prosecuting authorities, as I have already said. There is a difference between what is right and proper in regard to launching a prosecution and what the inspectors say. There is a specific difference which I shall come to in a moment if the noble Lord will allow me.

943
The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure also considered the relationship between the independent prosecuting authorities and Parliament. The Royal Commission endorsed the principles of openness and accountability in prosecution arrangements, and hence both the statutes creating the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office provide for accountability by placing the two directors under the superintendence of the Attorney-General who answers to Parliament. The Royal Commission also noted the difficulties which might flow from making any Minister answerable for individual prosecution decisions.
What the Royal Commission said is very compelling, and it is for that reason that the invariable practice of the Law Officers is to confine themselves to explaining prosecution decisions in general terms rather than by reference to the details of the sometimes conflicting evidence.
The report of the inspectors was passed to the DPP and the director of the SFO in July 1988 because, at the very least, it disclosed what the then Secretary of State—my noble friend Lord Young—described as evidence of "wrong doing". The report and accompanying evidence were voluminous and required careful consideration. On 24th November 1988 the directors jointly referred the matter to the Metropolitan Police and asked for necessary inquiries to be carried out. In so doing, they were acting no differently than in any other case of its nature.
The investigations which were pursued were based on lines advised by lawyers within the SFO and the CPS and extended to every part of the world in which the inspectors' report had suggested they would be desirable. They were thorough and the fact that those inquiries involved several overseas jurisdictions inevitably made the process a lengthy one. The purpose of the investigation was to secure evidence which would be available and which was, above all, admissible in criminal proceedings in our jurisdiction.
The result of those inquiries was considered by the two directors who had the benefit of advice from senior Treasury counsel experienced in criminal matters. Having satisfied themselves that all lines of inquiry had been pursued, they concluded that the evidence available was insufficient to afford a realistic prospect of conviction for any criminal offence relating to any matter of substance raised in the report.
In taking the decision not to institute criminal proceedings, the two directors had treated this case no differently from any other case referred to them, and my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, has authorised me to say that he is satisfied that the conclusion reached by the two directors was the correct one on the basis of the admissible and available evidence.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I promise the Minister that this is my last intervention; but this matter is most serious. Will the Minister please forget the A1
944
Fayeds for one moment and imagine that it is an ordinary citizen, Mr. Smith, who is blatantly accused in a report of having committed perjury? The prosecuting authorities take no action, so he cannot defend himself in a criminal court. He cannot bring an action for libel because the inspectors are covered by privilege. Will the Minister kindly indicate what the ordinary citizen does under this regime when he wishes to show that he is not guilty of what people have published officially as being his guilt of a criminal offence?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important and proper point which I shall come to in a moment. I wish to say a little more about the inspectors' report and the difference between it, the evidence which they take into account and that which the prosecuting authorities also take into account. I shall say something further about these matters in a moment.
As the noble Lord has said, there are those who have expressed surprise that evidence should be sufficient to justify such clear and firm conclusions as those reached by the inspectors, yet be regarded as insufficient to justify the institution of criminal proceedings. But there is no inconsistency here, and for this reason. In their report the inspectors, as they were entitled to do, not only made findings of fact but also drew conclusions from them and expressed views on the conduct of some of the people involved.
Inspectors appointed under the Companies Act 1985, who are independent of my department, are not required to apply a particular standard of proof The standard which they apply in making their findings should be flexible. The more serious the finding or criticism based on it, the higher the burden of proof that they should apply. That burden of proof is not directly comparable to that applied in civil or criminal cases. It is open to the inspectors to take account of the evidence that was hearsay if they think it reliable.
It is therefore both possible and proper—because the standard of proof in criminal cases is different and because they can take account of hearsay evidence—for inspectors to make findings on various matters, but at the same time for there to be insufficient evidence for criminal proceedings to be instituted and for there to be no realistic prospect of conviction in such proceedings.
Lord Brocket: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister. He says they are findings of fact, but that cannot be so. According to the inspectors, they are findings of fact and they have put them down as facts. However, they cannot be construed as facts until they are proven. The people in question happen to be the Fayeds at the moment, but they could be anyone. The facts cannot be proven until the people concerned have had the opportunity of answering the charges. Then it will be decided whether or not they are facts.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should explain to my noble friend that there are two opportunities for those criticised in a report in this way to make their views known at least to the authors of the report.

945
The first opportunity is, as I understand it, at the point when the report is being prepared. The victims (if that is the right word) are advised of what it is the inspectors have in mind to say about them in general terms. I understand that the Fayeds took advantage of the opportunity on this occasion and made representations to the inspectors as to their views on what was to be said about them. Most certainly the inspectors took those representations into account.
Secondly—and in this case uniquely—as I understand, the persons referred to in the report were given a copy of it in advance of publication. If they thought fit, they were entitled to take action to prevent publication of the report. I do not suggest that that is a total solution to the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Brocket have referred, but it is at least a partial solution.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening. Can the Minister say how anyone concerned with this report or shown a copy of it could have prevented publication?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, he could have gone to the High Court and taken action to prevent publication.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister once again, but these are such vital matters for the citizen generally, quite apart from the people concerned in the report. I am sure that the Minister has been advised that the only way in which one can apply to the court for an injunction restraining publication would be either because a criminal charge is being brought, and therefore there would be prejudice, or, in the alternative, the report constituted a libel on which action could be taken. I repeat: the inspectors have qualified privilege and it is quite impossible to take such action. I hope that as a result of this discussion the Minister will consult with his colleagues about the fairness of this whole procedure.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is much more learned in these matters than I. I am informed that, despite the qualified privilege which the noble Lord rightly says is attached to the contents of the report, it was open to the Fayed brothers, had they thought fit, to have taken action to prevent publication. I have taken advice on that point and that is the position.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on what grounds?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not pretend to be an expert on legal detail on these matters; but I am advised that it was open to the Fayed brothers to take action if they thought fit in order to prevent publication. Evidently, they decided not to do so. The question of whether there were to be criminal charges was, as I have said, a matter for the prosecution authorities. However, it fell to my right honourable friend the present Secretary of State to consider whether he should make application to
946
the courts for the disqualification of the Fayeds as directors.
Section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 provides for the disqualification by the courts of directors in consequence, among other things, of a report made by inspectors under Section 437 of the Companies Act 1985. What is now Section 8 first appeared in the Insolvency Act of that year. The provision implements a recommendation of the Cork Committee on Insolvency Law and Practice which was intended to provide greater possibilities for ensuring that those whose conduct has shown them to be unfitted to manage the affairs of a company with limited liability should, for a specified period, be prevented from doing so. The provision was not intended as a punishment, but as a protection for the public.
Against this background it fell to my right honourable friend to decide under Section 8(1) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 whether it was expedient in the public interest that he should apply to the court to have a disqualification order made against the Fayeds. I should perhaps stress that he does not have the power to order their disqualification, as I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, may have thought, judging by his earlier remarks; but that is a detail.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, surely he has power to initiate an application?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. He has power to initiate an application, but not to order the disqualification himself This power is quite rightly left to the court. In deciding not to make an application, he took into account the fact that the court may make a disqualification order—I emphasise the word "may"—where it is satisfied that the conduct of the director in relation to the company—those are words which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, repeated—makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of the company. In making its decision, the court must have regard in particular to the matters mentioned in Part I of Schedule 1 of the 1986 Act though these are not exhaustive.
My right honourable friend took legal advice and gave very detailed consideration to the report before reaching his decision under Section 8. He also had regard to the nature of the conduct which is criticised by the inspectors, the present beneficial ownership of the House of Fraser Holdings, and the manner in which the Fayeds exercised control over and managed that group.
These were all factors which he took into account when exercising quasi-judicially the jurisdiction conferred on him by the 1986 Act which is intended to provide protection for all those whose interests may be prejudiced if companies are run by individuals who are unfit to manage them. Although the inspectors concluded that the Fayeds lied to the competition authorities at the time of the merger—I have no reason to believe that they were wrong, but it is for individuals to make up their own minds

947
once they have read the report —the inspectors did not criticise the Fayeds for the way they were running the House of Fraser which they already owned and which cannot be taken away from them. In these circumstances, my right honourable friend considered that publication of the report, which would allow people to judge for themselves whether they wished to do business with the Fayeds, would be a severe blow to their reputation, as indeed I think it has proved. My right honourable friend is not bound in law to give reasons for his decision, which is of a quasi-judicial nature, and does not intend to do so.
There has been discussion lately about whether inspectors should make criticisms in reports or confine themselves to findings of fact. My right honourable friend gave evidence on this point when he appeared before the House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 7th February. On that occasion he said that there were strong arguments both ways and that it is a very fine matter of judgment what the instructions to inspectors should be in relation to criticising the conduct of individuals. My right honourable friend made it clear that he had come to no final view and that he would be interested in the views of the committee, and indeed of Members of your Lordships' House, on this point.
Finally, the inspectors made a number of recommendations for changes in, or clarification of, company law in Chapter 1 of their report. Part III of the Companies Act 1989 introduced a number of changes to the investigation system, including a number recommended by the inspectors; for example, the ability of inspectors to get relevant information from personal bank accounts has been improved; and there has been a widening of the powers under which inspectors can require information and assistance relevant to the investigation. I can tell your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that the present state of the law in this area, following the amendments introduced to companies legislation by the 1989 Act, meets the concerns expressed by the inspectors.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred in his speech to the assurance which I gave on an earlier occasion. I do not have the date in front of me but the noble Lord is aware of the occasion. I am happy to repeat the assurance I gave on that occasion in the terms that I then gave it. It related to the accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on an earlier occasion, which the noble Lord repeated. I said then that the accusation was quite without foundation, and I repeat that assurance tonight.
I have dealt with the principal points arising from this complex and unusual investigation. Cases such as this do not occur every day. Indeed, I should be astonished if we were ever to see its like again. Nevertheless, lessons have been learnt and changes in practice and the law have been made. The inspectors' report has been published. Regulatory authorities, to whom copies have been passed, are considering whether any action should be taken by them. Although no prosecution has proved possible
948
and my right honourable friend has decided not to seek to disqualify as directors anyone involved in this affair, I think it plain that publication of the report with all its findings has itself served a considerable public interest, allowing people to judge for themselves whether to do business with the Fayeds. That is the best protection the public can have in this case.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I shall be brief because I am not a great believer in second speeches. I thank the Minister for his reply, which was courteous and detailed and up to a point comprehensive, although from my point of view he devoted rather too much time to the question of why there was no prosecution —I certainly never thought that the Secretary of State had any alternative but to accept the advice of the two inspectors on this matter—and substantially less time to the other issues, particularly the issue of possible disqualification.
I thank noble Lords who participated in the debate. In some ways the high point of the debate was in the middle when my noble friend Lord Diamond and the noble Lord, Lord Rees, both spoke cogently. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, spoke with great neatness and tautness and moved my mind a little on one or two issues. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, spoke with great power and posed the central question: did the Fayeds obtain, by lying, a great advantage which they would not otherwise have obtained? To that central question we have not had a satisfactory answer. Until it has been answered satisfactorily I cannot be wholly satisfied that this issue has been dealt with well by the Government. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Council House Rents
7.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what information they have of current levels of council house rents and those proposed for the next financial year in the light of the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 and the Local Government Housing Act 1989.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, over the past couple of hours or so your Lordships have debated an issue which involves people who in financial terms have what one could call a lot. The question that I want to pose to the Minister concerns people who do not have a lot in financial terms and probably will never be lucky enough to be in that situation. I have tabled this Unstarred Question because it is too big a subject to be dealt with in a Starred Question. The Minister will be aware that last week I asked a Question on a similar subject. It would be totally unfair to the House to try to develop a theme during a Starred Question. There is no personal aggravation towards the Minister who replied on that day and my noble friend on the Front Bench who speaks for my party on this subject will, I am sure, take the same view.
Because there is a substantial change in the method of levelling the rents of municipal tenants we are trying to find out what will happen so that the tenants themselves will know what system is being applied to them. We are not too sure—I say this because of the Minister's reply to my Starred Question last week—that the Department of the Environment knows what will happen in regard to the side effects of poll tax and so on, although I do not want to introduce that subject into the debate.
It is a strange phenomenon that the top five authorities for proposing substantial increases in rents are Conservative ones. I accept that the Government are sincere in their desire to curb inflation. They do not have any other objective. That is not to say that I think they have been successful. Things have gone wrong and inflation has not been curbed The rents of ordinary people in council houses may not look high in comparison to rents in the private sector but to these people they are a substantial part of their weekly or monthly budget. I cannot understand why these Conservative authorities have decided to impose increases above the guidelines. The Minister was not able to give me the reason they have done so.
Last autumn, the Department of the Environment published guideline weekly rent increases for all local authorities, giving a figure for each authority of between 95p and £4–50p. The reason for the excessive increases is that the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 imposes certain new requirements on local authorities. It prevents local authorities from continuing the practice of subsidising their housing revenue account from the general rate fund. That means that the cost of managing and maintaining their housing has to be met from the housing revenue account. As your Lordships know, this is now known as ring fencing. It means that the cost of housing benefit will be met by rental income in a rather unfairer system which makes tenants in work pay for the poorest tenants. That particular facet was, I believe, quite forcefully exposed and enunciated by my noble friend on the Front Bench Lord Mcintosh during the passage of the Bill during the last Session of Parliament.
The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 also demolished the system known as "capitalised repairs" whereby local authorities could use their capital receipts from the sale of council houses to repair and maintain the existing stock. Instead, the money, apart from 25 per cent, which can be spent on new building, now has to go immediately towards paying off their debts which in terms of providing additional housing is a nil factor. In my opinion it does not make any contribution whatever. Those and other changes introduced in the legislation, together with the new restrictions on the level of subsidy received by local authorities from central government, mean that local authorities now have less money to spend in proportion on council housing than they had previously. They have to choose between increasing rents or cutting their repairs programme or other services.
I should like to give some comparisons. I do not propose to speak at length because I do not think that this is the occasion to do so. Council house
950
tenants are obviously those in the lower income group. Yet, excluding this year, the Government have forced up rents in local authority housing by 212 per cent, since 1979. In contrast, the RPI for the same period has increased by 128 per cent. That shows that local authority tenants have been called upon to meet a far higher proportion of the increase in order to provide themselves with housing than other people.
As regards the Government's calculations or assumptions on the poll tax, the guidelines that they produced have proved to be unreliable because the information I have shows that from 153 local authorities 70 per cent, have been setting rents above the guidelines and only 16 per cent, have been setting rents below. I should now like to give the House some comparisons. I should also like to ask the Minister two questions. However, if he cannot give me detailed answers tonight perhaps he will refer them to the Secretary of State because we may need some recommendations from him.
I have talked about savage increases in rents. Perhaps I may quote some examples. In the City of London the increase is £5–39, which brings the total figure to £35–18; in Harrow the increase is £8–72, which makes the total figure £37–09; and in Merton the increase is £11–14, making the total amount £39–34. Then we come to what is perhaps one of the worst examples. I refer to the outer London borough—I term it as such because I am a Northerner—of Redbridge. There the rent increase has been £15–64, making a total rent of £51–27.
I can remember being heavily involved in a campaign many years ago against a Conservative Government led by Mr. Heath. It almost reached the dimensions of the present poll tax campaign when the suggestion was made under the fair rents Act that an increase of 50 pence a year should be imposed. However, here we have a Conservative-controlled authority which increases the rent by £15–64 in one go thus making the total rent £51–27 for a council house. Finally, I should point out that in Canterbury the increase is £12–29, which represents an increase of 54 per cent.
I have two main points that I wish to put to the Minister. If he does not have the authority to answer tonight I know that he will consider the points and refer them to the Secretary of State to see just what is the position. I should like to know why five Conservative-controlled authorities, knowing the clear guideline issued by the new Minister of Housing and Planning and Mr. Patten, the Secretary of State, chose to exploit the situation out of all proportion. I picked out those five authorities because some authorities have set their rents slightly above and some slightly below. I picked the worst examples in areas where I do not think that the increases were necessary. However, perhaps the Minister can disabuse me of that view.
I cannot believe that what has happened has the backing of Mr. Patten or of the new Minister of Housing and Planning, Mr. Spicer. I do not think for one moment that they were consulted or that they would condone those increases, bearing in mind the fact that they are responsible for trying to run a big spending department in line with the Government's

951
belief in keeping down inflation and reducing it where possible.
Can the Minister give one valid reason why these astronomical increases should have been levelled at one bite? My next question is one which I put to him rather unexpectedly last week; indeed, in some respects I had not anticipated it either. In my view these substantial increases, which are in my opinion out of all proportion, may create a substantial surplus in the housing revenue accounts of these authorities. Will the Minister give an undertaking that if these substantial increases create a heavy surplus in the balance on housing revenue accounts this will not be made available for those local authorities to use next year to levy an artificial level of poll tax or community charge rate?
I ask for that undertaking because the legislation about which we were talking, and upon which my noble friend Lord Mcintosh on the Front Bench spent much time, removed the rights of local authorities in areas of need where this situation usually occurs to levy a rate fund charge on their housing revenue account. That is what it did. Of course, some time ago the Government decided that where local authorities' housing revenue accounts were in surplus they could use it in reverse for the benefit of ratepayers and thereby reduce the rates.
All I am asking is that if housing increases provide tremendous surpluses for local authorities, those authorities will not be allowed to siphon them off in order to reduce the poll tax for next year. That is the important question. If they are able to do that and the Government are not prepared to step in and prevent it, speaking for myself, my colleagues and other fair-minded people, I believe that it will be an outrage of the worst kind perpetrated against council house tenants.
Finally, there is a whiff—more than a whiff—that in areas like Redbridge the increases have been forced on tenants because they dared to vote against the opting out scheme. They did not wish, as council house tenants, to move into the private sector. Those questions require answers. If they cannot be given tonight, they should be pursued either in your Lordships' House or another place.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, the issue which my noble friend Lord Dean has raised this evening is of great importance to a large number of people. It is dispiriting that no other Members of your Lordships' House have felt it appropriate to put their names down to speak on the issue. It is dispiriting but not surprising. One only has to look at the composition of the House to realise that 5 million council tenants—between 15 and 20 per cent, of the population live in council houses—are not proportionately represented in your Lordships' House. There are far more lawyers and judges than council tenants here; far more salmon fishers here. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Borthwick, had still been present; I believe that there are more chiefs of Scottish clans than there are council tenants in your Lordships' House.
952
I recall when we debated the 1986 Education Act the amount of time which your Lordships thought proper to spend on the Salmon Bill which was going through the House at the same time as compared with the Education Bill. I suspect that these are only further nails in the coffin of the House of Lords as at present constituted. It is dispiriting to think that our sense of priorities is so poor that we do not pay adequate attention to the proper needs and concerns of a large part of our population.
As my noble friend said, when we debated the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act and the 1988 Housing Act, we expressed grave concern—or worse than that—about the proposed method of calculating rents and controlling council house rents. I go further than "grave concern"; we thought what was proposed was both absurd—and I shall show that it was absurd—and also deeply divisive and unfair to council tenants.
It was absurd because one of the main considerations to be taken into account in fixing the Government's approved level of council house rents was to be the market value. That would mean that the council house rents, for example, in the South East of England and London in particular would be much higher than in northern parts of the country. However, the difference in income is by no means as marked as the difference in house prices. We thought that the idea of setting market rents for council houses was absurd and deeply unfair to many people in need, particularly in inner and outer London.
The effect of the new policy was that nearly all council house rents would now be controlled in effect by the Government. The abolition of the separate rent rebate subsidy and its incorporation into the total housing subsidy meant that in all housing authorities local councils must follow government guidelines in the way in which they set their housing expenditure. Any expenditure incurred on lower rents must be found from other housing expenditure. That is the effect of ring fencing. Local authorities which want to keep rents down can only do so at the expense of necessary repairs and improvements in the management of their properties.
Even worse than that—and we objected most strongly to this—the ring fencing proposals mean that any arrears in council house rents have to be paid for not by the ratepayers or taxpayers as a whole, but by other council tenants, those who pay their rents on time. That seemed to us a clear and wicked injustice. We still feel strongly about it.
The argument on which the capital valuation system of setting rents is based is itself unsound. There is no such things as a market for council houses. It is not the distribution of relative market demands that Ministers seem to think is the significant consideration. If people find themselves homeless, they have no choice about where they go; they have to apply to the council in whose area they live. That council must do the best it can for them.
The system of council house rents which has been introduced by recent legislation has weakened the power of council tenants, those in most need in our society, to have any choice at all in the housing which they are allocated. It has weakened the ability

953
to provide housing of councils themselves and housing, authorities, some of which do not have good records but some of which have excellent records in caring for their tenants. It has weakened their ability to look after their tenants and provide the best for them.
All this has been done in theory on the basis that we should be approaching market rents for council housing. Really it is because the intention is to increase the demand by force for private rented accommodation. Nobody objects to increasing the demand for private rented accommodation, but it should be on the basis of levelling up, not levelling down. What is happening is that the penalties of alternative forms of accommodation for those in need are being increased so that people are forced into private rented accommodation. This is on the quite erroneous theory that somehow it will improve the supply and quality of the private rented accommodation.
All these theories have been debated at considerable length, and as my noble friend said, they are seriously flawed. The thinking behind the recent housing legislation has inevitably led to the problems that council tenants now face.
The situation has become worse. What has happened since the legislation is that the Government have set target figures. As it turns out, these figures are as wildly inaccurate and fantastic as the target figures which we have seen for the poll tax. The Government told us that the average level of poll tax ought to be £278. We now know that it is more of the order of £350. Similarly, the Government told us that the permitted increase in council house rents would be of the order of £4–50 per week. They then cut their allocation of subsidy to housing authorities in order to reflect that increase.
As my noble friend clearly showed from the examples he gave, many of the increases are much more than that, more than the 20 per cent, on average which even the £4–50 would have represented. As with the poll tax, the result has been that many people suffer severely. Those in conservative authorities are being victimised sometimes, I suspect, because they have shown their independence by rejecting the attempts of their councils to get rid of housing responsibilities and give them to the private sector.
My noble friend has properly asked what the Government are going to do about this matter and what they now understand the position to be. When this matter was raised in a Starred Question recently, the Minister sheltered behind two arguments. First, he said that the setting of rents is a matter for local authorities and not for councils. That is strictly true, but the way in which local authorities set their rents is very much determined by the subsidies that they are able to obtain for their housing programmes. The fact that they are losing subsidy up to another 20 per cent, on existing rents must force rents up, just as ring-fencing must mean that councils have to choose between necessary maintenance and affbrdable rents. Therefore, the Minister cannot shelter behind that argument.
The second argument which the Minister repeated time after time in response to the Starred Question
954
was that it is all right because the new rents will be liable for rebates. I suppose that might be all right in one sense if one left aside Conservative theory about these matters. But I thought the Conservative Government were working on the principle that we should reduce dependency and that we should get away from the dependency culture; that fewer people should be forced to apply for help from the Government and more people should be encouraged to stand on their own feet.
However, the effect of increasing rents to such an extent that more people have to apply for housing benefit will be a deliberate and direct increase in the dependency culture, and that should be repugnant to the Conservative Government, just as the impoverishment of our council tenants is repugnant to us. Even without that argument of principle, the change in housing benefit two years ago altered the upper level at which housing benefit starts to apply and the tapering of housing benefit as income increases. That still leaves a large number of families who may not be the very poorest but are certainly struggling to live on their income week by week considerably poorer than they would otherwise be.
For those reasons we on these Benches will simply not accept either the argument that the availability of housing benefit absolves the Government from their obligations or the argument that the Government have nothing to do with the setting of council house rents. The Government have in effect imposed the framework in which council house rents have to be set. Those rents are being set on a very unfair basis and it is now inevitable —that will not displease us—that the effects of that will be shown in the local council elections which will take place at the beginning of May.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, was present in your Lordships' House last week when the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, raised this matter in a Starred Question. Therefore, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, will be slightly disappointed by some aspects of my reply this evening. I am sure that will not come entirely as a shock to him.
The Government's policies, as embodied in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, were of course extensively debated in this House during the passage of the Bill. Some of the points raised today were raised in the House only last week, so I do not want to go over too much old ground. There have, however, been some quite unnecessary reports from some quarters about the effects of our policies on council rents. I therefore welcome this opportunity to set out the Government's position. In particular, I shall be pleased to clarify how we intend to improve the way in which the Government help support council housing by direct subsidy.
We have a simple and most desirable aim. It is to encourage a sensible pattern of rents both among authorities and within authorities —a pattern which reflects the value of the accommodation being provided. Rents of course already vary from place to place. But they do so in an arbitrary and unpredictable way. They reflect differences in the historic cost of providing the housing, windfall gains

955
from housing capital receipts and, I am afraid, political decisions which have meant ratepayers subsidising the rents. They do not reflect what the housing is actually worth.
It is worth while to remember that the value of the stock on a historic basis is about £20 billion, but on a replacement basis it is some £100 billion.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, is that not why sensible housing authorities have a varied portfolio of property of different ages, and reflect not the replacement cost of an individual property in their rent policies but rather the replacement cost and the original cost of the entire portfolio? That is possible for local authorities but it is only possible for a very few private landlords.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is true. I was using that illustration for a slightly different example—that will not come as a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—to show that there is a provision for a hidden and generous subsidy in the way this accounting is carried out.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way as I spoke at some length at the beginning of the debate. However, the Minister must be aware that historically local authorities that dealt with council housing over a long period based most of their rents not on historical costs or replacement costs but on the historical cost of their own housing stock. In effect, as debt charges started to decline, they reduced the necessity to finance properties. Every tenant benefited by that and the Government were not involved. Why have the Government moved away from that position?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I produced the figures to show what is behind the facts and figures rather than to try to antagonise the noble Lord, Lord Dean, on this issue.
It is also important to remember that the former system distorted councils' accountability to tenants and ratepayers alike. It locked tenants into dependency on one landlord at the expense of choice and mobility. That is why we brought in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which introduces the ring fence around the housing revenue account and the new unified housing revenue account subsidy.
Let me turn briefly to our method of distributing that subsidy. The Government need to make assumptions about how much rental income an authority can be expected to raise. At present, we make a single assumption which applies across the board to all authorities. It would have been £2.08 next year. This makes little sense as it takes no account of individual circumstances. It would simply perpetuate the inequities of the existing pattern of rents.
By contrast, under the new arrangements we assume that different authorities put up their rents by different amounts. In general our assumptions result in higher guideline increases where the value
956
of the local authority housing is higher and where rents are below average. The result is that 156 authorities will receive the minimum guideline of 95p; elsewhere the guidelines are higher but nowhere exceed £4.50 a week. It is for individual authorities to set the actual rent levels. But we believe that every authority should be able to stay within our guidelines if they so wish.
I now turn to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Mcintosh and Lord Dean. I heard the argument tonight which I have heard before and which I am becoming more familiar with each passing month. It is the suggestion that tenants effectively pay for the rebates of other tenants. We do not believe there is any question of authorities raising rents in order to pay for the cost of rebates. We have announced our method of calculating the guideline rents. We want to see rents that are related more closely to the value of the accommodation so there is a more sensible pattern of rents around the country.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. However, I did not suggest that council tenants were paying for rebates. We have said that they were paying for other council tenants who were in arrears. That was the particular point that we have made.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh. I believe he raised that point last week. I suggested to him then, as I do now, that at the end of the day it will always be the taxpayer who has to square the account as regards rent arrears. I believe that to be true.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, suggested that, as regards allowances for the management of property, there was an inadequacy in the figure that had been reached in terms of the overall picture. I believe I have interpreted that correctly as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is nodding his head. The reality is that allowances are based on councils' own actual spending over three recent years, uprated. We thought a three-year average was preferable as a single year's figure can be unrepresentative. We did not take the current year into account because the books for the year are still open.
For low-spending authorities there are two safety nets. The notional allowance from the old subsidy system will apply where that is higher than actual spending, and the 10 per cent, of authorities which would otherwise receive the lowest allowances will receive a specified minimum allowance.
Ideally we should have liked to target allowances in the first year of the new system. After consulting the local authority associations we accepted that more research was required. However, we are determined to move to a targeted approach as soon as possible.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean, drew your Lordships' attention to the rent rises. The noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, suggested that I was hiding behind what he called "strictly the truth". I thought that quite a good thing to hide behind. One could stand proudly behind the battlements of "strictly the truth".

957
This is the part of my answer which I know the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, will not find satisfactory. It is up to the local authorities to set rents. It is also important to remember that the average rent increase has been just 3 per cent, above the guidelines. It is even more interesting that in London they have been only 0–8 per cent, above the guidelines. As I mentioned last week, in other areas increases have been below the guidelines, and, in the case of Tyneside, zero.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again, but my colleague on the Front Bench, Lord Mcintosh, and I mentioned five outer London authorities. We can see no reason for their rent increases being so high. The Minister made the point that it was in the inner London authorities that substantial increases might be needed to cater for deprivation and need. However, cities such as Manchester and Leeds, which have immense problems, have kept close to the guidelines. We want to know why the authorities just outside London have applied high increases when we believe that there in no justification for them.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not sure whether the authority was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, but the other day I was in Bromley. There a major programme is being carried out to make council blocks far more secure. I do not know whether it is so because I do not speak for them, but it is possible that the authorities may have decided to spend heavily on maintenance to improve the environment in which their tenants live. It may be that their tenants would prefer to pay more rent in return for receiving a better service.
Perhaps I may return to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh, that the Government are extending the dependency culture. The object of the exercise is to introduce more reality. If that has at the same time an additional cost, which is what I believe the noble Lord was suggesting in terms of extending the dependency culture, I suspect that that is a cost that will have to be borne in the short term.
958
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked a specific question with regard to any surplus in the housing revenue account. In virtually every case a surplus in the housing revenue account can only be used in the housing revenue account for maintenance or to add to balances, for example. Only in a very few special cases will it be permitted to transfer the surplus to the general fund. That arises when, and only when, the local authority is out of subsidy and has a rent income (on our guidelines) greater than all notional outgoings. That was always a feature of the policy and was accepted by Parliament in the Act.
I now return to the Government's general policies towards the council sector. Noble Lords opposite have tried—quite rightly from their point of view—to show that there is some cunning scheme to force up council rents under the 1989 Act so that council tenants are induced to exercise tenants' choice or the right to buy. That is not the case. The fact is that we expect to spend over £3 billion in the coming year on subsidies which will keep council rents far below rent levels in any other sector and well within the reach of ordinary tenants.
At the same time, we are concerned that councils should play their role in the wider housing market. That is why we do not want rents to cause distortions which create the dependency which we discussed earlier and remove people's freedom and choice. The new ring-fenced housing account will help that process. It is the natural complement to our determination to direct subsidy where it is most needed. Tenants will see what they are paying for and be able to judge what they need. I would hope that your Lordships would agree that informed decision-making provides genuine choice.
The Government's policies enable councils to set rents well within the reach of ordinary tenants. We are committed to that continuing to be so.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.

  SOUTH AFRICA: RESTRICTIONS ON DETAINEES AND PRESS
  SOUTH AFRICA: RESTRICTIONS ON DETAINEES AND PRESS
  BOPHUTHATSWANA
  BOPHUTHATSWANA
  NORTHERN IRELAND: SIGHT TESTS AND ISSUE OF PRESCRIPTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: SIGHT TESTS AND ISSUE OF PRESCRIPTIONS
  FISHING VESSEL GRANTS SCHEME
  FISHING VESSEL GRANTS SCHEME
  SENEGALESE NATIONALS: FISHERIES STUDY PLACES
  SENEGALESE NATIONALS: FISHERIES STUDY PLACES
  DEFAULT SURCHARGE
  DEFAULT SURCHARGE
  BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT
  BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT